Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
What Is Consciousness?
184 Answers
A sort of carry over from my "question for naomi" thread.
Have been reading the tale end of that debate (with a lot of interest) between naomi and others regarding energy and whether it can survive death. It seems to me that at times there might be some conflict as to what we mean by 'energy'. If we replace the word energy with consciousness then the debate makes a bit more sense....to me anyhow. The question then becomes can consciousness survive (in whatever shape or form). It then begs the question,
what exactly is consciousness?
From everything ive read, it appears to be one of the big questions, as science , as yet, has no idea exactly what consciousness is or how it arises.
Just curious, how do we define consciousness and what is it?
Thanks
Have been reading the tale end of that debate (with a lot of interest) between naomi and others regarding energy and whether it can survive death. It seems to me that at times there might be some conflict as to what we mean by 'energy'. If we replace the word energy with consciousness then the debate makes a bit more sense....to me anyhow. The question then becomes can consciousness survive (in whatever shape or form). It then begs the question,
what exactly is consciousness?
From everything ive read, it appears to be one of the big questions, as science , as yet, has no idea exactly what consciousness is or how it arises.
Just curious, how do we define consciousness and what is it?
Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Bear in mind (no pun intended) that most of the workings of the brain operate at a subconcious level, incuding a lot of intellectual thought. The concious brain seems to be the part of the brain that acts as a reporting centre and decides what actions will be taken as a result of the conclusions arrived at by the unconcious brain. We earlier had a long, arduous and ultimately fruitless discussion on what thoughts are and I think this will go the same way.
I'm not really sure. I think that consciousness is a byproduct of some very complex physical systems, and if that were true then there would be certainly no chance of consciousness outlasting death. But I don't know that it's true or not, and I think that no-one is quite sure. It seems likely, because in recent years the study of consciousness has advanced greatly, so it seems as if current scientific methods can go a very long way towards understanding the picture, but there is still some way to go yet. Perhaps there is something more.
Wikipedia isn't always the best source in the world, but in matters scientific it's usually fairly good as an indicator of the current state of knowledge. Anyway, its page on Consciousness is filled with "mysterious", "incompletely understood", "challenging", "seems to ....", "...not yet [any] firm conclusions...", and so on. The scientific study of consciousness is the brain trying to study itself!
The general picture, though, is that consciousness is heavily influenced in some way by physical interactions, even if how isn't clear. To bring this post full-circle, that strongly suggests to me that there is too much of the physical involved in consciousness for it to be somehow separate enough to outlast the death of the body.
Wikipedia isn't always the best source in the world, but in matters scientific it's usually fairly good as an indicator of the current state of knowledge. Anyway, its page on Consciousness is filled with "mysterious", "incompletely understood", "challenging", "seems to ....", "...not yet [any] firm conclusions...", and so on. The scientific study of consciousness is the brain trying to study itself!
The general picture, though, is that consciousness is heavily influenced in some way by physical interactions, even if how isn't clear. To bring this post full-circle, that strongly suggests to me that there is too much of the physical involved in consciousness for it to be somehow separate enough to outlast the death of the body.
//Bear in mind (no pun intended) that most of the workings of the brain operate at a subconcious level, incuding a lot of intellectual thought.//
Thats my point, what makes us capable of THINKING?
I think (cant escape the conclusion that humans think...) that most people are agreed that the mineral and vegatable kingdoms of this planet have no capacity to think for themselves and it maybe doubtful, though not certain, that the majority of the animal kingdom act on anything other than instinct or impulse.
Thats my point, what makes us capable of THINKING?
I think (cant escape the conclusion that humans think...) that most people are agreed that the mineral and vegatable kingdoms of this planet have no capacity to think for themselves and it maybe doubtful, though not certain, that the majority of the animal kingdom act on anything other than instinct or impulse.
naillit, you really need to ask a biologist specializing in this area. I'm not sure that any 'systems' are involved as the concept of systems is a human construct. What is involved is some very complicated networks of nerves which are dedicated to processing information from the senses to produce appropriate responses. The information is carried via some very well known electrochemistry and chemical messengers between nerve cells. This information handling method cannot exist without a brain to house it. We don't need to know the last detail of how it works to know that it cannot persist after death just as we know that a laptop won't work without a power supply.
//The general picture, though, is that consciousness is heavily influenced in some way by physical interactions,//
A tree, plant or blade of grass interacts physically,
An amoeba, bacteria, or protozoa interacts physically
Where does it begin?
slug? worm? monkey? man?
