Is our consciousness an attribute of self?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
So the illusion of consciousness exists, but not consciousness? That's a very odd view. How can one have an illusion of something which one is not consciously experiencing?

As I've re-iterated before, conscious experience is an on-going process of "re-drafting" the computation of information/stimuli. The illusion that there is a Final Draft, that is the "actual experience" itself, is just another of those things that is processed. It is a convenient tool for compactifying information (making recall and long-term storage easier), but nothing more. Chalmers and his followers are, IMO, making a straw-man argument; since they must first posit that there is an actual, complete and indivisible, experience, and only then can they ask how it comes about.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by olde drunk
i believe that mentat is saying that this physical reality is an illusion. i prefer to think that it is real and it's real nature is hidden from our conscious mind.

No, I don't think physical reality is an illusion. Quite the opposite: I think it's the only reality.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
What I think Mentat is trying to say is that a person's consciousness is not some singular entity that cannot be broken down further. Rather, it is a sum of lesser elements of consciousness. But, I suppose we should way for him to say.

You're close, Dan. What I'm really workign toward is the concept that there is no Final Draft of experience, but are instead constant computations and re-computations of information/stimuli. These never come together to form a coherent picture, but they don't need to, since the brained has evolved the ability to compactify previous information in terms of such illusions (the illusion of coherent pictures, that is).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by one_raven
I thought Mentat was saying that it is not correct to approach any experience holistically.

Any experience is basically our perception collecting the sensations of the multitude of stimuli in our immediate surroundings...

...plus the computation of the illusion that such sensations every formed a coherent "whole". Without this illusion, we would not be sentient. As it is, we have mistaken this devise of compactification for a part of actual reality.

 

[Canute]

Mentat

The trouble is that what you are saying, if it is true, does away with what is known as the 'binding problem'. But this problem is recognised as very real and as yet unsolved.

That doesn't mean that you're wrong, but it does mean that this issue is heavily studied by science as if it was a real problem, as if we really do have a unified experience of consciousness. This is because this experience cannot be an illusion, it is just what it is, a unified experience of consciousness.

 

[Pergatory]

Very interesting... So you're referring to the system by which the brain compiles a collection of senses and decisions into a single 'experience?' Rather, the experience itself contains no unique information, it is just a container. I may be misunderstanding, but it seems like you may be describing the subconscious. I believe this to be the pattern-recognizing aspect of the human brain that links "experience components" (the things that make up an experience) together. For example, perhaps the subconscious "enjoys" dancing, because in the past, dancing has been associated with certain foot movements, senses, and reactions from those around you, that lead the subconscious to believe dancing brings desirable results. The conscious mind, however, is focused on carrying out the task of dancing in the interest of pleasing the subconscious. Maybe I'm just talking out my

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Pergatory
Very interesting... So you're referring to the system by which the brain compiles a collection of senses and decisions into a single 'experience?'

Spot on. Well almost. We have to explain both the experience of unified consciousness and the system which causes it. Both explanations would be required to solve the binding problem.

Rather, the experience itself contains no unique information, it is just a container.

This is the problem. In fact you've hit it on the head. This is why set theory is relevant to explanations of consciousness.

The problem is you cannot say it is "just" a container, the sentence is self-contradictory. Does it exist or not? If it is just a container then it exists, and should have a cause and explanation. It exists as something greater than the sum of its parts and therefore is not one of them.

However if it does not exist, and it is therefore not a container at all, then how can we have unified experiences? We know that we do, whether it's all an illusion or not. It wouldn't be much of an illusion of unified consciousness if it didn't seem equally unified.

I may be misunderstanding, but it seems like you may be describing the subconscious.

No I didn't mean that. In fact I very specifically didn't mean that.

I believe this to be the pattern-recognizing aspect of the human brain that links "experience components" (the things that make up an experience) together.

Hold on there. I'm not sure you've grasped just how complicated this is.

What do you mean by 'recognising'? It's a very deep question. And to suggest that a brain can process experiences is to make an infamous category error. Experiences are non-physical and mustn't be confused with whatever you assume correlates to them. It's very hard to avoid making mistakes on this topic.

For example, perhaps the subconscious "enjoys" dancing, because in the past, dancing has been associated with certain foot movements, senses, and reactions from those around you, that lead the subconscious to believe dancing brings desirable results. The conscious mind, however, is focused on carrying out the task of dancing in the interest of pleasing the subconscious. Maybe I'm just talking out my [/B]

What do you mean by 'subconscious' here? You'll find that this is a difficult question I think. Also the subconscious cannot 'enjoy' anything by definition. Enjoyment is only for the conscious.

