Is consciousness explicable by "science".

BoGoWo, it seems to me that "taking the universe 'at face value'" can be "taken" in two ways. First there is our acceptance of learned or culturally "cooked" perceptions as members of our "interpretive community," i.e., the naive realism of everyday life. Second there is the epistemologically 'naive" state of mind as seen in Soto Zen meditation or Krishnamurti's "passive awareness" where we experience sensoria raw, that is to say before cooking them.
I think you are referring to the first kind of naivete. Frankly, I think both types are acceptable and necessary for the complete life experience. They are both conditioned, the first by culture and the second by our intrinsic nature, but as such real. One is dualistic and the other non-dualistic in nature. As spiritual amphibians, our reality consists of both. The problem is in trying to have one without the other.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

BoGoWo, it seems to me that "taking the universe 'at face value'" can be "taken" in two ways. First there is our acceptance of learned or culturally "cooked" perceptions as members of our "interpretive community," i.e., the naive realism of everyday life. Second there is the epistemologically 'naive" state of mind as seen in Soto Zen meditation or Krishnamurti's "passive awareness" where we experience sensoria raw, that is to say before cooking them.

How do you know that the second kind of awareness isn't just a variation on the first?

0 Replies

Great question, Joe. Frankly, I don't know that. But it seems to me that if they are not independent the first is a version of the second. The cooked is more likely to be raw before it becomes cooked.

0 Replies

Quote:

fresco wrote:
In the Santiago theory of cognition a distinction is drawn between "structure" and "process". Consciousness is viewed like all "life" as a self organizing process which generates and maintains organismic structures.

Quote:

val wrote:
I agree with the idea of consciousness as a self organizing process.

Understanding Consciousness

****
Question: Is it possible for consciousness to do something to or about something that it is not aware of?

If the answer is No.
We are not aware of the activity of our own brains.
So we conclude that consciousness as such does not influence brain activity.

If the answer is Yes
We are not aware of the activity of our own brains.
So consciousness must influence brain activity unconsciously
So we conclude that consciousness as such does not influence brain activity.

****

If we do not choose what arises in consciousness then there is no intention, especially considering that the ego-self that appears to choose is just another aspect that arises in consciousness.

Consciousness as self 'originating', I would agree with.

0 Replies

How can four dimensions define a fifth?

Back to Flatland I go.

Hiya Fresco!

0 Replies

Hey guys.....all this eloquent philosophical "stuff" is stimulating but haven't you gotten "sidetracked". The original question was: Is consciousness explicable by science?

Let me just throw out some little items that science (neuroscience) has contributed:

The human brain contains 100 Billion neurons + or - a couple billion. The gray matter contains all the neurons that process information. The white matter contains all the neurons that transmit the information to all areas. The gray matter uses 94 % of the oxygen used by the brain ........ it cools the processors. Now heres a really nice little tidbit.......each neuron has an average.....AVERAGE of 15,000 connections (synapses) with other neurons.

It is estimated that we only used 10 % of the brains potential at any one time so if you take 10 billion neurons, divide that by two for the approximate number of neurons doing the processing which would be 5 billlion times (X) 10 percent of 15,000 which is 1500 you come up with so many zeros this page won't accept them all. This explains to me why it is estimated that with todays massive processing power of modern computers, it would take a large building to house the computer that will accomplish what the the human brain does every day.

This is what allows the average basketball player to .....chew gum....dribble the ball and while shooting......take a glance at a gorgeous gal with big boobs walking by then while rebounding the ball.....engage in some complex planning about asking her out that night and then .....engage in some extreme conceptualizing about further activities......but that is not all........it will be entered into the subconscious so that there can be some serious dreaming about it all.

The point being......the brain routinely engages in several levels of neural activity which are all interconnected. This leads me to believe that science will determine what consciouness is by gaining enough knowledge about the brain to ........define consciousness........ philosophy and psychology have been unable to come close in 2500 years

0 Replies

"The eagle in its flight does not leave a mark; the scientist does. Inquiring into this question of freedom there must be, not only the scientific observation, but also the flight of the eagle that does not leave a mark at all; both are required; there must be both the verbal explanation and the nonverbal perception - for the description is never the actuality that is described; the explanation is obviously never the thing that is explained; the word is never the thing."