I dont know but im curious to understand what others think. And it has to be what others THINK because we dont actually know.
A tree, plant or blade of grass interacts physically,
An amoeba, bacteria, or protozoa interacts physically
Where does it begin?
slug? worm? monkey? man?
I dont know but im curious to understand what others think. And it has to be what others THINK because we dont actually know.
Honestly, even when I try to be cautious I get criticised!
There isn't any evidence, no, at least none that I'm aware of -- but even so I may as well leave the door (slightly) open for that to change. I don't expect it to, but about the only thing I am certain of is that I'll have no part in that either way. Not my field of study.
Nailit, there's a whole set of physical systems, principally the brain of course, but I was thinking particularly of how easily consciousness appears to be disturbed by drugs, alcohol etc. That ties it down, somehow, to a physical process. I would be surprised, then, if anything could really outlast the physical. That said, again it's outside my field of study, and I'd suggest that you read more into the subject. I can't even realistically recommend any books since I don't know what's worth reading and what isn't.
There isn't any evidence, no, at least none that I'm aware of -- but even so I may as well leave the door (slightly) open for that to change. I don't expect it to, but about the only thing I am certain of is that I'll have no part in that either way. Not my field of study.
Nailit, there's a whole set of physical systems, principally the brain of course, but I was thinking particularly of how easily consciousness appears to be disturbed by drugs, alcohol etc. That ties it down, somehow, to a physical process. I would be surprised, then, if anything could really outlast the physical. That said, again it's outside my field of study, and I'd suggest that you read more into the subject. I can't even realistically recommend any books since I don't know what's worth reading and what isn't.
Jim360, I think that you are letting your logic be directed by the conclusions that you find acceptable. J.W.Dunne postulated that consciousness was an independent entity constrained - during life, at any rate - by the physical brain system. His studies of dreams suggested to him that they originated in the experiences of the temporarily unconstrained consciousness. Clearly, the operations of this consciousness would also be altered by toxins in the brain, or injuries to it, so your argument on that point isn't as conclusive as you seem to think.
Dunne's book is called "An Experiment with Time". There are some weak arguments in it, but refuting them wouldn't refute his main hypothesis.
Dunne's book is called "An Experiment with Time". There are some weak arguments in it, but refuting them wouldn't refute his main hypothesis.
Jim, not trying to be picky, but as far as I know the brain operates mostly in a chemical way though there are sensors such as the eyes and ears that are an interface with the physical world.
Naillit, the energy source for the brain is the same as for the muscles and the rest of the body. Glucose is oxydised in a controlled way using a series of enzymes that enable chemical energy to be stored in a stepwise fashion as the chemical ATP (adenosine tri-phosphate) This yields energy when it is converted to ADP (adenosine di-phosphate). The cells of the body have evolved to use this universal fuel. This process of controlled oxydation is known as the KREBS cycle and is quite complicated but very well understood, no mystery at all. Look it up on Wiki.
Naillit, the energy source for the brain is the same as for the muscles and the rest of the body. Glucose is oxydised in a controlled way using a series of enzymes that enable chemical energy to be stored in a stepwise fashion as the chemical ATP (adenosine tri-phosphate) This yields energy when it is converted to ADP (adenosine di-phosphate). The cells of the body have evolved to use this universal fuel. This process of controlled oxydation is known as the KREBS cycle and is quite complicated but very well understood, no mystery at all. Look it up on Wiki.
You might be right, bert, but who's to say it doesn't work in the other direction? All these people who say to themselves "we might not know as much as we think" could just as easily be biased towards speculative ideas which turn out to have no basis in reality.
I've admitted several times in this thread that I'm not really all that knowledgeable in this field, and indeed if jomifl's posts are anything to go by I've shown myself to know even less that that -- but I still feel fairly comfortable with my position: which is a "strong", but not unshakeable, expectation that consciousness will be shown to be entirely tied down to physical processes within the body (and, so, unable to exist without it).
I've admitted several times in this thread that I'm not really all that knowledgeable in this field, and indeed if jomifl's posts are anything to go by I've shown myself to know even less that that -- but I still feel fairly comfortable with my position: which is a "strong", but not unshakeable, expectation that consciousness will be shown to be entirely tied down to physical processes within the body (and, so, unable to exist without it).
