What do you think consciousness is?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Nereid
Examples:

taste: five dimensions - sweet, sour, salty, umami, bitter

sight: four (or five) dimensions - 3 colours (cones; four types in some women) + intensity (rods)

I still don't see how this applies to consciousness. I might be a little slow right now (been sick for a few days, and I have a pounding headache most of the time), but I just don't see what a multi-dimensional theory of consciousness would be (though I may or may not already have chosen one of the other choices ).

Please clarify further, Nereid.

 

[Nereid]

The dimensionality* of consciousness

I still don't see how this applies to consciousness.

That's what I'm wondering? In your (Dennett's) view of consciousness, do you either have it or you don't? If so, then consciousness is binary.

Is it something that a paramecium has a tiny bit of, a worm much more, a dog even more, and a human far, far more? If so, then consciousness is one-dimensional. Zoobyshoe seems to hold this view of consciousness (see the thread of the same name in Biology).

Is consciousness something which is qualitatively different for trees, ants, mice, bacteria, fungi, fish, mosquitos, ...? In other words, there is human-consciousness (which different people may or may not have different amounts of), fish-consciousness, tree-consciousness, etc. This would be multi-dimensional. I don't mean that the basis for the different types is (or is not) taxa-related; it might be principal sense (e.g. sight vs smell vs electrical), or sociability (e.g. ants vs tigers).

Sorry to hear you're poorly Hope you get well soon.

(*come back sol!)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Dennett is a philosopher. He isn't contemplating worms or paramecia, he is discussing the inner experiences of human being. He is trying to sort out and explicate these experiences and get rid of old unproductive explanations like homunculi and mantalistics. He doesn't know any more than the rest of us do what a C. Elegans experiences internally.

 

[phoenixthoth]

http://www.duerden.com
click on the fish and look under "articles."

 

[Nereid]

From Be-ing to Be-ness

"Error 404: page not found"

 

[sage]

consciousness can be both multidimensional and one dimensional. by this i mean that though different living beings have different levels of consciousness(/sentience/awareness)geared for their own particular needs(dolphins have sonar consciousness), still living beings have enough similarity amongst themselves so that the degree of consciousness can be determined objectively(more or less) depending on the sophistication of the central information processing system and the input devices. this may not be true for alien life forms (including future computers :) )

referring to an earlier argument, i need to be aware of a bee sting to jerk my hand away. when a bee stings you, you first feel pain and then you jerk your hand away.

 

[Nereid]

sage: i need to be aware of a bee sting to jerk my hand away. when a bee stings you, you first feel pain and then you jerk your hand away.

In this respect, how are you different from an aeroplane on autopilot? Or a telecom network with SONET technology deployed?

 

[Rader]

Consciousness is the perception that an entity has of its position in spacetime. By entity i mean all things from one string to the most complicated combination of strings. Consciousness is in all things or strings i should say. The level of consiousness depends on the grouping of strings in the long period of evoluctionary learning.
From the string to the human being there exists free will or cuantom mechanics. Decision produces consciousness. There is always a choice. There is a consciousness inferior and superior to us. There is a total consciousness on all levels but manifestation of it is only partial on diffent evolutionary levels. Consider the string being conscious of which direction to take. The atom conscious of which atom to combine with. The molecule conscious of which protein to produce. The cell conscious of its unity. The organ conscious of its function. The body conscious of nothing and everything and all working in harmony. There is and has to be a total consciousness of nothing to everything in all things. The laws have been layed and there is only one rule, free will. Free will >>> will determine what we evolve into, maybe into nothing again.

 

[Nereid]

Rader: Consciousness is the perception that an entity has of its position in spacetime.

So it's a purely internal thing then? There's no way I (or Mentat, or any kookaburra, or the M87 galaxy) can (objectively) determine whether you have consciousness?

