• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Define Consiousness

Ah, theres the rub, in using language to describe the process underlying awareness. There are many kinds of awareness,

Awareness of body=sensation.
Awareness of cognition=thought.

So I ask, Awareness of what?
 
Dancing David said:
I will argue that it doesn't exist. It is a rubric under which many other things are attributed.
Click to expand...

Here's the ironic response

DD: Define Consiousness

RL: No.

If you don't get it, have a beer.
 
Dancing David said:
Ah, theres the rub, in using language to describe the process underlying awareness. There are many kinds of awareness,

Awareness of body=sensation.
Awareness of cognition=thought.

So I ask, Awareness of what?
Click to expand...
The textbook definition includes:
Your awareness of external events, internal sensations, your
self as observer and your thoughts about these experiences.
Then the author will typically go on about how difficult all these are to study scientifically because of the subjectivity of it all, how the behaviorists dumped "the study of consciousness" as the definition of psychology almost a century ago because of that problem.
Then the rest of that chapter will deal with sleep, dreams, hypnosis, meditation and drug effects.
Defining "awareness" is usually based upon self-report. Was Koko aware of her toothache? Well, she reported it in ASL and the tooth she pointed to was infected and treated.
Is Koko conscious?
Are you?
 
Bikewer said:
Self, according to most.
Click to expand...

I am politely maintaining that that awareness is actualy many different processes which we define as 'awareness' but i feel there is no transubstantial self to be 'aware'. We might choose to label many different things as 'awareness' but they are still just a myriad of seperate things.

And again awareness of self would be what?

The visual perception of yourself in a mirror?
The cognitive recognition that that reflection is similar to the last time you looked in a mirror?
 
Jeff Corey said:

Defining "awareness" is usually based upon self-report. Was Koko aware of her toothache? Well, she reported it in ASL and the tooth she pointed to was infected and treated.
Is Koko conscious?
Are you?
Click to expand...


Koko exhibited behaviors that would indicate she was aware of pain in her tooth.
I am following up on a previous thread, just as consiousness can only be defined behavioraly from the observational stand point. Leading to the famous p-zombie, which is a creature that exhibits all the behaviors of consiousness but is not. I once postulated, in response to the erudire Mecrutio, that there are in fact creatures that behave as though they have 'mind's but in fact they don't, the m-zombie.

The same can be done for awareness, it can exist as an abstract entity, it is always related to an underlying event that can be correctly labeled as something else. It is a materialist reductio ad absurdum.
 
This is easy.

Consiousness is the same as consciousness only spelled wrongly.
 
Dancing David said:
... consiousness can only be defined behavioraly from the observational stand point.
Click to expand...
That sounds like you are saying it can only be defined behaviorally.

If someone is totally paralyzed but is still conscious you might not be able to notice any behavioral change. Months may go by while the individual is fed intravenously. Then someone figures out a way to communicate, maybe by the guy causing his heart to flutter, I don't know - some way. Yah, that then becomes behavioral recognition of consciousness but is the implication that there was no consciousness during the intervening months?

A wider definition is called for. Something that involves imagination and memory at least. I'll call it IDEA for now and hear your argument.
 
Perhaps my definiton of behavioral is a broader one than evisaged, in the case of the eprson who is totaly paralyzed, say by the administartion of curarae, then we can hook the elctrodes to thier head and determine that the brain cells are behaving as though they are alive. Now wether we can deduce consciousness from that would be another issue. But it shows the broarder definition of behavior.

And certainly awareness of cognition and awareness of memory or awareness of the reconstructive process of memory are things generaly attributed to consciousness.

While we are defining consiousness what i am trying to do is reduce it to other processes, I could be wrong for doing so, but I am trying to add consciousness to the list of things like the self. Human conception solely.
 
Dancing David said:
... And certainly awareness of cognition and awareness of memory or awareness of the reconstructive process of memory are things generaly attributed to consciousness.

While we are defining consiousness what i am trying to do is reduce it to other processes, I could be wrong for doing so, but I am trying to add consciousness to the list of things like the self. Human conception solely.
Click to expand...
I'm having a similar discussion in another thread with BillyJoe. As a materialist, he is defining a human POV = self = pattern of neural firings in the brain.

But to me the brain pattern of neural firings is akin to the piece of glass that is a holograph. A laser passing through the holograph yields the corresponding projected hologram.

