What Is Consciousness?

[nailit]

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

[mibn2cweus]

Consciousness is a highly evolved mental state arising from the contemplation of our perceptual experience, driven by the benefits derived from such mental processes, leading to the development of concept formation, the ability to reason and abstract philosophical principles and ultimately to the realisation of the value inherent in rational self-interest.

Here's a suggestion as to how certain stages of that development might have taken shape - http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hsmbb/BRAIN/vol7-spring2000/consciousness.htm

[jomifl]

If consciousness can exist without the brain, why do we each have a brain?

[woofgang]

I am not sure that ants are conscious, pixie. How do you know that about babies?

[Old_Geezer]

Maybe you have a brain so your physical body can interact with the physical world.

If there is a TV transmitter somewhere why do we each have a TV in the corner of the room ?

[mibn2cweus]

jomifl
If consciousness can exist without the brain, why do we each have a brain?
08:42 Thu 03rd Jul 2014

Without a physical body to maintain, what need would there be for a brain . . . or consciousness?

[mibn2cweus]

Consciousness is a process carried out by certain living entities as a means to improve their chances of survival and well-being. To cease to function as a living breathing complex conscious thinking entity is to lose the means to exist as such. Without a living functioning physical body there are no means to perceive ones existence - no senses to be conscious with or perceptions to be conscious of.

[naomi24]

//If consciousness can exist without the brain, why do we each have a brain?//

The brain isn't consciousness - it's the instrument by which the consciousness is produced. Thoughts and emotions and 'awareness' can’t be physically examined.

[jim360]

Can't be physically examined? Really?

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/27/8715

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/52/14424

That's just two papers, but there are rather a lot more out there. And several emotions appear to have been pinned down as originating in the pre-frontal cortex. There's plenty of physical examination left to do, but the bold dismissal of "can't" is premature.

[naomi24]

jim, yes really. For all that, the nature of the thought – or the content, if you like - cannot be discerned or examined.

[jim360]

Just because it hasn't been pinned down yet doesn't mean that it can't be.

[naomi24]

Funny, that's what I keep saying - and what you keep disagreeing with. ;o)

[jim360]

I was aware of the irony! But then the serious question ought to be why everyone I am sure of you aren't, and vice versa...

It seems that in this case it's far, far too early in our investigations of thoughts and the mind to say that the current research programme "can't" reveal how the processes work. It seems that you're saying that something new will be needed before we've barely even tried the current methods. And the results appear to be extraordinary. I ready a while back about the development of an algorithm that appeared to be able to know what people were thinking before they did, by monitoring brain activity. I'm not fully aware of the details, it was a while ago since I read it, so I'll try to dig up a link, but from what I remember it was a 50/50 choice and the machine was getting it right significantly more often than just random chance (60% sticks in my head, which might not seem very impressive, but it's a start).

If the current programme of study is in its infancy (which it is) then to write off its chances now is premature. In that sense I'm not quite saying the same thing as you usually do, because usually you're talking about as-yet unknown new methods and I'm usually talking about current techniques; and I try to at least carry some level of things being only "almost certain" at most, rather than 100% (which is never achievable anyway). If I've slipped in the past, well, whatever.

In this case, the statement "thoughts can't be examined" is far too premature.

[atalanta]

I have read an awful lot of books about human consciousness and its history. No two of them come anywhere near agreeing. Quite a lot of them are total nonsense. You, too, can read about it, but after twenty or thirty books you will be little the wiser.

[jim360]

The study I was referring to is this one:

http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n5/full/nn.2112.html

The technology that appears to be able to read thoughts, or to translate them into actions, already exists. One of the more profound applications is the ability to create artificial limbs that can respond to thoughts not that much more slowly than the real things. Once again, this suggests that the idea of thought and consciousness as a fully-physical process, understandable through the development of current techniques, is very much on the right track.

[jomifl]

/The brain isn't consciousness - it's the instrument by which the consciousness is produced./
so, as I said....

[naomi24]

Jim, // the statement "thoughts can't be examined" is far too premature. //

They can’t – but why premature? Because there’s a very good chance we might know more in the future? That’s something else I say constantly that you never agree with me on. More irony – are are you just being difficult?

With regard to your link, I’ve read the précis and you’ve misunderstood it. It's not about reading precise thoughts, but detecting a thought process in operation before the subject is conscious of it.

Jom, //so, as I said....//

As far as I can see, you didn’t.

[jim360]

I don't think I did misunderstand it, but anyway it hardly matters because a cursory search reveals plenty of other studies in which it's been reported that machines can directly translate thought patterns into what the person is actually thinking about: it's called "thought identification" and while the process is still very limited it is, apparently, capable of 100% accuracy in "reading thoughts".

Who's being difficult? So far, you've said that "thoughts can't be examined" but have provided no reasoning whatsoever behind this remarkable dismissal of the entirety of current endeavours in modern neuroscience and psychology. That is an incredibly bold statement to make with no justification, and you ought to do more than just repeat it and then switch straight-away to focusing on apparent inconsistencies in my position.

So any chance you could do that? Why can't thoughts be physically examined, now or ever?

[pixie373]

Sorry woofgang, just caught up with thread. Babies, so far, have been shown to have self-awareness at about 18 months of age. There are certainly animals who aren't self-aware and also people with mental illnesses, but they can all still be conscious.
I do think that the brain is perhaps one thing we will never fully understand. They are so complicated and appear to work so differently in different individuals- even if the basic biology is similar. There is a limit to what you can (morally or physically) test on a living brain and a limit to what you can test on a dead brain. The most informative situations seem to be where they "go wrong" which has its own difficulties in measurement.

[naomi24]

Jim, stop getting so stroppy. It’s not my fault you misunderstood your own link - and I’m not talking about reading thoughts – you are – and that has nothing to do with consciousness, which is the subject of this thread. However, although you’ve misquoted me - again - because I didn’t say ‘ever’, you’re absolutely right – I did say thoughts can’t be examined – and they can’t – because for that to happen we would need to fully comprehend their physical substance. Since currently we don’t, the true nature of consciousness is going to continue to elude us for a while longer at least ..... in my opinion.

[jomifl]

/The brain isn't consciousness - it's the instrument by which the consciousness is produced./
Perhaps you should have said this Naomi;
/The brain isn't consciousness - it's the instrument in which the consciousness is produced./