Don't we just remember our experience of enjoying dancing previously. That sounds a bit simple, but it's how it seems to me.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
Mentat

The trouble is that what you are saying, if it is true, does away with what is known as the 'binding problem'. But this problem is recognised as very real and as yet unsolved.

That doesn't mean that you're wrong, but it does mean that this issue is heavily studied by science as if it was a real problem, as if we really do have a unified experience of consciousness. This is because this experience cannot be an illusion, it is just what it is, a unified experience of consciousness.

And the Sun really rises and sets? No offense, but scientists studied the motion of the Sun for quite some time, when they should have been studying the motion of the Earth...but, as far as they were conscerned, this was no illusion, but reality. I'm not saying that I'm right, and everyone else is wrong, but it's possible.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mentat
And the Sun really rises and sets? No offense, but scientists studied the motion of the Sun for quite some time, when they should have been studying the motion of the Earth...but, as far as they were conscerned, this was no illusion, but reality. I'm not saying that I'm right, and everyone else is wrong, but it's possible.

But everybody agrees that in many ways it seems as if the sun goes around the earth. With consciousness all we know is how it seems. If consciousness is an illusion then that illusion is what we need to explain, and what consciousness is.

We can't then say that the illusion is an illusion. At some point we need to stop the regression and explain how consciousness seems, illusion or not. Many people claim that the universe is in a sense an illusion, but they do not claim that this illusion doesn't exist.

Consciousness must be whatever it seems to be, since it is inaccessible to any other way of knowing about it. I admit that have read that 'experience is not experience' (sic) in one academic journal, but I don't think we need take such ideas seriously. The only way of defining an experience is as 'what it seemed to be like', whether we're deluded or not.

That is, an experience cannot be true or false. Only public claims about an experience can be true or false.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
But everybody agrees that in many ways it seems as if the sun goes around the earth.

And so it goes back to that old philosopher's question: How would it have appeared in order for it to be obvious that the Earth was revolving around the Sun, and rotating on it's axis?

Consciousness may seem to be "obviously" coherent, but how would it need to seem in order for it to be obvious that there are no coherent thoughts, but merely an integration of information for the purpose of easy recall?

 

[olde drunk]

not sure if you guys read my post wherein i describe my visualization of self as being a tree. if a particular branch of that tree is this current life, i would use my consciousness to focus my attention on that branch to see or experience what is/was happening within that reality.

consciousness is my ability to focus attention, kinda like a flashlight. now, please understand that in the broader reality, time does not exist. so within nano seconds of our time, my consciousness could visit all my lives (or whatever) within all realities.

to me, the subconsciousand conscious are divisions or aspects of my mind.

peace,

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mentat
And so it goes back to that old philosopher's question: How would it have appeared in order for it to be obvious that the Earth was revolving around the Sun, and rotating on it's axis?

Exactly as it does now I would say.

Consciousness may seem to be "obviously" coherent, but how would it need to seem in order for it to be obvious that there are no coherent thoughts, but merely an integration of information for the purpose of easy recall? [/B]

Hmm. I suppose it would need to seem like it seems to a computer.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by olde drunk
not sure if you guys read my post wherein i describe my visualization of self as being a tree. if a particular branch of that tree is this current life, i would use my consciousness to focus my attention on that branch to see or experience what is/was happening within that reality.

Seems reasonable. But it's a bit misleading IMO. A tree cannot exist in spacetime and also outside of it. To visualise the relationship between your current self (as it seems to be) and your eternal (timeless) self (non-self) it would be necessary to imagine yourself as something that can exist in both realms at the same time (as Buddhists practice doing all the time).

consciousness is my ability to focus attention, kinda like a flashlight.

Are you sure? An 'ability' is not a thing. That is, the ability to focus a flashlight is not a flashlight.

now, please understand that in the broader reality, time does not exist. so within nano seconds of our time, my consciousness could visit all my lives (or whatever) within all realities.

I agree that time is not absolute, although it clearly exists here and now. But it seems incoherent to say that you can revisit lives that took time to live without it taking any time to do so. Lives happen in time, and therefore must take time to visit, however much you speed them up.

 

[Pergatory]

Here's a link to an article I read on part of another thread that had to do with time:
http://uk.arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0403/0403001.pdf

However, there are some interesting parallels to conscious and subconscious explored in Section II of the document.

In short, it describes a robot which observes an image on certain time intervals, remembering a certain number of images. As it registers a new image, each successive image is pushed further down the chain and the one at the end is deleted. The 'conscious' part of the system, which is not an exact representation of consciousness, can read only from the most recent image recorded and from the 'schema' that defines how to behave in certain situations, then attempts to predict the future and act according to which expected result is desired. The 'unconscious' part of the system reads images aside from the most recent, and encorporates any necessary changes into the schema. It is this separation of past and present that gives rise to the notion of "now."