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Nereid
So it's a purely internal thing then? There's no way I (or Mentat, or any kookaburra, or the M87 galaxy) can (objectively) determine whether you have consciousness?

I know that you and Mentat can determine if I have consciousness and the same level as you all. Ask me if the sky is blue. If we all agree that it is blue, we have the same level of consiousness. As for a kookaburra if that is a donkey that has gone crazy, i would not agree with you, he would say it is gray. As for the M87 galaxy or any other i would say no also as they would probably see it as no color or black. Of course its internal for you how you preceieve it.

 

[Nereid]

Oops, my mistake. I see this is Philosophy, not Science.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Nereid
So it's a purely internal thing then? There's no way I (or Mentat, or any kookaburra, or the M87 galaxy) can (objectively) determine whether you have consciousness?

I seen a very interesting program on Spanish television the other night that i would like to share with whoever reads this. I am sure many have heard of out of the body experiences of people who have a heart attack and die and go into the tunnel of light. That is lung heart and brain waves cease, clinically dead. There was one experience in particular that may shed some light on what we are discussing. A blind women who never saw in her life died for one hour and returned to tell her story. She described in full and complete detail her intervention to try and save her life, the people who were in the hospital, the city she hovered over and birds flying through the air ect. This is proff in itself that consiousness is not only in the brain or body but is an entity also apart. A individual consciousnes when in a body can feel emotions but so can it also when outside of the body. It then appears that the body is only an instument to manifest and move arround in the physical plane that we live in. How is it possible to know that we feel emotion consciously? By having someone account there experience from there consciousnes when both live and dead. Could that be scientific proof enough for you.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Dennett is a philosopher. He isn't contemplating worms or paramecia, he is discussing the inner experiences of human being. He is trying to sort out and explicate these experiences and get rid of old unproductive explanations like homunculi and mantalistics. He doesn't know any more than the rest of us do what a C. Elegans experiences internally.

This is very true. I would add to that that Dennett does consider the consciousness of non-sentient beings, but mainly as an explanation about of the possible evolutionary steps toward sentient consciousness, in human history.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sage
referring to an earlier argument, i need to be aware of a bee sting to jerk my hand away. when a bee stings you, you first feel pain and then you jerk your hand away.

That has elements of truth and fallacy to it, IMO. The truth is in that you must be "aware" of the sting, in order to recoil, since "awareness" means reacting to the outside environment. However, there is (IMO) a fallacy in the idea that we must feel pain before we jerk our hand away. We do, indeed, react to pain before we recoil, but we do not experience pain (we are not fully conscious of what happened) until after recoiling.

 

[sage]

i agree to some extent, mentat. reaction to a bee sting(or to a burnt finger) is what may be called "instinctive"- that is there exists shortcuts in neural circuitry that help us to get away from the source of pain swiftly without the intervention of the primary decision making system. but many such short cuts are learned too. swimming is one. when you begin to learn it your central information processing system is actively engaged in coordinating the arms and the limbs so that this new form of movement can be successfully accomplished. but once we have got the hang of it, swimming becomes "instinctive" in the same way reaction to pain is. a veteran swimmer is much less "aware" of how he is swimming than a newly trained rookie- the former is no longer "experiancing" swimming as he did when he first learned it.
one question. how is awareness, consciousness and sentience different from each other?

another thing. experiancing is a conscious act(i.e one needs to be conscious to experience something). so the pain that i experience after recoiling from a bee sting is something that is possible only because we are conscious(/sentient-whatever). so an animal which is not conscious or sentient should not be able to "experiance" pain. the ointment(or cold water) that we apply to the wound is certainly a conscious decision. i do not know about beetles or bacterias but i have often seen a lion(on television) to lick its wounds, an act that we still do(sucking an injured finger) in absence of an antiseptic. so one would have to conclude that a lion also experience pain like us and hence is a conscious, sentient animal, if a little less intelligent. same applies to other animals also.so do we have proof there are actually are nonsentient living beings on earth?
nereid, i did not get your point about the autopilot bit.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sage
i agree to some extent, mentat. reaction to a bee sting(or to a burnt finger) is what may be called "instinctive"- that is there exists shortcuts in neural circuitry that help us to get away from the source of pain swiftly without the intervention of the primary decision making system. but many such short cuts are learned too. swimming is one. when you begin to learn it your central information processing system is actively engaged in coordinating the arms and the limbs so that this new form of movement can be successfully accomplished. but once we have got the hang of it, swimming becomes "instinctive" in the same way reaction to pain is. a veteran swimmer is much less "aware" of how he is swimming than a newly trained rookie- the former is no longer "experiancing" swimming as he did when he first learned it.

Of course this is true. Experience has a part in forming our synaptic tendencies just as genetics does. I don't see the relevance, since, once something becomes insinctual, you are not aware of responding as you have been programmed to do. Thus consciousness becomes secondary to awareness.

one question. how is awareness, consciousness and sentience different from each other?

It's really all about levels. Awareness is the ability to react to your environment. Consciousness is a higher level of awareness, which allows you to react more diversely due to having gained information about your environment. Sentience is yet a higher level; it allows one to choose between more than one possible action, and to make use of proaction (as well as to be conscious of oneself as a distinct entity).

another thing. experiancing is a conscious act(i.e one needs to be conscious to experience something).

Not necessarily. One need only be aware in order to respond to something, and people often consider responding to something as having "experienced" it (though you are right, consciousness is necessary for one to really have an experience).

so the pain that i experience after recoiling from a bee sting is something that is possible only because we are conscious(/sentient-whatever). so an animal which is not conscious or sentient should not be able to "experiance" pain.

This is true, but many animals are conscious (as per my previous definition of "consciousness"). Those that are not, of course, still respond to the environment (they are aware), but they do not have the experience of pain (if my definitions are correct).

so do we have proof there are actually are nonsentient living beings on earth?

The entirety of this paragraph, summed up in the (quoted) sentence, is probably cleared up with an understanding of the distinction between consciousness and sentience.

 

[sage]

mentat, i think we agree on most points about consciousness. it is a purely biological process by which an organism acquires, processes and reacts to information about its surrounding. of course the thing gets more sophisticated as we move towards more complex lifeforms. hence we have different degrees of consciousness in different animals. well that's it. p.s I'm an admirer of Dennett too.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by sage
mentat, i think we agree on most points about consciousness. it is a purely biological process by which an organism acquires, processes and reacts to information about its surrounding. of course the thing gets more sophisticated as we move towards more complex lifeforms. hence we have different degrees of consciousness in different animals. well that's it. p.s I'm an admirer of Dennett too.

Good man! Seriously, Dennett's basic wish is that people would stop mysifying consciousness, and start understanding it. He has provided a step in that direction, and I don't think anyone should ignore that.

 

[Nereid]

Scientific study of non-human consciousness?

This thread is classified as Philosophy. Self Adjoint and Mentat have clarified the terminology somewhat.

If we accept the Dennett/Mentat distinctions between awareness, consciousness, and sentience, then to what extent is it possible to apply the scientific method to study non-human consciousness?

(answering her own question) Without a good means of two-way communication with non-human entities, my guess is the enterprise would be doomed to fail.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Nereid
This thread is classified as Philosophy. Self Adjoint and Mentat have clarified the terminology somewhat.

If we accept the Dennett/Mentat distinctions between awareness, consciousness, and sentience, then to what extent is it possible to apply the scientific method to study non-human consciousness?

(answering his own question) Without a good means of two-way communication with non-human entities, my guess is the enterprise would be doomed to fail.

Its clarified for those who want to see it that way but its not clarity for everyone.

Quess nobody has read Wilder Penfield "The mystery of mind"
Actual scientific investigation demonstates that the brain acts as vehicle of conscioussness of the humnan experience but is not in anyway limited to it. Conscioussness can perform functions inaccessable to the brain and the sences, on quote Wilder Penfield one of the foremost pioneers in modern investigation of the brain.
His investigation on tanatology, the study of near death experiences has termintated in corraborating his point of view that human concsiousness transends the brain. This is a eminaate scientists opinion.
Sounds like this thread is from the dark ages.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Nereid
This thread is classified as Philosophy. Self Adjoint and Mentat have clarified the terminology somewhat.

If we accept the Dennett/Mentat distinctions between awareness, consciousness, and sentience, then to what extent is it possible to apply the scientific method to study non-human consciousness?

(answering his own question) Without a good means of two-way communication with non-human entities, my guess is the enterprise would be doomed to fail.

Well, if we can observe a CPU in this non-human subject, which performs the multi-tasking of question/answer and Multiple Drafts (as explained in previous threads), we can be confident that it is conscious.

btw, I like that "Dennett/Mentat" thing.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
Its clarified for those who want to see it that way but its not clarity for everyone.

Quess nobody has read Wilder Penfield "The mystery of mind"
Actual scientific investigation demonstates that the brain acts as vehicle of conscioussness of the humnan experience but is not in anyway limited to it. Conscioussness can perform functions inaccessable to the brain and the sences, on quote Wilder Penfield one of the foremost pioneers in modern investigation of the brain.
His investigation on tanatology, the study of near death experiences has termintated in corraborating his point of view that human concsiousness transends the brain. This is a eminaate scientists opinion.
Sounds like this thread is from the dark ages.

Why? One eminant scientist believing in something doesn't mean there's a consensus. Einstein himself said he would never believe in the randomness of Quantum Mechanics, but it turned out that he was wrong. Besides, for every eminant scientist you can name that believes in such idealistic notions (which, btw, challenge basic principles about science, as I've discussed in previous threads - along with falling into the homunculun problem, which makes them logically flawed as well), I can probably name another, just as prominent, that disagrees (in favor of a more materialistic view).

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
Why? One eminant scientist believing in something doesn't mean there's a consensus. Einstein himself said he would never believe in the randomness of Quantum Mechanics, but it turned out that he was wrong. Besides, for every eminant scientist you can name that believes in such idealistic notions (which, btw, challenge basic principles about science, as I've discussed in previous threads - along with falling into the homunculun problem, which makes them logically flawed as well), I can probably name another, just as prominent, that disagrees (in favor of a more materialistic view).

Then a consenses is proof that something is true. Thats why they burned witches at the stake and Copernicus in his time was wrong.
My point in all this is that human consciousness is ever evolving. What is true today was not yesterday and tomorrow there is a greater truth. For us to try and decribe what is human consciousness we have to use individual subjuntive and objective terms as part of the whole reality. It is a combination of both. Scientific data is not enough to describe conscioussness, there is another reality to the ultimate truth. You can not argue the fact that all scientific data is nothing more than a platform to build on. We have only started climbing the ladder of conscious evolution. Humans are the lone entity, yet found that knows the universe is conscious of itself.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
Then a consenses is proof that something is true.

No it's not. Consensus is a proof that something is accepted as true, but not that it is certainly true.

My point in all this is that human consciousness is ever evolving. What is true today was not yesterday and tomorrow there is a greater truth. For us to try and decribe what is human consciousness we have to use individual subjuntive and objective terms as part of the whole reality. It is a combination of both. Scientific data is not enough to describe conscioussness, there is another reality to the ultimate truth. You can not argue the fact that all scientific data is nothing more than a platform to build on.

Yes I can. Scientific data is not a "platform" unless you can tell me what it is that is being "built" on it.

We have only started climbing the ladder of conscious evolution. Humans are the lone entity, yet found that knows the universe is conscious of itself.

But the Universe isn't conscious of itself.

 

[Rader]

Consensus is a proof that something is accepted as true, but not that it is certainly true.[/QUOTE]

Is in your opinion then, the materialist viewpoint is a consensus to be true? But it may not be certainly true.

QUOTE]Yes I can. Scientific data is not a "platform" unless you can tell me what it is that is being "built" on it.[/QUOTE]

Scientific data is the ojective reality from which you base all your arguments on. The platform is what was learned yesterday. Can you not see that all objective data learned today is truer than yesterday but falser than tomorrow. Where is the true reality?, yestedays experimental proof, todays or tomorrows?

But the Universe isn't conscious of itself.

If it was conscious it would have to be in an unconsiouss state.
Can i try and give you some hard data if not a proof?
Tom made an interesting statement to Royce a while back.

Royce, tell me, how can you know something apart from perceiving it? And furthermore, how can I know that you know something, apart from verifying your perceptions with my own?

No it's not.

You could know it by being put under hypnosis and speak of specific objective realities of someone you never knew. Detailed information that only that person could possible know.

Would you not say that if a unconsciouss sentient human, could manifest to a third party conscious sentient human, objective realities that he has never had, but were of another sentient human, that this would have credibility?

You could then know something without perceiving it, as the you the perceiver and the witness can all account for the same objective fact. The how can I know that you know something, apart from verifying your perceptions with my own, can be answered by verifiying objective realities when both are in an unconscious state. Does not the objective reality come from the consciouss state and the subjective reality come from the unsconscious state?

Read Fred Allen Wolf Ph.D./physicist/ The Dreaming Universe and The Spiritual Universe for some better insight to what I am trying to explain.

 

[sage]

rader your hypothesis lacks scientific or experimental proof. show me one science journal(reputed of course) where such dramatic conclusions have been verified experimentally , only then i will take your hypothesis seriously.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
Is in your opinion then, the materialist viewpoint is a consensus to be true? But it may not be certainly true.

First of all, I never said that the Materialistic viewpoint was "true". "Truth" cannot be found through philosophy, logic, or science. That is not their purpose.

Secondly, Materialism is a consensus among scientists, but not necessarily among philosophers.

Scientific data is the ojective reality from which you base all your arguments on.

No, scientific data studies the objective reality.

The platform is what was learned yesterday. Can you not see that all objective data learned today is truer than yesterday but falser than tomorrow. Where is the true reality?, yestedays experimental proof, todays or tomorrows?

What about all the long-standing theories, like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. They weren't just "here today, gone tomorrow", they've stood the test of time and experiment for quite a long time.

If it was conscious it would have to be in an unconsiouss state.

That's a contradiction. Either it's conscious or it's in an unconscious state.

You could know it by being put under hypnosis and speak of specific objective realities of someone you never knew. Detailed information that only that person could possible know.

What makes you think I could do that!?

Would you not say that if a unconsciouss sentient human, could manifest to a third party conscious sentient human, objective realities that he has never had, but were of another sentient human, that this would have credibility?

A human under hypnosis is not unconscious, merely less conscious of that which is around him, and more conscious of his memories.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by sage
rader your hypothesis lacks scientific or experimental proof. show me one science journal(reputed of course) where such dramatic conclusions have been verified experimentally , only then i will take your hypothesis seriously.

Sage science journals, conscenses, one mans opinion, objective data, or subjective data in themselves does not confrim anything. They are opinions and part of the total truth. There is scientific data studies of objective reality from many different fields, on the subject of consciousness. The books I have quoted in my post are some of the best. They are the scientists and we read there books. Each one has a part of the total reality. Read 100 books ön the same subject of consiousness and you will get 100 somewhat similar to very radical views of the total reality.
I do not think that consciousness is a purely biological process by which an organism acquires, processes and reacts to information about its surrounding. We dream and we are in a subconscious state. It has a purpose, it would be quite a waste of time if it did not. There are many states of consiousness when that is true but not all.
I am working up to something.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by Mentat
First of all, I never said that the Materialistic viewpoint was "true". "Truth" cannot be found through philosophy, logic, or science. That is not their purpose.