Over there I am wondering if life is the laser force that transforms the brain's neuronal activity. But to me that projection is real and different in quality from the piece of glass that is the physical construct holding the infromation from which the hologram is able to be reconstructed.

We absolutely need words for the various concepts of brain function and consciousness is a large concept - perhaps it is made of of lower level functions. But it may be that we are talking forms - like ice and vapor for water.

Perhaps I'm just used to the idea but I'm not going to like it if I suddenly find out I'm not conscious.
 
Dancing David said:
...snip...

Leading to the famous p-zombie, which is a creature that exhibits all the behaviors of consiousness but is not. I once postulated, in response to the erudire Mecrutio, that there are in fact creatures that behave as though they have 'mind's but in fact they don't, the m-zombie.

...snip...
Click to expand...

I've posted it a couple of times before but I seem to have a different sense of myself then some people post here. So much so that at times I would describe myself as a "p-zombie".

Many times the "I" that enables me to type this post is not "here", it is a transient experience. For instance I will do some gardening later on today and there will be times when my awareness of being anything will just fade away yet I will continue to weed, then there will periods were my” internal monologue me” is reactivated to deal with a stimulus e.g. I will consider something like "should I move this plant", then it will fade again as I go about "moving" the plant.

But throughout this process it is still me that is there doing it, just that one of the “sub routines” isn’t always running. I would still at a later date refer to the fact that “I was doing some gardening earlier on”, despite the “I” that creates the post wasn’t “there” for all of it.

So for me my definition of consciousness is that it is just one of the many processes that happen when a certain group of chemicals mix together with a bit of energy thrown in. Intrinsically no more remarkable or special then photosynthesis.

(Edited for words.)
 
Darat said:
Many times the "I" that enables me to type this post is not "here", it is a transient experience. For instance I will do some gardening later on today and there will be times when my awareness of being anything will just fade away yet I will continue to weed, then there will periods were my” internal monologue me” is reactivated to deal with a stimulus e.g. I will consider something like "should I move this plant", then it will fade again as I go about "moving" the plant.
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
I know the phenomonon well. I think it is something to be developed, kinda like perfect meditation. That is, just be... or more new agey - be the garden,man.

I've heard it also in reference to individuals who have lost some reasoning capacity, even as an accident of birth. Give them a task, like move this sandpile from here to there, and they will work all day tirelessly absorbed in the duty.

I've also wondered about it in reference to old cowboy movies where a guy runs his horse to death. That always seemed impossible to me. Like it would have to get tired and stop first. I've always hated running myself and can't imagine the marathon but surely long distance runners must have that same experience, eventually coming back aware after a few miles have past.
 
Re: Re: Define Consiousness

Interesting Ian said:
It cannot be defined. Certainly it is not a physical process.
Click to expand...
The problem is that you totally disregard all natural sciences. When I say that the brain and the neurons govern the consciousness, you say that I don’t understand. When I propose that all functions in the brain are electro chemical reactions carried out by proteins and ribozymes, you say that consciousness is supernatural. When I say that consciousness is comprehensible and explainable, you still say that consciousness is supernatural. You totally dismiss all the advances biochemistry researchers has done the last 100 years or so.

It has been show so many times that feelings are the product of proteins and signal substances.
You sometimes you say that consciousness and feelings are not the same thing. But you fail so explain how personality change after brain damage or the intakes of poisons like alcohol or narcotic substances.

Now you probably are going to call me a moron and say that I don’t understand. Well, I don’t. I have no way of grasping your theories about a supernatural consciousness, it is implied, supernatural is non explainable. So you are safe, home free, no one can explain a supernatural consciousness because if any one could if would be a science, which you argue it is not.

It becomes kind if a circle argumentation, you argue for a supernatural consciousness, but if we try to explain it, you say that it is supernatural, thus unexplainable, and hence we can’t explain it. Still, you win, and there is no why anyone can argue that.

But, the supernatural consciousness is an idea, just as the flat earth idea, nice idea but proven wrong. Consciousness is physical: take away the physical brain and you have no consciousness.
 
Re: Re: Define Consiousness

Interesting Ian said:
It cannot be defined. Certainly it is not a physical process.
Click to expand...
Certainly you are wrong, as ever. It occurs in me and it is not a paranormal process, only a complete dullard would say that.
Good thing you have your job as a telephone desanitizer to keep you on the net, by the way, your website is still unintellible. Which I think is a good thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom