Consciousness - is there any such thing

[samsara15]

I am a materialist, familiar with the Mary's room, and Nagel's bat argument, qualias, et al, and totally unimpressed. Can anyone give me any reasons why I might find consciosuness a special phenomena? If you can make what I think is a good case, I might be impressed. I'm not seeking to bomb you, or do a put down (if I don't like your arguments, I will either not reply or try to be gentle) , I just want to hear some good reasons from those who think consciousness is special.

[Morality Games]

The title asks if consciousness is real, but the opening post asks if there is anything special about it. Can you eludicate your meaning? These are two different issues.

[Jack]

I'll second that request.

I have reason to believe it's real, but I see no reason to think it's special (depending on the meaning of that term in this context) or unique to humans, though I do think it's unique to living beings.

[Morality Games]

Since he claims to be a materialist, I suspect he doubts consciousness exists because of its largely Platonic / Cartesian origins.

Plato suggested a dichotomy of mind and body, meaning they are non-overlapping entities who, though independent of each other, inform one another what to do -- the mind demands the body suppress its appetities and the body demands the mind satisfy them.

Descartes (from whence the term Cartesian comes from) elaborated on this idea, supposing that consciousness equates with soul, and that it isn't really driven by the temptations of the world of sense-perception, but by its own being and power -- again, the mind and body are distinct entities, composed of different substances.

[linda_mary_13]

As all of you know by now, I am on a great spriitual journey. Make fun of me all you want. I love to collect old things. Not antiques, just old stuff. I have lamps in every corner of my house. No corner is dark. I've collected them for 25 years, in poor times, good times, no time times. My life circumstance seemed to have no effect on whether I collected a lamp. I have recently taken the words of Jesus from the gnostic gospels literally and looked at what was before my face. My conscious behavior to collect lamps to light corners over the years reflects interestingly my state of conscious to seek enlightenment. I literally collect lights yet I was never conscious of my desire for enlightenment while collecting that light. So was I really conscious of what I really wanted?

[Jack]

Perhaps you're simply afraid of the dark?
But yes, all that takes place in the consciousness. The brain is still poorly understood. We know more about what happens in the brain than we know what it means.

[Morality Games]

As all of you know by now, I am on a great spriitual journey. Make fun of me all you want.

Making fun of you is kinder than taking you seriously.

[linda_mary_13]

I'm glad you're capable of making that distinction. It shows me you're not the animal I thought you were.

[ItsDarts]

I don't understand why people would think the "mind" is anything but material. All evidence points to it being material. The mind is not separate from the brain and this can be shown in animals and humans. If part of the brain is damaged, a part of Mind is damaged as well. Mind, it seems, is nothing more than reaction to stimuli in the brain. It has also been shown that if certain parts of the brain are damaged in humans, and the same certain parts of a brain in an animal are damaged, the same results are experienced. If another part of the brain is damage, lets say something that affects motor skills, no amount of "thinking" will make your arm move, for example. This seemingly makes me conclude that mind is not separate from brain. When the brain dies, so does mind. This isn't conclusive, but all evidence points in this direction and no evidence for a separate mind/brain seems to exist.

Here is a good link that explains it better than I can.

[Dr_Acula]

It's the only really aknowledged methapysical phenomenon, so that's what makes it special. To me, at least.

[minorwork]

Quote by: samsara15 I am a materialist, familiar with the Mary's room, and Nagel's bat argument, qualias, et al, and totally unimpressed. Can anyone give me any reasons why I might find consciosuness a special phenomena? If you can make what I think is a good case, I might be impressed. I'm not seeking to bomb you, or do a put down (if I don't like your arguments, I will either not reply or try to be gentle) , I just want to hear some good reasons from those who think consciousness is special.

Special? Shields down.

For some strange reason (some say a mechanical cause and effect reason) I find myself in this transceiver-like vehicle that requires adjustment and a bit of attention at times. I leave it daily and sometimes the journeys are recorded in the vehicle, but mostly not. My studies of the vehicle reveal that it does not last and will at some time deteriorate such that I will no longer be effective in its operation. Unable to transmit or unable to receive I will leave the body entirely to the parts of me that are ancient and continue the journey without the body.