The "Ultimate Truth" can not be found alone by these but it is wise not to tell lies, 1 plus 1 equals 2 and apples fall. These are some of the tools for finding it. What do you use for finding it?

Secondly, Materialism is a consensus among scientists, but not necessarily among philosophers.

I agree and idealism is a consensus among some open minded scientists who do not see things as a materialist would

No, scientific data studies the objective reality.

loop di loop

What about all the long-standing theories, like Relativity or Quantum Mechanics. They weren't just "here today, gone tomorrow", they've stood the test of time and experiment for quite a long time

There great they give us the best theoretical proofs in our present day of objective reality. The human race has been here for 1 nanosecond in time, nobody uses them but us. 1,000,000 years from now these theories will be simple arithmetic. There will be a more profound understanding than that, which is what we have now, totally different.

That's a contradiction. Either it's conscious or it's in an unconscious state.

You mean like live or dead. I told that story before you ruled it out with Zero. There is enough scientific proof of dead people coming back and telling there whitetunnel stories with concrete objective evidence.

What makes you think I could do that!?

When i said you, i did not mean only you. It can be done by anyone with a conscious mind. There is scientific documentation of consciousness from outside of a individual conscious mind.

A human under hypnosis is not unconscious, merely less conscious of that which is around him, and more conscious of his memories.

Yes language problems.
Both words below try to describe the dream state. Less conscious is just another word that does not fully describe the dream state.
Unconscious> Lacking awareness and the capacity for sensory perception; not conscious. Subconscious> Not wholly conscious; partially or imperfectly conscious.

What would you consider the dream states purpose?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Rader
The "Ultimate Truth" can not be found alone by these but it is wise not to tell lies, 1 plus 1 equals 2 and apples fall. These are some of the tools for finding it. What do you use for finding it?

Those things can be observed directly. I used my eyes to find those "truths", and yet they are not exact truths. For example, at the quantum level, anyone subatomic particle can be in two places at once - thus appearing to us to be two particles. So, if I take one particle plus another particle, I could easily have 4 or 100 or [oo].

I agree and idealism is a consensus among some open minded scientists who do not see things as a materialist would.

I never said that idealism was a consensus among any scientists, so how can you "agree"? Besides, the scientific method itself is based on the existence of an objective, and objectively studyable, reality.

There great they give us the best theoretical proofs in our present day of objective reality. The human race has been here for 1 nanosecond in time, nobody uses them but us. 1,000,000 years from now these theories will be simple arithmetic. There will be a more profound understanding than that, which is what we have now, totally different.

BS. There is no grounds to either of those claims (that no other beings use the same physics to describe the Universe, or that more profound understanding will have to be "totally different" from that which we've come to now).

You mean like live or dead. I told that story before you ruled it out with Zero. There is enough scientific proof of dead people coming back and telling there whitetunnel stories with concrete objective evidence.

A person who's brain has literally, and medically, died, cannot come back (unless resurrected by God ). People who tell stories of "white tunnels" were not completely dead, but merely what is called "technically dead" which is where the heart stops beating, but the brain is still somewhat active (active enough to keep one somewhat alive).

When i said you, i did not mean only you. It can be done by anyone with a conscious mind. There is scientific documentation of consciousness from outside of a individual conscious mind.

No there's not.

Both words below try to describe the dream state. Less conscious is just another word that does not fully describe the dream state.
Unconscious> Lacking awareness and the capacity for sensory perception; not conscious. Subconscious> Not wholly conscious; partially or imperfectly conscious.

Fine, and the dream - or hypnotic - state is the second choice "subconscious", not completely unconscious.

What would you consider the dream states purpose?

"Purpose"[?] I never said dreams had a purpose.