• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
- - - - -

Senses = Consciousness?


  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1 jasonmog

  • Guest
  • 5 posts
  • 0

Posted 26 November 2004 - 08:55 PM


Could it be reasonably argued that our senses are all or at least most of our consciousness? Take a moment to close your eyes, cover your ears, and imagine your sense of touch eliminated. You may exist and be alive, but you would feel nothing and furthermore, have little or no awareness. This could closely be equated with not existing at all from your standpoint! If we were ever to transfer ourselves into a more synthetic medium such as "virtual reality" or a machine, would it not be "us" consciously unless we could sense our surrounding, to differentiate our individuality from everything else?

#2 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 26 November 2004 - 09:38 PM

Dear Jasonmog:

You and I seem to have the same kind of thinking about consciousness. Read this post from me which I sent yesterday:

Prolonging consciousness to attain immortality (in the thread: What are you doing to achieve immortality? Page 2) Nov. 26, 2004.

I think immortality should be seen from the standpoint of consciousness; for without consciousness in effect we are dead. Therefore if we can prolong consciousness indefinitely then we are indefinitely existing.

Consider that when we are in deep profound dreamless sleep, we are in effect dead to ourselves, and to others only a lump of flesh. Similarly also when we are in a comatose state, in general anaesthesia, in a fainting spell, being knocked out cold: in all these instances if we do not regain consciousness, then we are dead.

What is consciousness? To know the answer we just have to consider all the things we are while conscious which we are not while unconscious.

Before anything else then, consciousness is being aware of our inner environment and also our outer environment. To be aware of our outer environment we need the senses, sight, hearing, taste, smell, touch, and for our inner environment we need, at the risk of being solipsistic, also the external senses, but very important the self-same consciousness itself as some kind of a super sense, by which we are aware of being in pleasure, in pain, in peace, worrying, angry, etc.

Next component of consciousness is memory, both the memory content of cognitive data and the faculty of accessing these data.

At this point, I think we must distinguish two spheres of consciousness in every individual, first, the generic consciousness, and second, the proprietary consciousness.

The generic consciousness is that whereby we are aware, as I said earlier, of our inner world and our outer world by our senses and our very self-same consciousness as a super sense.

The proprietary consciousness consists in the possession of and access to the memory data whereby we know ourselves to be ourselves, our name, our family identity consisting of the knowledge of who are the members of our family by consanguinity and by affinity, and all the records of residence, education, work, social activities, etc., which make us more and more an entity constituted of the identifying data that come to us in life and we achieved in the course of life.

Conclusion is that if our biological body is gone, but we have preserved some kind of an object or even a device whereby it is conscious of its inner and outer environments and it possesses all the memory data of ourselves making up our idenity, and it can access these data, in other words, an object or device that holds within itself in a dynamic fashion all the features of generic and proprietary consciousness by which Susma is Susma and no other entity, then we shall have achieved immortality even without a biological body and brain.

Susma aka Pachomius2000



sponsored ad

  • Advert

#3 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 26 November 2004 - 10:05 PM

If you who have the use of the senses, both outer and inner, read my previous post about these senses, and of course the super sense which I call consciousness itself, by which are are aware of our sensations impacting through our outer senses and our inner super sense (that is the self-same very consciousness itself as awareness of everything we can and are aware of while in a conscious state) into our being, and our inner events or stimulations or processes, like the beating of our heart and the churning in our stomach, if namely we should lose the use of the senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, including the super sense of consciousness itself, even though we remain vegetatively alive and living like a vegetable, then (but vegetables are conscious in the consideration of having at least the sense of touch -- another very intriguing question), then we are for all effects and purposes for ourselves, dead, meaning no longer of any use and relevancy to ourselves; but to others only for a living museum piece of sentimentality.

Now, consider this thought: I just earlier woke up from a night's sleep. There was a period in the sleep when I did not possess any kind of consciousness whatsoever, not even any consciousness of being within a dream, I mean existing within the dream and knowing about it being a dream existence only after I passed into the world outside the dream and the dream ceased existing as a world for me, for I had returned into the 'real' world.

That period in time when I was not possessed of any kind of consciousness state, not even within a dream, is that state not one of death, and permanent death if I will not ever regain real consciousness or people cannot bring me back to the real world?