Consciousness independent of the body can only be proved to oneself. An operator of a robot from a distance is the goal of robotics engineers. A machine that will clean your house and answer the door operated by a remote consciousness in India. YouTube - Albert Einstein Hubo - ROBORAMA.info
An uncanny similarity to my situation.

[orgaelin]

There are various concepts here which are subtly different but essentially refer to the same thing: consciousness, sentience, self-awareness. Clearly these exist; why else would we have so many terms by which to refer to a single concept?

That's not the whole strength of my argument of course - we have many words for God but that doesn't make him/it real!

I'm fairly sure Samsara isn't really asking whether consciousness exists - since it demonstrably does - but rather if it is a distinct entity separate from the body, or at least seperable.

In my opinion the answer is both yes and no. I believe that what we each understand as our mind is not something which exists either prior to birth or following the death of a person.

The best way to explain what I mean is with a metaphor: instant custard! Instant custard has two ingredients; custard powder and water. Neither of these resemble custard on their own, but in combination they become something quite different from their prior states, and quite tasty!

Now, what I am saying is that the fully colourful you, thinking and feeling as per our agreed notion of consciousness, is the custard. The body/brain provides only one part of the composition of who you are right now. If that body/brain dies, then what you have left over is quite definitely not custard, and neither is it you.

As for what the other ingredient in 'you' might be, call it what you want - the soul, spirit, thetan, ghost, life force - it matters not. All you need to know is that it takes more than custard powder alone to make custard, and even when the custard is a long way past edible, the constituent elements which made it are no less extant. The water molecules still exist, even if they have evaporated away somewhere.

In summary, putting aside the custard for a second: I believe consciousness as you and I directly experience it occurs as a result of the combination of the body and 'the soul'. Take away the body and what's left behind is not the same.

In which case you might ask 'what is it then?'

In theory, a car could be programmed to drive to your place of work in the morning. Alternatively you could just drive it there yourself. Either way, given those two possibilities, the end result is the same - the car ends up at your place of work. Likewise I suspect the body/brain would function without a sense of self, without conscious awareness. We've all met people who seem barely aware of themselves or the world outside of them, and hopefully we've been lucky enough to meet people at the opposite end of the spectrum, and if people can function with varying degrees of awareness, it stands to reason they might work without any, even if it makes them rather dull. (think 'American Idol' auditionee's)

Conversely, it should be possible for a soul to continue to function to a similar degree in the absense of a body/brain, albeit at a reduced/altered capacity. This would seem to fit with common descriptions of people claiming the ability to leave their body, people who have experienced NDE's, and via second-hand reports through people who claim to be able to communicate with the consciousness' of a person who's body has died.

Hopefully some of that made sense.

~ Org.

[orgaelin]

Linda, I think you may be talking about sub-conscious thought processes rather than the notion of self awareness, whic are two quite different things.

It is quite possible that the purchasing of lamps was an unconscious expression of your desire for enlightenment, but if you weren't actually aware of your desire for enlightenment, then what you're suggesting is an unconscious manifestation of an unconscious desire, and then it seems a little bit like stretching to explain something!

I'm afraid I don't fit into the 'all' who know about your great spiritual journey, but am interested nonetheless. That you're taking inspiration from the Gnostic gospels makes you a lot more interesting than the average person who finds their truth in ancient scriptures.

[minorwork]

Yes. Let's hear it for the Gnostics. What was supposed to be.

[linda_mary_13]

Quote by: orgaelin There are various concepts here which are subtly different but essentially refer to the same thing: consciousness, sentience, self-awareness. Clearly these exist; why else would we have so many terms by which to refer to a single concept? That's not the whole strength of my argument of course - we have many words for God but that doesn't make him/it real! I'm fairly sure Samsara isn't really asking whether consciousness exists - since it demonstrably does - but rather if it is a distinct entity separate from the body, or at least seperable. In my opinion the answer is both yes and no. I believe that what we each understand as our mind is not something which exists either prior to birth or following the death of a person. The best way to explain what I mean is with a metaphor: instant custard! Instant custard has two ingredients; custard powder and water. Neither of these resemble custard on their own, but in combination they become something quite different from their prior states, and quite tasty! Now, what I am saying is that the fully colourful you, thinking and feeling as per our agreed notion of consciousness, is the custard. The body/brain provides only one part of the composition of who you are right now. If that body/brain dies, then what you have left over is quite definitely not custard, and neither is it you. As for what the other ingredient in 'you' might be, call it what you want - the soul, spirit, thetan, ghost, life force - it matters not. All you need to know is that it takes more than custard powder alone to make custard, and even when the custard is a long way past edible, the constituent elements which made it are no less extant. The water molecules still exist, even if they have evaporated away somewhere. In summary, putting aside the custard for a second: I believe consciousness as you and I directly experience it occurs as a result of the combination of the body and 'the soul'. Take away the body and what's left behind is not the same. In which case you might ask 'what is it then?' In theory, a car could be programmed to drive to your place of work in the morning. Alternatively you could just drive it there yourself. Either way, given those two possibilities, the end result is the same - the car ends up at your place of work. Likewise I suspect the body/brain would function without a sense of self, without conscious awareness. We've all met people who seem barely aware of themselves or the world outside of them, and hopefully we've been lucky enough to meet people at the opposite end of the spectrum, and if people can function with varying degrees of awareness, it stands to reason they might work without any, even if it makes them rather dull. (think 'American Idol' auditionee's) Conversely, it should be possible for a soul to continue to function to a similar degree in the absense of a body/brain, albeit at a reduced/altered capacity. This would seem to fit with common descriptions of people claiming the ability to leave their body, people who have experienced NDE's, and via second-hand reports through people who claim to be able to communicate with the consciousness' of a person who's body has died. Hopefully some of that made sense. ~ Org.

Could it be that the soul could therefore reach Christ in the same way a person who claims to reach and communicate with the consciousness of a person who died? And could that be gnosis?.

[orgaelin]

Linda,

as always, the best way to explain something which seems incomprehensible is with a metaphor that we can more readily understand.

Do you know much about holograms? And by that I mean the proper ones, made by splitting a laser beam and imprinting a double image into glass. What people generally don't know is that if you get a holographic sheet of glass with a picture of an apple embedded in it, and then you smash that glass, each piece will still portray the entire image of the apple.

A similar metaphor is that of a crystal, the shape of which is the same as the fragments of which it is composed. Smash it, and each fragment will resemble the whole.

In my opinion, you and I are such fragments.

On the subject of Jesus, I really can't relate. I was rasied as a Christian, did Sunday school for 10 years of my life. Then one day I felt that inevitable need to believe there was something more, and turned to the one place I had always been told to look; the bible. I started reading it because I wanted to believe, not as a sceptic.

What I found there were contradictions, and things which, to me, were simply unacceptable. For example, when I read that it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven... I have a rich father, which apparently meant that no matter how virtuous I might choose to be in my life, he was still going to hell because he has money.

Strikes me as a little unfair. And the days are thankfully gone now when the very idea that someone could point at the bible and say it's not fair was utterly inconcievable, and punnishable by death.

If the bible were anything more than the work of men, if it were all true, then I would consign myself to hell rather than endure eternity with the egotistical, bitter, vengeful and blood-lusting god described therein.

Thankfully I don't believe it to be true. Over time I learned that we each know everything we need to know in our own hearts, because each of us is a piece of the same whole apple. And I don't know about yours, but my apple isn't rotten to the core like Yahweh.

[samsara15]

I apologize for the confusion over my use of the words special and real. I should have used the same word, perhaps 'real'.

I have no doubt consciousness exists, but do not see why we cannot assign it to a lower animal or to a machine operating software. I see no reaon why it should require anything more than a physical housing.

As I see it, consciousness is a phenomena that comes into existence once any organism, organic or inorganic (if there ever is such of sufficient complexity) becomes aware of itself to the point it can perform purposeful actions, such as seeking food, avoiding being eaten, reproducing, and so forth.

Some people reject the idea that software running on a computer could ever have consciousness. I do not.

[Jack]

Here's an interesting article I ran across last month on non-human self-awareness: BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Magpie 'can recognise reflection'

[orgaelin]

Ok Samsara, I think I understand where you're coming from now. You're actually asking whether consciousness isn't something rather more mundane than we think, and, like you said, something that could be just programmed into a computer and be no different from you or I.

I certainly agree that it is theoretically possible to program a computer to perfectly mimic a person, but the essential difference between a computer or some other non-sentient thing and a person is down to cause and effect.

See, everything in the universe that is not sentient is always going to be running on effect. Think of it like the entire universe is just a great big billiards table. Those balls would simply sit there for all eternity, because they have no will, the white cannot just suddenly get up one day and say, "Hey I know, let's spice things up a little, I'm gonna go hit people"!

If the ball were to do this, it would become a cause instead of an effect. You and I are capable of causing something, spontaneously, for no apparent reason.

Essentially, that is what sentience is, and it cannot be programmed into a computer, because any computer would still just be doing what it was programmed to do, which is only an effect of you having programmed it that way.

[minorwork]

Quote by: samsara15 I have no doubt consciousness exists, but do not see why we cannot assign it to a lower animal or to a machine operating software. I see no reaon why it should require anything more than a physical housing. As I see it, consciousness is a phenomena that comes into existence once any organism, organic or inorganic (if there ever is such of sufficient complexity) becomes aware of itself to the point it can perform purposeful actions, such as seeking food, avoiding being eaten, reproducing, and so forth. Some people reject the idea that software running on a computer could ever have consciousness. I do not.

You've implied consciousness depends, somehow, on complexity. But previously you wondered why we cannot assign it to a lower animal or to a machine operating software. I'm confused as to what lower animal might be an example. Are we talking number of genes as a rating of complexity or something else? The Most Common Sexual Pathogen Has an Enormous Genome - Decoding the secrets of Trichomonas vaginalis - Softpedia Or maybe the esteemed Treme and my good friend Tycoon are onto something here: From the thread "Computational Consciousness" here at Volconvo.

Quote by: Treme To me it seems that it would first start by simply reacting to the outside world. Then the not so simple part is where something remembers what happened, how it reacted, and be able to change the course action.

Quote by: Tycoon Yes, you're right. Another criteria for consciousness should be the ability to learn from past experiences. So that's... 1. The ability to observe outside influences. 2. The ability to process information and generate a response. 3. The ability to learn from past experiences.

The amoeba qualifies then. Amoebas Anticipate Climate Change -- Physics News Update 852

Software running on a computer is nothing more than John Searle's concept of the Chinese Room. Chinese room - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The situation may change though as the honorable Jack points out. Again from the thread at Volconvo, "Computed Consciousness."

Quote by: Jack Until we are able to create a quantum computer we have processors that can only crunch the data we input. The human brain can nuance information. It can draw conclusions not present in the data. Humans can infer, guess, be illogical, none of which can be performed by computers at all or in the same way we can. Emotions are one thing we can't currently encode in such a way as to enable computers to "think" emotionally.

I do not discount totally the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey's opinion of the nature of consciousness: From "Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters ... - Google Book Search

Quote by: Nicholas Humphrey I believe that human consciousness is a conjuring trick, designed to fool us into thinking we are in the presence of an inexplicable mystery.

I believe that the cognitive scientist Donald Hoffman's concept as to the ancient, primordial nature of consciousness will promote a greater understanding than that of consciousness as illusion. From "Quantum Enigma."

Quote by: Donald Hoffman I believe that consciousness and its contents are all that exists. Space-time, matter and fields never were the fundamental denizens of the universe but have always been, from their beginning, among the humbler contents of consciousness, dependent on it for their very being.