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?

[bluegreenearth]

The real problem [for materialists] is that it [the picture projected] implies a Creator. Such as, materialism is dead in the water. Something materialist naturally enough fear.

Hypothetically, if this simulation creator was comprised of some type of material, wouldn't materialism still be justifiable?

[GG93]

Consciousness is what it is like to be something

[JakekeKe9]

I adore these kind of questions

[Thomas123]

When you die,.......you die!

The lights are switched off , permanent!

Most creatures appear to deal with death with strict caution and observance of instinctive strategies to avoid it's occurrence. We would do well to preserve natural human caution and wariness in our youngsters today. With the speed of traffic, and the recklessness of modern leisure activities it would appear that we delude ourselves as to just how dangerous living is.

In my far distant past ,one of my ancestors may have bravely defended their camp from a dangerous bear attack. If they had not gone this, I would not be here now. I am a random chance happening that is a unique combination of human genetics. As such, I am indeed ,special and irreplaceable.

When faced with the actual finality of our ceasing to consciously live we need fortitude and creativity in our appreciation of our conscious human state. This creativity and enquiry can lead us to a real appreciation of God.

God allows us to be part of something greater than our small genetic experiment. God offers permanence to replace a feeling of transience. God connects us to our past and our future and in doing this ,God makes us immortal. If we see things in this way then,death ....where is your fury?

I welcome all considerations on this topic.

[dakoski]

To put it simply, consciousness is to the human brain what wetness is to water.

I basically agree with this idea, but prefer to describe consciousness simply as a manifestation of normal brain activity, meaning the result of the interactions of billiions of neurons, memory elements, sensory inputs, etc. As you say, any one of these elements cannot create consciousness, but all of them working together as a system can. It is like many other systems where the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts.

I have some sympathy for the view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain - but I wonder how testable that is? I'm with Tim Shallice in the sense that I can't think of how we would go about testing such a theory - so at this stage such a proposal is just speculation. Although it may be possible in the future.

Observations that consciousness appears to vanish for an individual (human or otherwise) when it dies, significant brain damage can alter conscious ability, etc. suggests that the brain is the origin of consciousness

Certainly consciousness is strongly correlated with brain activity - it would be rather odd if they were not. But I don't think that's enough to conclude that consciousness and brain activity are synonymous.

For example, I don't think it's testable whether consciousness vanishes when an individual dies. Since we can't directly ask dead people about their personal experiences.

Studies on locked-in syndrome are quite interesting in showing how our assumptions about the conscious experiences of others are often misleading. For example, Adrian Owen's research showed:

We have discovered that 15 to 20 percent of people in the vegetative state who are assumed to have no more awareness than a head of broccoli are fully conscious, although they never respond to any form of external stimulation

Other factors that suggest the mind impacts on the brain include the placebo effect. For example, we prescribe a patient an antidepressant designed to effect their brain activity which on average makes them feel less depressed. However, we know from the data that about 25% of the impact of taking an antidepressant can be attributed to the medication impacting on brain activity. How would you explain the other 75% of the effect (i.e. the effectiveness of placebo)?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dakoski in post #25]

I have some sympathy for the view that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain - but I wonder how testable that is? I'm with Tim Shallice in the sense that I can't think of how we would go about testing such a theory - so at this stage such a proposal is just speculation. Although it may be possible in the future.

We can certainly test certain aspects of the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. For example, we can observe that something without a brain does not appear to be conscious, while something with a brain can be conscious. Damage to the brain can impair consciousness and there are drugs working directly on the brain that can impact consciousness in various ways. So it is clear that there is a connection, but to me it is simply the most logical conclusion based on observations .... no brain, no consciousness. The sum of the parts is more capable than any one part, and consciousness is the result of complex interactions between memory elements, neurons, electrical signals and sensory inputs, etc. Also, we can follow things like capability and complexity of brains and how this evolved over time from ganglia to simple brains in worms to the very complex brains in humans.

Certainly consciousness is strongly correlated with brain activity - it would be rather odd if they were not. But I don't think that's enough to conclude that consciousness and brain activity are synonymous.

For example, I don't think it's testable whether consciousness vanishes when an individual dies. Since we can't directly ask dead people about their personal experiences.

But we don't have to ask them. If an indivudual has died we can no longer communicate with them at all, and their consciousness appears to be gone. There is no evidence to suggest that their consciousness has somehow remained intact when their brain and body have expired. It may not be testable by asking, but it can be observed that the dead body cannot function in any way, and consciousness has never been shown to be a "thing" that could exist without a brain. A hypothesis that consciousness is a "thing" that could leave a dead person and exist somehow outside of that person's body is not testable either. It is pure speculation without any observational support, while the idea that consciousness vanishes when the brain dies at least has some observational support (ie. it is no longer possible to communicate with the person in any way).

Studies on locked-in syndrome are quite interesting in showing how our assumptions about the conscious experiences of others are often misleading. For example, Adrian Owen's research showed:

"We have discovered that 15 to 20 percent of people in the vegetative state who are assumed to have no more awareness than a head of broccoli are fully conscious, although they never respond to any form of external stimulation."

How does this relate to consciousness being an emergent property of the brain, or not? I don't see any connection between someone misinterpreting the conscious ability or state of another person, with consciousness being an emergent property of the brain.

Other factors that suggest the mind impacts on the brain include the placebo effect. For example, we prescribe a patient an antidepressant designed to effect their brain activity which on average makes them feel less depressed. However, we know from the data that about 25% of the impact of taking an antidepressant can be attributed to the medication impacting on brain activity. How would you explain the other 75% of the effect (i.e. the effectiveness of placebo)?

Same question as above ... how does this relate to the question of whether consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, or not? People "fool themselves" all the time in similar ways. Many people describe "talking to themselves', or to the little person in their head, etc. and convincing themselves to do something, or not do something, based on the results. But I don't see how this relates to whether consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, or not.

[Thomas123]

I agree with DrNoGods when it comes to brain endowed life forms such as humans. I am absolutely sure that plants possess consciousness as do other ' brainless' life-forms.

Consciousness is not thinking,....it is existing.

That is my point!

[dakoski]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #26]

We can certainly test certain aspects of the idea that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. For example, we can observe that something without a brain does not appear to be conscious, while something with a brain can be conscious. Damage to the brain can impair consciousness and there are drugs working directly on the brain that can impact consciousness in various ways. So it is clear that there is a connection, but to me it is simply the most logical conclusion based on observations .... no brain, no consciousness. The sum of the parts is more capable than any one part, and consciousness is the result of complex interactions between memory elements, neurons, electrical signals and sensory inputs, etc. Also, we can follow things like capability and complexity of brains and how this evolved over time from ganglia to simple brains in worms to the very complex brains in humans.

If I understand you correctly, you’re making two arguments:
1) Brain activity and consciousness are correlated – I agree with you that they are correlated (drugs that effect brain chemistry impact on consciousness as does damage to the brain). Where I disagree is when you claim this implies that consciousness is solely an emergent property of complex interactions within the brain. These same data can equally be cited to support that consciousness is an illusion. I don’t see how currently this explanation could be tested empirically.

2) Complexity of brain and consciousness are correlated – again I agree with you. But as above, this doesn’t imply that when our brains reached a certain level of complexity consciousness emerged. It just presupposes that consciousness is an emergent property of complex interactions within the brain i.e. it is a circular argument.

But we don't have to ask them. If an indivudual has died we can no longer communicate with them at all, and their consciousness appears to be gone. There is no evidence to suggest that their consciousness has somehow remained intact when their brain and body have expired. It may not be testable by asking, but it can be observed that the dead body cannot function in any way, and consciousness has never been shown to be a "thing" that could exist without a brain. A hypothesis that consciousness is a "thing" that could leave a dead person and exist somehow outside of that person's body is not testable either. It is pure speculation without any observational support, while the idea that consciousness vanishes when the brain dies at least has some observational support (ie. it is no longer possible to communicate with the person in any way).

There are several problems with this argument:
1) The underlying assumption is that consciousness is explained completely by brain activity. So if this assumption is true, of course “no brain, no consciousness”. The problem is this becomes a tautology – as you were trying to use this to show that consciousness is solely the product of brain activity.

2) Of course neuroscience shows a correlation between conscious experience and brain activity. What measuring brain activity is not able to access is the actual conscious experience itself.

Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate this is with the “Mary the brain scientist” thought experiment. Mary is a leading expert on the neuroscience of vision but was born blind. She has an intricate understanding of the neurochemistry and neurobiology of vision. If she gains the ability to see does she learn anything new about vision? If brain activity explains conscious experience completely then the answer I think has to be no. But if conscious experience is distinct from brain activity then the answer would be yes - she does learn something new about vision.

3) I provided an example above of neuroscience research on vegetative states and conscious experience. Based on observing and measuring brain activity neuroscientists had concluded that these patients did not experience consciousness.

Only through hard work and imaginative refinement of research methods were they able to communicate with the patients. Through these advances they were able to ascertain that the patients were fully conscious. So while I agree with you that brain activity can give useful data on the neural correlates of consciousness. Neuroscience data also shows the limits of brain activity as a sole explanation of people's conscious experience.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to dakoski in post #28]

Where I disagree is when you claim this implies that consciousness is solely an emergent property of complex interactions within the brain. These same data can equally be cited to support that consciousness is an illusion. I don’t see how currently this explanation could be tested empirically.

How can observations that consciousness appears to require a brain be equally used to support the idea that consciousness is an illusion? The former is a direct implication from many observations which correlate a working brain with consciousness, while the hypothesis that consciousness is an illusion has no observational support at all. It is just a statement apparently out of the blue.

2) Complexity of brain and consciousness are correlated – again I agree with you. But as above, this doesn’t imply that when our brains reached a certain level of complexity consciousness emerged. It just presupposes that consciousness is an emergent property of complex interactions within the brain i.e. it is a circular argument.

I'm not presupposing that consciousness is an emergent property of a brain, only suggesting that it appears to require a brain to exist. And if that is the case, what other explanation makes sense if the correlation is so strong? The common problem with unsolved scientific issues is that this fact leaves the subject open to all kinds of possible explanations and "it could be this" or "it could be that" hypotheses. What evidence is there to support a hypothesis that consciousness is not an emergent property of the brain? It is not sufficient to say that, well, science can't explain it in detail yet so therefore (fill in the blank) is just as plausible or likely. There has to be some evidence or rationale for an alternative explanation.

1) The underlying assumption is that consciousness is explained completely by brain activity. So if this assumption is true, of course “no brain, no consciousness”. The problem is this becomes a tautology – as you were trying to use this to show that consciousness is solely the product of brain activity.

No ... my point was that the dead person has appeared to lose consciousness as there is no way to communicate or interact in any way with the deceased person, and no evidence to support that this dead person's consciousness has somehow survived the expiration of the physical body. This is an observation which suggests that the death of the brain also resulted in the termination of consciousness for that person. I am not making any assumptions on whether consciousness is an emergent property of the brain with that example ... I'm simply pointing out that all evidence in situations like this imply that the dead person's consciousness has indeed terminated with the death of the physical brain. It is an observation. Has there ever been a verified instance of someone communicating with a dead person, or some other activity with them after their death, or that their consciousness has somehow survived in some way?

2) Of course neuroscience shows a correlation between conscious experience and brain activity. What measuring brain activity is not able to access is the actual conscious experience itself.

Right, so it cannot make a determination one way or the other on whether the conscious experience is a direct result of brain activity, only that they appear to be highly correlated. It cannot falsify the hypothesis that consciousness is a result of normal brain activity, or confirm it. It can provide more evidence of a high correlation.

Perhaps the easiest way to illustrate this is with the “Mary the brain scientist” thought experiment. Mary is a leading expert on the neuroscience of vision but was born blind. She has an intricate understanding of the neurochemistry and neurobiology of vision. If she gains the ability to see does she learn anything new about vision? If brain activity explains conscious experience completely then the answer I think has to be no. But if conscious experience is distinct from brain activity then the answer would be yes - she does learn something new about vision.

I don't see how this helps the argument that consciousness is or is not an emergent property of the brain. The premise is that Mary would learn more about vision if she gained the ability to see herself, if conscious experience is distinct from brain activity, but would not otherwise. This suggests that she somehow utilized conscious experience once she could see to learn more about vision, but sight is also a function of brain activity in the processing of signals from the visual cortex to create the perception of images. So she may simply be using other functions of her brain that were not active before (ie. the visual cortex), rather than some magical function of consciousness that was lurking about distinct from other brain functions.

Neuroscience data also shows the limits of brain activity as a sole explanation of people's conscious experience.

How so? Does it actually show this, or does it only show an incomplete understanding of the subject and no definitive conclusions?

[Thomas123]

"Everything is self-evident" Descartes

I find it revealing that my basic point here ,goes unchallenged. Look at the implications of consciousness, simply being a consequence of evolutionary life.

No mystery or miracles...
No resurrection or afterlife as religiously imagined.
No exclusivity for us that has not been self-contrived.
The need for us to deal with our obvious impermanence.
No Christ, no Angel's, no consciousness simulation, no consciousness bubble, no......

Just life getting on with living!

A cosmic anomaly with it's own earth peculiarity!

Let's try and keep things simple.

I welcome considerations on this matter.