Krishnamurti's "Flight of the Eagle"

0 Replies

twyvel

I think that fresco was talking about a self organizing process, but regarding the brain, as a system. That is how I saw it.

But in another level, we can also speak about a self organizing process. I am referring to consciousness as intentional activity, like I tried to explain in my previous thread.

You see, I think the question of consciousness has two sides or at least two different perspective levels. The brain patterns - and we are aware of them as scientific facts - and the mental representation we give to that described activity. Perhaps it is nothing more that seeing the same thing from two different levels; the problem is that we must deal with both levels, although we are "stuck" in only one of them.

Consciousness is intentional experience, but it is also the process of description of what makes possible that experience.

0 Replies

rayban

I understand your point, but I don't think we have gotten "sidetracked". The question if science can explain consciousness seems very easy to answer: yes. Yes, because science can describe - or we can expect it in the future - the kind of brain activity, the brain patterns that make us "think" this way or that way. You gave some examples.

But there is a previous situation that we must discuss. It has to do with what is usually called "epistemology".
One of the problems of science is to explain a system "from within". I mean, without a referential.
In the case of consciousness, that problem becomes decisive. Because when the scientist studies consciousness he describes chemical or electrical activities that are not the consciousness he must have in order to make that description. He must put himself, his consciousness, behind the object of description. If not, there will be no description at all. No science.
The question is not that the basis of our consciousness is the brain activity. The question is, as Kurvasz said, that consciousness - from our point of view, of conscious beings - is not the chemical or electrical activity.
You see, chemicals activities cannot write a book about neurology. At least, while being chemicals activities. But it is certain that without them no book could be written.
A scientific theory about consciousness is an act of consciousness.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

How can four dimensions define a fifth?

Back to Flatland I go.

Hiya Fresco!

no, no, kuvasz; usually the experienc of 'four dimensions' comes after consuming a fifth!

[read the label! Shocked

]

0 Replies

Val

I completely agree with your interpretation........Just thought I'd throw in a "down to earth" perspective. Please continue on in your esoteric discussion because I find it fascinating that so many of you are qualified to do so.

0 Replies

rayban1 wrote:

............The human brain contains 100 Billion neurons + or - a couple billion. The gray matter contains all the neurons that process information. The white matter contains all the neurons that transmit the information to all areas. The gray matter uses 94 % of the oxygen used by the brain ........ it cools the processors. Now heres a really nice little tidbit.......each neuron has an average.....AVERAGE of 15,000 connections (synapses) with other neurons..........

the fact is, as you noted, that our brains are, like most other biological systems, vastly 'overdevelped' for the functions that they perform. There is lots of 'backup' redundency, as has been demonstrated in cases were the brain has been severely dammaged, and can recover, at least partially, by relocating functions, and carrying on.

I think the basics of consciousness will become more apparent as we delve more deeply into information storage and retrieval systems. And, i suspect, at some point mechanical devices will start to demonstrate signs of minimal awareness, which will lead to new attention being given to 'machine intelligence', followed by the social battles over rights, predjudice, and racism (the 'Data' syndrome).

[sentience is not magic, it is inevitable; and our future lies in silicone.]

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

kuvasz wrote:
How can four dimensions define a fifth?

Back to Flatland I go.

Hiya Fresco!

no, no, kuvasz; usually the experienc of 'four dimensions' comes after consuming a fifth!

[read the label! ]

up, up, and away.

0 Replies

Greetings to Kuvasz and Joe.

As stated by Val. In discussing "science" I have in mind Capra's references to "systems theory" which utilizes recent developments such as in "chaos theory" to model self-maintenance cycles and spontaneous bifurcations into new dynamic structures. It may be significant that "intentionality" is not discussed, indeed teleology or purpose is avoided because they seem to imply a "control paradigm"....the extension of which could involve vitalism or theism.

