What is ' consciousness ' ?

[Thomas123]

This word appears to be at the centre of many discussions on this forum. It also appears to mean different things to different people and, therein lies the root of our miscommunication. What range and definement do you attribute to, ' consciousness ' ?

Is there an external consciousness in the world?. Can I tune into a shared consciousness. I am listening to Prime Minister's Question Time, ....is Boris tuned into a universal human consciousness as he delivers his address. Is his brain working ,simultaneously and in tandem with my own consciousness and with that of others?

[2ndRateMind]

I have a pet theory on this. Consciousness is the emergent property of a sufficiently complex brain. Self awareness doubles down on that, so that the consciousness can be aware of its own consciousness. It's like consciousness is the awareness of the immediate environment, and self awareness is the same but is also includes the self on that map.

Point of interest for Christians: how does consciousness survive when the brain is gone?

Best wishes, 2RM

[William]

[Replying to 2ndRateMind in post #81]

how does consciousness survive when the brain is gone?

How does data survive from one computer to another?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #82]

How does data survive from one computer to another?

By physical storage of some sort (tape, floppy/hard disks, RAM, ROM, etc.). It is not an emergent property of other physical things interacting with each other to create something different from the individual data elements.

If consciousness is an emergent property of the brain then it results from the complex interactions of neurons, memory elements, electrical and chemical signals, etc. It is a "more than the sum of its parts" scenario where consciousness is the manifestation of the interactions of these physical elements.

This idea is supported by the levels of consciousness and intelligence represented by living things with brains (from worms to humans and everything in between). Kill one of these individuals (or destroy the brain's ability to function normally), and their consciousness appears to vanish simultaneously. This strong correlation is important.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #83]

This strong correlation is important.

Important if consciousness is an emergent property of the brain?

[William]

Data storage devices store data. Is data physical? Yes - but not in a way that we think of physical things.

Some models have it that the singularity is when physical things become a non physical thing...

[AgnosticBoy]

Kill one of these individuals (or destroy the brain's ability to function normally), and their consciousness appears to vanish simultaneously. This strong correlation is important.

"Consciousness vanishes"? Couldn't this be our ability to detect consciousness vanishes? If it's a detection problem, then we have no way of knowing if consciousness continues to exist or not.

Take Adrian Owen findings as an example. Before his studies, patients in a persistent vegetative state would've been thought to be unconscious (or we wouldn't know). Now that Dr. Owens has found a way to detect signs of consciousness even in patients in vegetative states, we can no longer dismiss consciousness in those who have little to no meaningful bodily responses. It seems then that we need to find a way to detect consciousness apart from bodily activity (e.g. deliberate verbal or bodily responses), and even apart brain activity (if possible). Those that dismiss the latter scenario tend to do so based on ideology than on any evidence.

[William]

Kill one of these individuals (or destroy the brain's ability to function normally), and their consciousness appears to vanish simultaneously. This strong correlation is important.

"Consciousness vanishes"? Couldn't this be our ability to detect consciousness vanishes? If it's a detection problem, then we have no way of knowing if consciousness continues to exist or not.

Take Adrian Owen findings as an example. Before his studies, patients in a persistent vegetative state would've been thought to be unconscious (or we wouldn't know). Now that Dr. Owens has found a way to detect signs of consciousness even in patients in vegetative states, we can no longer dismiss consciousness in those who have little to no meaningful bodily responses. It seems then that we need to find a way to detect consciousness apart from bodily activity (e.g. deliberate verbal or bodily responses), and even apart brain activity (if possible). Those that dismiss the latter scenario tend to do so based on ideology than on any evidence.

I was just searching "is zero a number?"

"0 (zero) is a number, and the numerical digit used to represent that number in numerals. It fulfills a central role in mathematics as the additive identity of the integers, real numbers, and many other algebraic structures. As a digit, 0 is used as a placeholder in place value systems."

I now search "is zero a real number"
"Real numbers are, in fact, pretty much any number that you can think of. This can include whole numbers or integers, fractions, rational numbers and irrational numbers. Real numbers can be positive or negative, and include the number zero."

I would suppose re "Couldn't this be our ability to detect consciousness vanishes? " in that there is zero ability to detect something which was once detectable and now is not.

Does the possibility that being unable to detect something as existing, allow for the right to include zero as representing something real, which is not?

Zero makes the mathematics work...but if zero [representing nothing] is a fraudulent necessity, then perhaps the interpretation of mathematics is incorrect, and perhaps the reason mathematic works [is correct] is because the zero isn't really representing nothing, so much as it represents something which is not detectable but still exists as something.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #86]

It seems then that we need to find a way to detect consciousness apart from bodily activity (e.g. deliberate verbal or bodily responses), and even apart brain activity (if possible). Those that dismiss the latter scenario tend to do so based on ideology than on any evidence.

I'm referring to concsiousness in the "bigger picture" case of some entity that has it, or does not have it. A person in a vegetative state would still be alive and have a brain that at some level is working (at a minimum to maintain the key functions that the hind brain regulates, for example). So although they may not be able to communicate verbally or respond physically, the fact that their brain is not literally dead would allow for some level of consciousness in the general sense I am referring to.

This is different from things that (in my view) do not possess consciousness at all such as rocks, plants, buildings, etc. I don't know of any example of a living entity possessing consciousness (the ability to be aware of its existence and surroundings, and itself) that does not have a brain, nor of examples of something with a brain and possessing consciousness that does not lose it when they die.

[William]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #86]


My reasoning has more to do with the fact that the number zero is integral to mathematics and thus - may [or even must] represent The Mind because it cannot truly represent nothing, because we have no evidence that nothing even exists.

For example, when a brain dies, it appears that the consciousness which occupied that brain, has also died - has literally become "nothing".
This of course relies on the belief that the mind is an emergent property of the brain - the standard belief of non-theists.

[Theists do not understand the mind in the same way.]

Either understanding in and of itself, does not explain what happens to the individual mind when the brain dies, since it is understood that such is not observable to the human awareness...or any scientific instruments - other than to show that the brain is dead and therefore "nothing" is happening in that brain which can be observed.
Yet the brain does not disappear [turn into nothing] and we know that it will turn into something, 'dust to dust' death transforms rather than causes something to disappear into some supposed 'nothing'.

Just from that, we can appreciate that Zero (0) cannot represent 'nothing' but can represent 'something that is known to exist, even that it cannot easily be seen."

The Mind = 0

Also note there is the sequence '-1 [0] +1' and the zero is the middle bit - the central point where all other points derive from, which is just like how consciousness is also positioned - no matter where it fixed in space-time.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #88]

This is different from things that (in my view) do not possess consciousness at all such as rocks, plants, buildings, etc. I don't know of any example of a living entity possessing consciousness (the ability to be aware of its existence and surroundings, and itself) that does not have a brain,...

I understand that your view is typical of one who believes that consciousness is an emergent property of brains.

My understanding is different [being that I am a theist] and while I can appreciate the brains role in - [alongside the objective environment] assisting in formulating or shaping a personality, I cannot assume that the personality along with consciousness, becomes 'nothing' when that brain dies.

...nor of examples of something with a brain and possessing consciousness that does not lose it when they die.

It is very true that the brain does indeed lose the possession of personality and consciousness, but it is not established that this is the same as the personality becoming "nothing" - or blinking out into oblivion.

Death - as can be seen in nature, does not display any example of something becoming nothing.

Death is about transformation.