Also being in a dream, suppose we never come back or enter again the real world, but we continue to exist and act in the dream world? Is that possible? In which case we have died already in the real world although still vegetatively -- no reflection on what exactly is consciousness for vegetables, though. But that dream will cease the moment our brain stops functioning because the support system of our body stops supplying the brain with the blood to keep it alive -- when somebody deliberately or even just accidentally pulls the plug.

Susma aka Pachomius2000

#4 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 26 November 2004 - 10:29 PM

The conclusion is very obvious about human life and consciousness, namely: life is consciousness, consciousness is life. Understand life and consciousness from the posts preceding this one.

I said in my first post here which is reproduced from that thread on what people should be doing to attain immortality, that we can distinguish between two spheres of consciousness, the generic one and the proprietary one.

Generic one is the possession and use of the senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and the super sense namely the self-same very consciousness as overall awareness of our internal and our external environments.

Proprietary consciousness is the possession and the access and use of the memory data by which we are aware of ourselves as ourselves distinct from others more than just in terms ot arithmetical distinction of one not being two or the number one not being the number two, etc.

Now consider that we have a talking machine, what is that they call a talking or answering robot? a chatbot, isn't it?

Here is a very good machine, called a chatbot, but possessed of all kinds of sensors that we as living humans also possess biologically, whereby it can be in contact with and react to its internal and to its external environment, to keep itself safe and continuously functioning. Do we then have already an entity possessed of the generic consciousness we as humans possess and enjoy?

How do we endow this machine with proprietary consciousness? Simple, load into its memory database all the cognitive information bits by which it can recognize itself as the subject of all such memory informatin bits. For example, date of manufacture, place of manufacture, owner, designer, etc., and even a name and a surname. In other words, load into its memory base all the data which every human also possesses and can access in order to know itself as an identity distinct from everyone else, data that are stored in his memory, and very important also data that are stored and preserved and conserved in outside storages like the government civil registries, school records, employment files, historical resources where we are also mentioned, etc.

Isn't that chatbot effectively and relevantly you? if you should load it with all the memory data whereby you know yourself to be yourself, distinct from other humans and everything else in the universe, and whereby it will know itself to be also distinct from other humans, chatbots, and everything else in the universe.

This chatbot-you is even better than the original human-you, because it has more, much more in its memory data than you in your human limitation can store and retrieve, and retrieve correctly. This chatbot-you will have more knowledge and understanding and mastery over all information than you can ever dream of.

Susma aka Pachomius2000

#5 phenom

  • Guest
  • 30 posts
  • 0

Posted 28 November 2004 - 05:50 AM

Jasonmog,

To answer your actual question: No, I don't think consciousness equates with sensory input. After all, people who undergo sensory deprivation by getting in a float tank may have interesting mental events but they don't lose consciousness unless they happen to fall asleep. One would certainly crave stimuli since we're built to process sensory data and it would be nightmarish to not be able to do so, but this still doesn't make consciousness equate with your senses. Read up on what John Lilly did in his experemients with sensory deprivation and hallucinogens. What a ride that must have been!

Scott

#6 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 29 November 2004 - 06:47 AM

Jasonmog,

To answer your actual question: No, I don't think consciousness equates with sensory input. After all, people who undergo sensory deprivation by getting in a float tank may have interesting mental events but they don't lose consciousness unless they happen to fall asleep. One would certainly crave stimuli since we're built to process sensory data and it would be nightmarish to not be able to do so, but this still doesn't make consciousness equate with your senses. Read up on what John Lilly did in his experemients with sensory deprivation and hallucinogens. What a ride that must have been!

Scott


Dear Phenom:

The last time that you slept in a deep deep slumber without dream, were you conscious of anything of your outer world and of your inner world?

No, you were not aware of anything, absolutely nothing.

Now, will you agree with me then that aside from the five senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, there is also the very self-same super sense which we call consciousness itself?

Suppose you not only are deprived of sensations or stimuli from outside or from inside, but just like in deep dreamless sleep (dds), even your senses and consciousness itself are not in a state of expectancy like firemen waiting for a fire to occur, do you see then that you have no more consciousness at all.

In that state or condition described above, is there then consciousness, is there even a you to yourself: No, nothing to yourself but a huge lump of flesh vegetating in the presence of observers and covered by monitoring machines.

In that respect can we not say that consciousness equate with senses, namely the actively recipient senses of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and also very important the super sense of consciousness itself by which you yourself are conscious of yourself.

That is what I mean and maybe Jasonmog also understands by the statement that consciousness is equivalent to senses.

Try this experiment, ask an anaesthesiologist to put you into general anaesthesia, where all your senses and even the super one of consciousness are decommissioned totally, but you are still biologically vegetating, do you have any consciousness then, during that state? What state is that? Isn't that state one where the senses all of them are not even recipient or receptive to stimuli, from the outer world and from even your inner world?

More simple, without general anaesthesia, when you wake up from deep dreamles sleep (dds), do you not regain the use of your senses and consciousness itself? And would you be awakened at all if you have no function-ability of any of the senses, and above all, your super sense of consciousness?

But isn't it a vicious circle, defining consciousness as super sense and then saying that consciousness is together with the external five senses, equivalent to senses?

No, because we explain consciousness by referring it to a function that is understandable and experienced by us, and not to a word which again is without any intrinsic understanding or acquaintance by us.

Susma

#7 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 30 November 2004 - 10:54 PM

Susma, I think the point is that consciousness does not equate with our "external" senses. Certainly I have a hard time describing my "experience" of consciousness without invoking at least one if not two or more senses. I close my eyes but "see" my memories, "hear" them, etc.

But the external senses are not "consciousness". They merely provide a context and a "nutrition" to feed our internal subjective experience.

On the other hand, I also do admit that the subjective experience of our senses is only possible with consciousness. Sense and consciousness are inextricably linked. But we should be clear on whether we mean the perception of external senses, or just the perception of those senses, regardless of the input (whether external, internal from memories, or internal from thought itself).

So while I don't agree that, as you said, "our senses are all or at least most of our consciousness", I do agree that they are closely linked and nearly inseparable at the deepest level.

#8 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 01 December 2004 - 12:12 AM

Here is a new word for the discussion; I have learned that neurologists are basically categorizing a sixth sense, one that addresses the level of integration of neural information one step closer to the conscious level, *propriosensory.*

It appears to be a combination of internal biofeedback for metabolic systems, balance, and perhaps I suspect even pleasure/pain touch modified for the functional operating limits of organ systems.

[PDF] Adaptive mechanisms in the elasmobranch hindbrain
http://jeb.biologist...202/10/1357.pdf

However is our sense of time a product of this new perspective of sensation or is a sense of time something this sensory system depends on to function?

Something that results from consciousness?

Remember all the arguments on how sleep feigns death?

Is the *normal* loss of consciousness associated with sleep simply derivative of the discontinuity of temporal experience?

Hence another example of a *sense of time* associated with our conscious mind.

Coincidence?

#9 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 03 December 2004 - 06:06 AM

When we ask the question what is consciousness? we are not asking a question similar to what is steel or wood or water.

First, consciousness is found in a living person -- of course we will not go into the matter of animals and their consciousness, we will just restrict ourselves to human consciousness.

Now, the consciousness that is found in a living person is at times not present, for example in a state of deep dreamless sleep or in general anaesthesia or in a comatose state. So there are periods of consciousness and periods of no consciousness.

As a matter of fact, consciousness is not a continuous phenomenon in a human body or a person; it is an on and off phenomenon or event. And you can imagine that there are people who spend more time in unconscious periods than in conscious periods, for example newly born babies. And even among grown-ups there are also in terms of consciousness some who are not different from newly born babies.


For all actions or behavioral instances for which a person must answer to, he must be in a period of consciousness when he does them.

On this consideration we can say that consciousness is the basis of relevancy, so that without being in a conscious period a person cannot be relevant.

An illustration: a person in deep dreamless sleep in a park happened to expose his private parts, he cannot be arrested for indecent exposure; because he was unconscious, and everyone knows and understands the situation, and will not hold him to account.

The conclusion at this point is that consciousness is relevancy and unconsciousness is irrelevancy. Suppose we change that word 'relevancy' to 'existence', can we then say that consciousness is existence and unconsciousness is non-existence? Certainly, it is reasonable to make this statement.

Insofar as being in a scenario where humans are relevant to each other, the unconscious person does not exist to other humans who are conscious, and not even to himself, namely, he does not exist to himself, for he is himself not relevant to himself, for being unconscious.

Imagine this kind of a setting, a group of conscious people are present, but there is a living human body among them that is not conscious. How do we know that he is unconscious? By the fact that the unconscious human person is not accessing with his five senses the presence of the conscious people; and he himself is not even aware of himself, for being unconscious.

His condition is not one where his senses and his innner awareness of self and internal environment are not reacting to external and internal stimuli or being 'sensated', because they are no stimuli to 'sensate' them. But one where the senses themselves are so to speak turned off or functionally inoperative.

The nearest parallel condition in a machine is when you turned on a computer and its operating system is launched, but it is not only not awaiting your commands, but even with commands from your mouse and your keyboard, it cannot react to them.


If we then consider that consciousness itself is a basic sense by which a person is aware of himself and his internal processes and conditions, and also aware of his external senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, can we not say then that consciousness consists of the five senses plus very importantly and quintessentially indispensable the super sense of consciousness itself.

However, it is not necessary to argue that consciousness is equivalent to the senses, all of them plus the indispensable basic one of the very self-same consciousness.

It is enough that we know and admit that without the working senses there can be no period of consciousness; namely, the person without any functional senses, the five external senses plus the indispensable internal one of consciousness as self-awareness itself, is not conscious.

What then must we do to transform a person from unconsciousness to consciousness? Do anything and everything to restore his functional access to his senses: both the super sense of self-awareness itself and the external senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch.

If we cannot restore his senses, then he is for all purposes of relevancy to the world of people, permanently unconscious, accordingly non-existent, and in effect dead.

Moral of this post: to stay alive, keep all of your senses as intactly active as possible, starting with the quintessentially basic sense of self-awareness or the very self-same consciousenss as a super sense; cut down on your need for periods of unconsciousness, so that you will live more quantitative years than guys who live the same arithmetic years but spend a lot of periods in unconsciousness.


Susma

#10 jaydfox

  • Guest
  • 6,214 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Atlanta, Georgia

Posted 03 December 2004 - 12:55 PM

It is enough that we know and admit that without the working senses there can be no period of consciousness; namely, the person without any functional senses, the five external senses plus the indispensable internal one of consciousness as self-awareness itself, is not conscious.

You make it sound as if you need all six senses to be conscious. I contend that you do not. There have been many a time where I have been driving and have been so deep in thought that I am not consciously seeing or hearing. That's not to say that I stop seeing and hearing: I don't hit other cars, and I stay in my lane even as the road bends and curves; I brake when necessary, especially when in thick traffic; I don't obey the speed limit, but rather follow the "flow of traffic".

In a sense, I'm on auto-pilot. No conscious effort is involved. At least, not as far as my "internal one of consciousness as self-awareness itself" is concerned. I often wake from this "stupor" of deep thought and find myself wondering where I am, and whether I've missed my exit or not.

However, while I'm in this state of deep thought, my thoughts very much involve sight and sound, but it's within my "mind's eye", so to speak. So I'm still using at least those three senses: sight, sound, and internal self-awareness. But the sight and sound are NOT external. I think consciousness can exist without the five external senses, although our brains are wired such that they require periodic sensory input to stay "fresh" and "sane". But that requirement for periodic external sensory input can, with a little tweaking or a lot of practice, be obviated by the ability to provide internal sensory input in the form of dreams and imagination.

So yes, our "senses" are an integral part of our consciousness, but those senses need not be tied to the external world; they can be part of a feedback loop with our consciousness itself.

#11 susmariosep

  • Guest
  • 1,137 posts
  • -1

Posted 05 December 2004 - 02:47 AM

There are two instances you bring up in regard to states of consciousness or unconsciousness, namely, when we are not certain whether we are conscious or unconscious, or both in its respective understanding, but certainly not in the same understanding.

One when you are on auto-pilot so to say, two when you are like in a dream state.

Before we proceed further, when I say that consciousness is equivalent to the five senses and the super sense of the very self-same consciousness itself as awareness of the external senses of sight, hearing, taste, smell, and touch, and one's internal environment and processes and even again the very fact of awareness itself (this seems like a mirror of a mirror of a mirror of a mirror . . . image of yourself), I do not mean exactly that consciousness consists of, but in the meaning of consciousness consists in; so that even though we can argue no end about what is consciousness, if there is nothing of those senses and the super sense of self-awareness itself, then consciousness is not worth any labor and time and even possibility of examining.

I would imagine that in many cases of knowledge we don't really know what a thing or phenomenon consists of, but we do know what it consists in; so that without the ingredients it consists in, the thing or phenomenon would be worthless or insipid.

For example, I would say life consists in nutrition and reproduction and affection and cogitation and everything connected to these processes, I mean that without one of them life would be less worth living, and without all of them, life would be as good as non-life.


I think you mention that on auto-pilot state you were in deep thought. Were you in deep thought in the sense that you were not aware of anything, or in deep thought in the sense that you were occupied with tinking about something, and not attending to your actual physical task of driving and maneuvering in the traffic?

Then also you mention what I might consider the dream state where inside your dream world you also exercise in your dream self your senses of sight and hearing and self-awareness of yourself, but of course your dream self being aware of your dream self in your dream world, which is all in your mind.

I think you have brought up different kinds of consciousness and different degrees of each kind. And that is very good for our purpose of examining what is consciousness, so that we can do something about extending life or enhancing life or even resurrecting life -- even by means of essentially machine systems, after our biological demise.


While you were so to speak on auto-pilot while driving and in deep thought but not occupied with a thinking process, I would consider that state a kind of unconsciousness, so that if you do not snap out of that state of unconsciousness, something disastrous will happen to you eventually. And you will snap out of that state when your senses are still all operative like firemen notwithstanding dozing off yet still alert to fire alarm call.

If in deep thought but occupied with a thinking process, I would consider that state as also one of unconsciousness, not aware of your external senses and how they are alert to your external environment. That is also a potentially dangerous state. Experienced drivers usually keep track of their traffic environment even while attending to some mental task, like again our firemen who are playing chess or reading the papers or engaged in some hobbies like jigsaw puzzles, but still very alert to any fire alarm call.

In the case of being in a dream state, from my own experience, there is a dream state where you are not aware of being in a dream, and there is one where you are aware of being in a dream.

In most cases for me during a dream state I sooner or later become aware of being in a dream state, and I being conscious become an observer and participant in the dream world of my dream self; so that I possess the power to end the dream state by consciously adopting the complete wake up state.

I say observer and participant in my own dream: observer, because being in a semi-sleep condition I witness what is happening or occurring to me and to my dream setting; and participant, because the me that is in my dream is also the me in my awake state, except that the me in my dream state is like a me as a character in a play or stage, namely, that platform that is my dream.

A project that I have always been keen on is how to produce dreams for myself and by myself. Can you imagine the entertainment we can have, very economical and safe and very thrilling, if we can dream as easily as we can imagine all kinds of things and scenarios with our faculty of imagination.

What kind or degree of consciousness do we have in a dream? We can call that a dream consciousness, and if we cannot or do not come out of our dream state then we are gone from this world of normal conscious self, where we are in possession of our external senses, and also our super awareness of our internal world and also our sense inputs of the external world.

Can we exist in our dream consciousness? I think it is possible to exist in a dream self in a dream world with dream processes, and without being in any way and degree possessed of command of our dream world from and by our conscious self, that by which we are in contact with people and objects outside our dream conscious world.

Suppose we are in fact existing in our dream conscious world, what will happen? First, there is a human body with a brain that is dreaming; which brain's processes can be monitored on screens in the forms of lines and curves.

Second, conscious people existing in their conscious world of monitoriong equipment and machine must keep your body and brain operating, and try to bring you back to their world. If they cannot succeed to bring you back to their conscious world, one day they might come to the conclusion to pull the plug, and then you and your dream conscious world will end -- unless there is really such a world independent of the electrical power that in the final analysis keeps your brain operating your dream world.


Summing up:

You have mentioned several kinds and degrees of consciousness in your accounts of being on auto-pilot and also of your dream states.

For the purpose of staying alive and relevant to your self and to other people who are also alive and conscious, I would still maintain that consciousness consists in the integrity and operativity of our external senses, and also very important in the super awareness of consciousness itself whereby we are present to our internal world, its processes on the physiological, the affective, and the cognitive domains and levels.

Moral of this post: Stay as long and as often as you can in states of as full consciousness as you can master; in this way for the same number of arithmetic years you will in effect live longer in cumulative time and better than others who spend more of their years in states of unconsciousness, like being asleep or in other states or stages of less consciouness, for example being drunk or in a drug stupor.

Susma

#12 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 01 March 2005 - 12:19 PM

I believe consciousness is the awarness of the brain to anything, doesn't matter if it is to the fact the you are alive, or the fact the it is has feelings or whether if it is sensual feeling...
For as long as you are alive and you have your brain- you have consciousness. Somewhy it seems very weird it may not be true, nor reasonable, but gee well that's a heavy subject... I am not sure.

~Infernity

#13 exapted

  • Guest
  • 168 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN

Posted 10 May 2005 - 11:27 AM

Are senses the cause of consciousness?

Firstly, a cause must be necessary and sufficient. Most animals certainly have senses, but I doubt they have consiousness.

