Does consciousness exist?

[bernee51]

"Does consciousness exist?"

William James asked in 1904, in an essay of the same name.

He answered that consciousness does not exist. He based this on the thought that if one looks at consciousness carefully it will be seen that it’s not a thing, not an object, not an entity. Consciousness is simply one with whatever is immediately arising. I look at a mountain. Biologically, that is, as part of the biosphere, I see the shape, form etc. With consciousness, ‘seeing ‘ with the mind, actng in the noosphere, I do not so much see the mountain as experience it. It is not an object. The mountain and I are one in the immediacy of the experience.

So in this sense, consciousness does not exist.

Objective studies of consciousness, however, hold that it develops (evolves?) as we go through life stages. Starting out at the sensoriphysical, moving through impulse and image, symbols and concepts and so on. This gives the idea that, as it can be studied, consciousness is an objective entity.

So, does consciousness exist?

[bernee51]

It is much too perfect a concept and strikes me as one of those hopeless, useless arguments about "what separates us from the animals" or "plants" or whatever. The concept of consciousness that I have in my mind, as it were, surely exists because I can experience it in the same way that others say that they experience theirs. But I don't think that "having a consciousness" quite captures the situation because, in the way you phrased it...

I see 'consciousness' as a continuum rather than something that is switched on or off depending on the species.

Is the concept of an 'individual self' actually consciousness...or something that is projected onto consciousness...sort of like a movie is projected onto a screen?

I can't think of it like this because of my view that the brain is the mind. You seem to be arguing, on a biological level, that we can separate the brain from the mind (the consciousness from the self).

Not at all - without a brain we would not have a mind. Consciousness is a funcion of the mind. The sense of self is a figment of the mind.

Doesn't that put the burden of proof on the reality of the world unnecessarily on the mind side of the blood-brain barrier?

The physical world is just that and we are part of it. How we relate to it and what we make of it is most definately on the mind side. The physical world, of course, can and does have an effect on the mind - and vica versa.

The development of the various levels of human consciousness as described by modern psychology mirro.rs the development of consciousness in the species as a whole.

Could you explain this a little more or point to a source for it? It sounds interesting.

I haven't overlooked this...I have been atrifle busy and will attempt to get to it over the next couple of days.

cheers

b

[ST88]

I see 'consciousness' as a continuum rather than something that is switched on or off depending on the species.

That makes more sense considering your above statement about the evolutionary development of consciousness in humans. That would also imply that consciousness itself can be altered and diminished through various sequelae, which I suppose has been shown.

Is the concept of an 'individual self' actually consciousness...or something that is projected onto consciousness...sort of like a movie is projected onto a screen?

I can't think of it like this because of my view that the brain is the mind. You seem to be arguing, on a biological level, that we can separate the brain from the mind (the consciousness from the self).

Not at all - without a brain we would not have a mind. Consciousness is a funcion of the mind. The sense of self is a figment of the mind.

Well, OK. But not in the same way that you mean. The mind does not speak with one voice, as has been shown with corpus collosum experiments, so the "self" is an illusion of congruence between various sources of information. However, this itself implies that there are many different sources that make up the self, which brings us back to the consciousness problem. I am "aware" of things because out of the different parts of my brain that convey awareness, those things that instictively should stand out get shouted louder than other pieces of information. And the "I" in this case, is the separate meta-awareness of my sensate (and internal) experiences. If suddenly, my senses go dark, do I still have self? yes; consciousness, yes; awareness, no. In what circumstance would I be able to answer no to self but yes to consciousness?

Doesn't that put the burden of proof on the reality of the world unnecessarily on the mind side of the blood-brain barrier?

The physical world is just that and we are part of it. How we relate to it and what we make of it is most definately on the mind side. The physical world, of course, can and does have an effect on the mind - and vica versa.

This doesn't account for the reflexive action of the mind or of the PNS. There are ways that the body (and even the mind) can respond without reflective action of the mind, unconscious changes to body chemistry or even movements we as conscious beings are not in control of (not just gambling addiction or the like, but the effects of pornography, for example, or of stepping on a tack, or getting whacked in the knee with a hammer). Isn't there strong evidence of an outside world in that reflexive moment?

[bernee51]

If suddenly, my senses go dark, do I still have self? yes; consciousness, yes; awareness, no. In what circumstance would I be able to answer no to self but yes to consciousness?

where is you consciousness when you sleep - deep sleep not dream sleep. Do you stil have a self then? If so, are you conscious of that self?

As a side note advaita vedanta lists four 'levels' of consciousness - the waking state, dream sleep and deep (dreameless) sleep and turiya - pure consciousness.

From wiki...

The first two states are defective as experiences of reality and truth because of their flawed dualistic natures of subject and object, self and not-self, ego and non-ego. In the third state, dreamless sleep, one is not conscious of external or internal objects. But that does not mean consciousness is not present there. It is like saying 'I don't see anything in darkness'. The recognition that I don't see anything is what I 'see'. So also in dreamless sleep, one is not conscious of anything and the very fact that this statement is true proves the existence of consciousness during deep sleep.

In other words consciousness is the constant factor in all the three states and it is unaffected by the presence or absence of objects. Consciousness itself does not require to be revealed by another consciousness. It is self-revealed.While everything is presented to consciousness and is revealed by it, consciousness itself is not presented to anything else. It is never an object in relation to another subject. It is that which underlies both subject and object. It is the fourth, the turiya, the brahman.

This doesn't account for the reflexive action of the mind or of the PNS. There are ways that the body (and even the mind) can respond without reflective action of the mind, unconscious changes to body chemistry or even movements we as conscious beings are not in control of (not just gambling addiction or the like, but the effects of pornography, for example, or of stepping on a tack, or getting whacked in the knee with a hammer). Isn't there strong evidence of an outside world in that reflexive moment?

Sure there is an outside world - we live in it. What we make of it though is in the mind. The reflexive action - as you note - occurs without 'conscious' effort. But is it still of the continuum of cosnciousness? I think so. in that case, is the reflexive action of a heliotrope in response to sunlight an indication of a level of conciousness in a flower.

BTW I haven't forgotten you request re. the evolution of consciousness and development of human consciousness inthe individual

[ST88]

If suddenly, my senses go dark, do I still have self? yes; consciousness, yes; awareness, no. In what circumstance would I be able to answer no to self but yes to consciousness?

where is you consciousness when you sleep - deep sleep not dream sleep. Do you stil have a self then? If so, are you conscious of that self?

Sleep is odd. That's about all I can say about it. Sure, I can say I still have a self when I am in alpha-wave or beta-wave sleep. My "awareness" function not being functional at this time is a part of the self that I am trapped in. It's just a fact of being conscious that I must slip into unconsciousness from time to time. From an evolutionary perspective, I guess I could say that my brain just needs a break from all this awareness.

As we are using the term "consciousness" here to say that any living human would have consciousness, I still can't separate the two. The structure of the brain is altered by its repeated use (& misuse, if you like), & which can be manipulated with both conscious and unconscious effort, which is evidence of a material self and consciousness right there. Though I could see an argument that there is a difference between the cogno-propulsive process and the physical action of the brain, I believe I would ultimately see that as more of a bio-feedback cycle than as two separate processes. Which is probably neither here nor there regarding this argument. We may be arguing for the same thing using different words at this point.

But to address the four states of consciousness: I'd have to disagree. I would argue that these states are not as static as the theory implies. There are hallucinations, for example, dreams while waking like night terrors. I could also argue that the awareness function of the brain merely skips over those "dreamless" sleep states because they produce no useful information for the purposes of dreaming. The awareness function often tries to piece together several different dreams into a quasi-cohesive narrative -- and occasionally (by accident, let's say) ends or begins with a dreamless state being interpreted as birth or death or an abyss into which one falls or pops out of. In other words, the awareness part of the mind is aware of the unawareness, if you will, and is trying to contextualize it like any other piece of information. There are also individuals who do not enter REM sleep. I would therefore argue not that these are "states" or "levels" or even a dimensional "continuum" of consciousness(es), but that this is a gestalt system in which these certain things happen due to biological factors. That we may call it consciousness or even levels of consciousness says less about the process than it does about how we like to name and categorize things. O the lonely life of the materialist...

Sure there is an outside world - we live in it. What we make of it though is in the mind. The reflexive action - as you note - occurs without 'conscious' effort. But is it still of the continuum of cosnciousness? I think so. in that case, is the reflexive action of a heliotrope in response to sunlight an indication of a level of conciousness in a flower.

I don't think it is, and I don't think reflexivity(?) in a person is either. I think it's a strictly biological reaction. But then I feel consciousness is a strictly biological reaction. Hmm. I guess you could say that only upon reflection can reflexiveness be understood for what it is. That's kind of a paradox though, because once you realize that your brain can interact with the world without you realizing it, you are made aware of it. ... ... ... I'm going to have to think about this some more.

BTW I haven't forgotten you request re. the evolution of consciousness and development of human consciousness inthe individual

I'm glad someone did, because it had already purchased a bus ticket out of town in my mind...

[QED]

In the third state, dreamless sleep, one is not conscious of external or internal objects. But that does not mean consciousness is not present there. It is like saying 'I don't see anything in darkness'. The recognition that I don't see anything is what I 'see'. So also in dreamless sleep, one is not conscious of anything and the very fact that this statement is true proves the existence of consciousness during deep sleep.

A poor argument by an impoverished analogy I would say. What we do know is that our perceptual context is easily broken. We can be conscious at one spacetime coordinate and then find ourselves at a totally different set of coordinates with no experience in between. Only memory can act as a constant connection for us.

[Fisherking]

"Does consciousness exist?"

Do you know who you are?

[bernee51]

"Does consciousness exist?"

Do you know who you are?

Very good question.

What is your answer to the question "Who am I?"

[Fisherking]

"Does consciousness exist?"

Do you know who you are?

Very good question.

What is your answer to the question "Who am I?"

I am Fisherking on this message board.
Do you know who you are?

[arayhay]

"Does consciousness exist?"

William James asked in 1904, in an essay of the same name.

He answered that consciousness does not exist. He based this on the thought that if one looks at consciousness carefully it will be seen that it’s not a thing, not an object, not an entity. Consciousness is simply one with whatever is immediately arising. I look at a mountain. Biologically, that is, as part of the biosphere, I see the shape, form etc. With consciousness, ‘seeing ‘ with the mind, actng in the noosphere, I do not so much see the mountain as experience it. It is not an object. The mountain and I are one in the immediacy of the experience.

So in this sense, consciousness does not exist.

Objective studies of consciousness, however, hold that it develops (evolves?) as we go through life stages. Starting out at the sensoriphysical, moving through impulse and image, symbols and concepts and so on. This gives the idea that, as it can be studied, consciousness is an objective entity.

So, does consciousness exist?

yes it does exist. so does the sub-conscious. this is a very Greek way to look at things. it's dualistic. unfortunately it's illogical. if i want to have a relationship with someone, and i tell them that i only want to be physical with them, their reaction will be less than what i am looking for. they will want the relationship to be emotional, chemical, physical, spiritual and so on. not JUST one or the other, or one at a time.

[AClockWorkOrange]

it seems eroneous for "consciousnes" to be defined as nonexistant, becuase for all practical purposes, i am (regardless how diluded it is) conscious.

this is the same argument against nihilism, becuase regardless if this existance is an illusion, i (on some plane) appear to myself to exist on it, as does my consciousness..