Don't know how this relates to the current debate, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless. Perhaps it could be argued that the conscious is the present, and the subconscious is the past?

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by Canute


I agree that time is not absolute, although it clearly exists here and now. But it seems incoherent to say that you can revisit lives that took time to live without it taking any time to do so. Lives happen in time, and therefore must take time to visit, however much you speed them up.

to me, in the broader reality, all lives, experiences, etc exist as probabilites or potential. they become physicalized when i focus my attention (consciosness) on a particular moment.

we as humans experience a linear reality to avoid mental chaos.

from this exact moment there are an infinite number of probable future moments. which one will become physical? my answer is, the one we (each of us as an entire being) decide to experience. and it happens over and over again for each moment.

the esoteric mystical secret is to understand how we do that. so that we can influence our total being to create the exact future moment we desire. eastern cultures and/or discplines are much better at this than we are because they have accepted these concepts.

the beauty of their practices is that they are more adept at reading the historical past recorded in the subconscious. experiences in other worlds (realities) not just our current physical life. we dismiss this potential because we believe in one world, one life, salvation, heaven and hell.

peace,

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by olde drunk
to me, in the broader reality, all lives, experiences, etc exist as probabilites or potential. they become physicalized when i focus my attention (consciosness) on a particular moment.
from this exact moment there are an infinite number of probable future moments. which one will become physical? my answer is, the one we (each of us as an entire being) decide to experience. and it happens over and over again for each moment.

This is close to one of the scientific theories that are floating around, in which every event creates new universes.

the esoteric mystical secret is to understand how we do that.

It is certainly esoteric, in the sense of private and difficult to understand. But it is not mystical, or a secret. It just takes some practice to grasp.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
Exactly as it does now I would say.

And exactly as it did then, right?

Hmm. I suppose it would need to seem like it seems to a computer.

And is the brain not a large, organic, computer?

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mentat
And exactly as it did then, right?

Yes. Nicole D'Oresme worked out the truth in the fourteenth centure, pretty much by logic alone. (I've lost track of what this point was about)

And is the brain not a large, organic, computer?

Depends how you define 'computer'.

Also, if computers are just small inorganic brains, as you suggest, then why are we studying brains to understand consciousness, whe computers are aso much easier to dissect and test?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
Depends how you define 'computer'.

Also, if computers are just small inorganic brains, as you suggest, then why are we studying brains to understand consciousness, whe computers are aso much easier to dissect and test?

Because computers didn't evolve from social animals who were constantly advancing their consciousness, up to the point of self-recognition. A computer was created to process without the ability to process it's own existence or to re-stimulate old computations without an external command. Our brains are just messier (and messy enough to trick themselves into seeing coherent images where no such thing was ever processed).

It occurs to me now that the "hard problem" philosophers don't have much problem with the idea that a chimpanzee (for example) can process the color "red". It's only when it comes to human introspection and experience that they start erecting their favorite straw-man.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mentat
Because computers didn't evolve from social animals who were constantly advancing their consciousness, up to the point of self-recognition. A computer was created to process without the ability to process it's own existence or to re-stimulate old computations without an external command. Our brains are just messier (and messy enough to trick themselves into seeing coherent images where no such thing was ever processed).

What?

It occurs to me now that the "hard problem" philosophers don't have much problem with the idea that a chimpanzee (for example) can process the color "red". It's only when it comes to human introspection and experience that they start erecting their favorite straw-man.

I give up. Are you so determined to avoid the facts that you can't even see the glaring fallacy in this paragraph?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
What?

A computer is created directly, and it is programmed to respond only to external data - it doesn't work unless someone is "using" it...that's the primary difference.

I give up. Are you so determined to avoid the facts that you can't even see the glaring fallacy in this paragraph?

I'm sorry. The paragraph may be disregarded; it was simply a reference to the fact that animal consciousness doesn't seem nearly so distant from a computer's processing as human consciousness does to a typical philosopher of the mind.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mentat
A computer is created directly, and it is programmed to respond only to external data - it doesn't work unless someone is "using" it...that's the primary difference.

Ok. It's only one of the differences, but it is an important one.

I'm sorry. The paragraph may be disregarded; it was simply a reference to the fact that animal consciousness doesn't seem nearly so distant from a computer's processing as human consciousness does to a typical philosopher of the mind. [/B]

I'm tempted to say that you shouldn't extrapolate from just your own case.