Secondly, what is consciousness? If you agree that humans are more conscious than monkeys, then it seems appropriate to agree that consciousness does not just involve an organism directly sensing the external environment.

Third, if you believe that consciousness evolved through natural selection and is one of the inherent properties of humans, then it makes sense to generally define the purpose of consciousness as better interacting with the external world so as to reproduce.

With the generally evolutionary conception of consciousness in mind, an "internal representation" of the world, or even an internal representation of the mind, seems less important than the symbiotic relationship between the brain and the external world.

For instance, most people when solving a geometric puzzle use a physical object as their workspace. Going much further, the definition of 'self' is defined by society at large and without interacting with society the concept of 'self' may quickly dissolve.

I don't have enough time to read this entire thread today. I will hopefully read some of it over the next few days and then perhaps give another response.

Edited by exapted, 10 May 2005 - 05:17 PM.


#14 exapted

  • Guest
  • 168 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN

Posted 10 May 2005 - 11:40 AM

I will conclude and clarify what I said:

Consciousness might be divided into two general categories:
1. Temporal, topological and otherwise representational symbiosis between the brain and the external environment as well as between the various representations themselves, however they are represented. By their very nature, the more sensitive an organism is the more conscious it is.
2. The idea of the 'self'.

Number 1 is present in the brains/minds of most mammals. Number 2 requires some aspects of the external world, no where near being reducible to the symbiosis between the brain and the world. Number 2, the idea of the 'self', is probably the main reason we are discussing this.

But if we are just talking about numer 1, then I mostly agree with the title of this post.

#15 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 10 May 2005 - 11:41 AM

exapted,

Consciousness, 'self', senses... all is just a part of you, the singular information of self development by singular experience.

Aye, also animals have consciousness, since they have brain.

All the information as you probably know, is stored over there.

~Infernity

#16 exapted

  • Guest
  • 168 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN

Posted 10 May 2005 - 11:50 AM

One thing I disagree with is the specious definition of consciousness solely as being "aware" that is so popular in society. That is an oversimplification that seems nice at first but really confounds our confusion by causing us to ask the wrong questions. As alluded in my post above, the idea of the self may or may not be hardwired. I am guessing that it is not hardwired and is dependent on language and society as well as the brain.

#17 exapted

  • Guest
  • 168 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN

Posted 10 May 2005 - 11:54 AM

Aye, also animals have consciousness, since they have brain.


Yes, I agree with you if we are talking about the symbiosis of temporal representations within the brain between each other and the external world.

But that really doesn't fit the complete anthropomorphic definition of a singular 'self' as defined in society.

#18 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 10 May 2005 - 03:14 PM

exapted,

One thing I disagree with is the specious definition of consciousness solely as being "aware" that is so popular in society. That is an oversimplification that seems nice at first but really confounds our confusion by causing us to ask the wrong questions. As alluded in my post above, the idea of the self may or may not be hardwired. I am guessing that it is not hardwired and is dependent on language and society as well as the brain.

Yeah, well it is just everyone means something else, I think we all hold same opinion here, it's just everyone use this term to different things...

But that really doesn't fit the complete anthropomorphic definition of a singular 'self' as defined in society.

How come?

Yours
~Infernity

#19 exapted

  • Guest
  • 168 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN

Posted 10 May 2005 - 05:02 PM

exapted,

Yeah, well it is just everyone means something else, I think we all hold same opinion here, it's just everyone use this term to different things...


How come?

Yours
~Infernity

You are right, it depends on an individual's idea of awareness. Thus, the questions of consciousness should be reframed to specify the bag of tricks contained within the "consciousness" hat.

Without society, many of the properties of the 'self', as defined by most popular literature, do not exist. A baby has to learn about the 'self'. When the baby learns about the 'self', it is because of society. Society involves more than just topological representations in brains, so concepts regarding society must be identified and explained in order to explain the concept of 'self'. The 'self' entails moral, logistical, spiritual and emotional significance that is not complete without symbiosis with society.

#20 ocsrazor

  • Guest OcsRazor
  • 461 posts
  • 2
  • Location:Atlanta, GA

Posted 11 May 2005 - 12:55 AM

Some clarifications need to be made to clear this discussion up.

Neuroscientists define a very large number of senses. The major groupings are visual, auditory, gustatory, olfactory, kinesthetic. The propriosensory type is a subtype of the kinesthetic, but there are a large number of subdivisions of all of the above major groups and there is much crosstalk between the major groups.