Capra implies that you don't need "intent" to account for systems maintenance. For example in the simulation called "daisyworld" which models a simplistic biosphere, the system was shown to be remarkably robust at maintaining dynamic equilibrium without any intentional programming by its designer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisyworld

Philosophically then we are questioning (a) the status of "free will" and hence "intent", with respect to "consciousness" and (b) whether or not "consciousness" is merely an extension of (and not transcendent of) "general life processes"

0 Replies

Fresco and Val, how does your difference compare to the sophmormic question of free will vs. determinism?

0 Replies

Quote:

val wrote:
I think that fresco was talking about a self organizing process, but regarding the brain, as a system. That is how I saw it.

Then fresco would be equating consciousness with brain, which I don't is something fresco would do.

Quote:

But in another level, we can also speak about a self organizing process. I am referring to consciousness as intentional activity, like I tried to explain in my previous thread.

You see, I think the question of consciousness has two sides or at least two different perspective levels. The brain patterns - and we are aware of them as scientific facts - and the mental representation we give to that described activity. Perhaps it is nothing more that seeing the same thing from two different levels; the problem is that we must deal with both levels, although we are "stuck" in only one of them.

Consciousness is intentional experience, but it is also the process of description of what makes possible that experience.

Firstly let's clear a point.

In order for consciousness to organize something it has to be aware of it first,and then organize it second. Yet the moment consciousness is aware of something it is all ready organized and is whatever it is.

This appears somewhat counter to JLNobody'sJLNobody I think would agree that there is no cook. (the cook is in the dish).

To me, saying that consciousness has intention is like saying the universe has intention, but how can totality have intention? It would seem that intention has to come from out side the intended, it's a duality.

When you say, "Consciousness is intentional experience,"

Consider that X cannot be intentional about X. In order for X to be intentional to be X it has to already be X. In order for a hammer to be intentional about being a hammer it has to already be it. etc.

Not an insignificant issue in these interactions is the very different base line understandings of consciousness that are being argued. I.e. I think consciousness gives rise to the brain, and you appear to think that the brain gives rise to consciousness, as does most scientists, that's their bias. And if the premise is wrong where can it lead?

0 Replies

At one level of discourse we cannot imagine consciousness, awareness or experience to occur without a brain. At another level we cannot imagine a "brain" without consciousness or awareness--it is, at this level an idea or experience.
Is there a meaningful distinction to be made between awareness and consciousness? When I awake do I become aware (or do "I" become awareness itself?)? I've made the distinction before between "looking", which is intentional, choosing its object of focus, and "seeing" which is unintentional. When I open my eyes I see whether I intend to or not. Once I open my eyes, of course, I will most likely scan the scene for whatever purpose.

0 Replies

twyvel is correct.
I am not equating "consciousness" with "brain", since the first is "process" and the second is "structure".( I should not perhaps have used "dynamic structure" above.....maybe "schema"instead)

JLN, The systems approach may question whether we can distinguish between awareness and consciousness. It seems to me that what we call intentional looking or focusing can be equated to a bifurcation or "organizational shift" which has been "forced" (as in standing waves) as a result of two or more reinforcing "sub-cycles". In other words if we can visualise a sub-cycle as one that can "resonate" or be "tuned to" one level of external energy then the "organizational shift" is to a state attuned to a "more complex" input.
(Note there are now attempts at objective indices of "complexity").

The word "forced" above impinges on the intent/free will issue. It does not imply a mechanical or causal directive in a particular direction. The shift to a "higher level" implies no prediction of what that level may be, only that "lower level tensions" are transcended. Our "feelings" of actively coming to a decision could be illusory !

0 Replies

twyvel,

I should have reiterrated that the systems approach does not see "brain" as the particular structure in which the "consciousness process" takes place. On the contrary since consciousness and life are seen as co-extensive, so too are brain and body. However, the approach does allow for certain aspects of consciousness like "perception" to be generallly located in particular structures because the process has organized them as such.
(The river has initially carved its bed in the material that yields best to its dynamics).

According to this view it not "consciousness" that is a priori to "brain", it is "life".

0 Replies

Is consciousness explicable by "science".

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know