Senses are absolutely NOT consciousness and consciousness is not a sense. Senses may be thought of as components and precursors of consciousness. Consciousness is a emergent property of all primate (and other complex animal) brain activity, but most specifically of the activity of the primate cortex. Senses existed before consciousness emerged in the animal kingdom and it took a novel way of integrating them (the neocortical information processing alogorithm) for consiousness to appear.

I very much agree with exapted's last post, because for primates, social information processing is another of the components of consciousness.

The interesting thing about primate consciousness is that appears to be completely plastic in that you can throw whatever sense you want at it and it will accomodate the usage of that sense to model the world and that consciousness' place in it. It is only limited by its finite physical properties as to how many senses can be incorporated. I believe this will happen to any conscious system of sufficient complexity.

To sum up, the presence of at least one sense is a requirement for consciousness to emerge and is more likely to emerge with a complex set of sensory tools, but senses are NOT consciousness. Consciousness IS a constantly updating model of self and environment that is aware of itself as part of the model. It is a loop not a one way transmission.

#21 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:04 AM

Senses existed before consciousness

How come Peter?

Senses is an option that only creatures with consciousness have.

Err, but when I think of it, consciousness is the creation of any experience, which we can only achieve by senses...

Yeah I suppose you are right.

Yours truthfully
~Infernity

#22 exapted

  • Guest
  • 168 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN

Posted 11 May 2005 - 10:30 AM

Peter,

Do you think consciousness is mostly "hardwired"? And, do you think it is a "bag of tricks", or something more principled and unified?

#23 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 11 May 2005 - 06:09 PM

I think consciousness is information patterns that we are able to use. So calling it a 'bag of tricks' doesn't do it justice. It's an amazing thing for us to have

#24 exapted

  • Guest
  • 168 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Minneapolis, MN

Posted 11 May 2005 - 06:36 PM

I think consciousness is information patterns that we are able to use.  So calling it a 'bag of tricks' doesn't do it justice.  It's an amazing thing for us to have

I don't mean that it is a bag of cheap tricks. I mean it is a bag of genetically, socially (and otherwise) evolved patterns of causality in organisms. The unity we observe in peoples' behaviors doesn't prove that consciousness is a unified pattern. It may as well be a distributed system of patterns, with causal links between some and not others. And which patterns we include in the "consciousness" hat is certainly open to interpretation until everyone comes up with a real theoretical framework for consciousness.

#25 Infernity

  • Guest
  • 3,322 posts
  • 11
  • Location:Israel (originally from Amsterdam, Holland)

Posted 11 May 2005 - 08:50 PM

Interesting things about "consciousness":

[>] • consciousness
n. awareness of one's surroundings; cognition, ability to perceive

[>]• consciousness
a psychological condition defined by the English philosopher John Locke as "the perception of what passes in a man's own mind."

[>] • CONSCIOUSNESS
[B208] Kant distinguishes pure and empirical consciousness; the former is a precondition of the latter, which is the result of a complex process of synthesis and judgment (we have empirical consciousness of appearance). Presumably, pure consciousness is required for the unity of apperception; Kant associates it with the "merely subjective representation, which gives us only the consciousness that the subject, and which we relate [through synthesis] to an [empirical] object in general. By contrast, empirical consciousness involves an objective representation in which "the real of sensation" is apprehended. Due to the importance which Kant accords self-consciousness (i.e., consciousness of the unity of apperception), for Kant all consciousness necessarily involves self-consciousness; it also turns out that self-consciousness involves consciousness, namely, (pure) consciousness through inner sense of one's own mental states, and also (pure) consciousness through outer sense of one's self as an empirical object which has these states. This suggests that we are not conscious of "pure consciousness" (which in any case is not "empirical")--pure consciousness occurs before we have any possible experience.

[>] • consciousness
Self-awareness. Subjective experience. The way things seem to us. Immediate phenomenological properties.

[>] • Consciousness
our awareness of ourselves and our environment.

[>]• Consciousness
Consciousness [from Latin conscio knowing with, knowing together] The active state of spirit or the supreme fundamental in manifested existence. Like light, consciousness can become manifest only by means of a vehicle, and it can have various degrees of manifestation according to the planes. Individual consciousness originates in the Logos of any hierarchy. Every manifested entity is conscious to some degree, and is an expression of divine consciousness or spirit. Buddhi is said to be latent spiritual consciousness which becomes manifest intellectually in manas, so far as the human constitution goes (SD 2:275). Human consciousness is also closely linked to the senses.
The term consciousness is often used as alternative to spirit, as where it is said that consciousness and matter are the two aspects of parabrahman or that consciousness is the purest form of cosmic force; yet, strictly speaking, consciousness is an attribute of active spirit. It is sometimes called the universal life, the kosmic force-substance. The relative use of the word enables us to speak of states or degrees of consciousness, according to the state in which the essence is manifested on one plane or another; or to call one state unconscious by contrast with another, as when we compare waking consciousness with the consciousness of sleep or trance.

[>] • consciousness
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
consciousness
\con"scious*ness\ (?), n.
1. the state of being conscious; knowledge of one's own existence, condition, sensations, mental operations, acts, etc. consciousness is thus, on the one hand, the recognition by the mind or "ego" of its acts and affections; -- in other words, the self-affirmation that certain modifications are known by me, and that these modifications are mine. w. hamilton.
2. immediate knowledge or perception of the presence of any object, state, or sensation. see the note under attention. annihilate the consciousness of the object, you annihilate the consciousness of the operation. w. hamilton. and, when the steam which overflowed the soul had passed away, a consciousness remained that it had left. images and precious thoughts that shall not die, and can not be destroyed. the consciousness of wrong brought with it the consciousness of weakness.
3. feeling, persuasion, or expectation; esp., inward sense of guilt or innocence. [r.] an honest mind is not in the power of a dishonest: to break its peace there must be some guilt or consciousness.
consciousness
n
1. an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness" [ant: unconsciousness]
2. having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive" [syn: awareness, cognizance, knowingness]

[>] • consciousness

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noun
1. an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation; "he lost consciousness"
(antonym) unconsciousness
(hypernym) cognitive state, state of mind
(hyponym) stream of consciousness
2. having knowledge of; "he had no awareness of his mistakes"; "his sudden consciousness of the problem he faced"; "their intelligence and general knowingness was impressive"
(synonym) awareness, cognizance, cognisance, knowingness
(hypernym) knowing
(hyponym) self-awareness
(attribute) aware(p)

Yours trruthfully
~Infernity

#26 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 06 August 2005 - 08:30 AM

I don't know where this idea comes from? I can't just hook up cameras or a chemical analyzer or a sheet of pressure-measuring sensors to a box and have it be conscious. Senses are certainly essential to create consciousness: Something must have a way of finding out it exists, a sense or such. But you don't need to have senses to be conscious after that. The senses are just data pipelines into the machine-framework of the brain. This recieved data etches away and constructs things and allows us to build up these models and run predictive simulations of the data senses in our heads, which allow us to understand things and interact with things in our environment. Once the data is collected, we don't neccessarily need to feel it to think about it again.
I wonder if it is possible that with incredibly long sensory deprivation, eventually every loop in your thought process would terminate and your consciousness would be effectively dormant until someone started inputting again, like a long-running while statement that eventually finishes processing everything it can. Even so, it's not the input that makes the formula conscious, it's the processing.

#27 stormheller

  • Guest
  • 100 posts
  • 1

Posted 19 August 2005 - 03:56 AM

Uh... Jason, no. Imagine your brain as a computer. You're conscious when you turn on the computer, you're asleep when the computer's on 'sleep mode', and your senses are like the inputs in a computer, i.e. the keyboard, disk drives, FTP, or MIDI ports. Your computer can be doing things without you typing or telling it to do things, like when it's checking for virii in the background. Of course, we're more creative than computers, and do not need man-made algorithms to tell us what to do. But otherwise, think of us as computers with free will.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#28 armrha

  • Guest
  • 187 posts
  • 0

Posted 12 September 2005 - 04:54 PM

For some reason I find people arguing this kind of stuff all the time. It generally goes like this. I don't know why exactly but it kind of gets on my nerves. I guess I have a short fuse when it comes to stuff like this. Not to stifle creativity or anything, though... Generally, when I've talked about this it goes along these lines:

Person: "Maybe... senses ARE consciousness!"

Me: "Then why aren't cameras and microphones conscious?"

Person: "Well, it's senses and then the other stuff in the brain."

Me: "Oh. So, senses, and the things the brain does that makes up consciousness. Okay."

I like your analogy, Stormheller... one of my favourites. But where does the 'free will' you speak of come from? 'Think of us as computers with free will.' What does that mean, exactly?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users