Questioning Consciousness

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Fri May 06, 2016 10:26 am

Sounder » Fri May 06, 2016 12:48 pm wrote:Dr. Evil wrote...
I think a good way to get to what consciousness is for is to try to figure out why we need it. What can't we do without consciousness? Pretty much every other species on the planet does just fine without it, so it's not a necessity. Maybe it's just an evolutionary dead end that we'll either "grow" out of, or it will wipe us out. Our consciousness hasn't exactly helped us maintain a stable ecosystem...


I think you are referring to a particular style of conscious expression, namely ego-consciousness. We may not recognize expressions of consciousness that are far different than our own, but we have no good cause to say that other expressions of being do not display consciousness. Some historians and social critics even say that ego-consciousness did not exist until rather recently.


I think we can confidently remark on what is displayed, about what is observed as this can be recorded. What we can't comment on is the inner world that is not displayed.

Personally, I associate ego-consciousness with rational consciousness that produces a system oriented toward the ethics of maxima, disrupting the homeostatic balance that natural systems depend on.

The brain uses ridiculous amounts of energy for its size so presumably it has to be good for something. I'm leaning towards the "conflict resolution between competing instincts/motor functions in a complex environment" model myself (see the Peter Watts piece I posted earlier in the thread), but that's purely speculative.


It’s worth a shot.
Last edited by jakell on Fri May 06, 2016 10:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Fri May 06, 2016 10:30 am

Here's what I said earlier about sorting out observable expressions of consciousness from those we may merely speculate about:

jakell » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:03 pm wrote:On my previous forum, when we got around to discussing this issue, and looking at consciousness from an evolutionary point of view, we inevitably got around to discussing whether animals are conscious or not.

I stated, for the purposes of argument, that they are not. Not because this isn't possible - who's to say that, a lemming for instance, didn't develop consciousness at one time and even continue with this through it's lifetime? - but they don't display it collectively as a species and pass ideas from one to the other and ideas from generation to generation.
Only because it isn't demonstrable do I put it aside, no real evidence. (apart from Gerald that is)

We get various anecdotes involving pets showing conscious awareness and I would say that this is possible, but they don't go out and transmit it to others and develop this into something more, again the cases are isolated. It's also very interesting that these are nearly always involving (strong?) contact with humans and therefore it could be said that we are the source of this ability, and animals need us as a trigger, it's not inherent in them.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Sounder » Fri May 06, 2016 1:24 pm

Pele’sDaughter wrote…
Consciousness seems to be an energy field although science is having a hard time pinning down the generator. It is probably equally difficult for us to imagine it without reference to ego. Perhaps consciousness is not what we think it is and is present everywhere in the universe, and that all it really takes is a receiver and amplifier to indirectly observe its properties. These would be the physical components, such as ourselves. If we are nodes in a hologram, then this would surely be the case?

I like this,-consciousness as a localized expression of a massive energy field.

jakell wrote...
His approach seems an answer to a few posters here:
Sounder » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:26 pm wrote:...If the brain is more like an amplifier than a computer say, then consciousness might not so much ‘arise’ from the brain, as much as the brain being part of an interface system that provides access to externally generated signals (vibrations)...


DrEvil » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:04 pm wrote:...
How would "consciousness as radio" work? What are the underlying principles, where does the signal come from, and how does it propagate? How does our brain pick it up? And what happens if you tune it to the wrong frequency?...


Admittedly, he does seem to be kicking the can down the road a bit, the radio receiver/transmitter is a medium that, in itself, would require some technical knowledge. The real question is usually about what is on either end of this.


Hear, hear…

jakell wrote...
What is on the 'transmitting' end, according to Hameroff. is what he calls the 'Fundamental Level of the Universe'


Words on a page. What is responsible for organizing the ‘Fundamental Level of the Universe’? (I like Stuart, he is a lot smarter than me, but still.)

but they don't display it collectively as a species and pass ideas from one to the other and ideas from generation to generation.
Only because it isn't demonstrable do I put it aside, no real evidence. (apart from Gerald that is)


Your definition of consciousness appears to require use of intellectual constructs that can be passed around and down, but the more broad definition says simply that it is an awareness or perception of something.

Rational consciousness would be fine if it was a servant to larger aspects of consciousness, but as it is, it thinks that it not only rules the roost, it thinks it is the only thing in the roost.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Fri May 06, 2016 2:12 pm

Sounder » Fri May 06, 2016 5:24 pm wrote:Words on a page. What is responsible for organizing the ‘Fundamental Level of the Universe’? (I like Stuart, he is a lot smarter than me, but still.)

The phrase 'fundamental level of the Universe' is problematic I agree, but it certainly can't be examined in a cause/effect fashion.. nothing causes or organises it, this is implicit in the word 'fundamental'.

This is more of a metaphysical notion, and plays into a (fundamental) belief system.. you either believe there is a basic level, or that it is turtles all the way down through infintiy. The phase obviously addresses the former.
Really though, one can treat it as an assumption and still use the concept, we don't need absolute belief, just a temporary notion, a hypothesis to be followed through.

It does fit fairly nicely into Quantum physics though.. when we get to the Planck level of things, no more divisibility is possible, so it can be regarded as a fundamental level. In other words, it's not just new age twaddle (New Agers have aped this very well though, hence the surface similarity) there a bit more to it than that.

Your definition of consciousness appears to require use of intellectual constructs that can be passed around and down, but the more broad definition says simply that it is an awareness or perception of something.

Rational consciousness would be fine if it was a servant to larger aspects of consciousness, but as it is, it thinks that it not only rules the roost, it thinks it is the only thing in the roost.


I haven't really attempted a definition of consciousness**, just discussed some of those of others. You broad definition here seems to fit with what Chalmers calls the 'easy problem'. The hard one is the subjective aspects that that we have trouble explaining (unless, like Dennet, you say there is no hard problem).

I don't see anything wrong with rational consciousness 'ruling the roost', as above, we can treat that as a temporary assumption.. the contents of the present frame. Whether some people believe this to be an absolute fact doesn't change the results.


** I'm using 'intellectual constructs' as an indication of consciousness, not a definition.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby chump » Fri May 06, 2016 7:18 pm

User avatar
chump
 
Posts: 2261
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2009 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Sounder » Sun May 08, 2016 6:58 am

nothing causes or organises it, this is implicit in the word 'fundamental'.

like I wrote, words on a page.

when we get to the Planck level of things, no more divisibility is possible, so it can be regarded as a fundamental level.

Wow, and said with such confidence.
I don't see anything wrong with rational consciousness 'ruling the roost', as above, we can treat that as a temporary assumption.

Yes, you and billions of other folk feel that more rational consciousness is always better while Gregory Bateson feels that this is driving an ethics of Maxima and ruining the homeostatic balance of individuals, culture and society.
** I'm using 'intellectual constructs' as an indication of consciousness, not a definition.

Nice try, but when you suggest that animals do not have consciousness because they do not pass ideas around, you seem to be equating rational consciousness with all of consciousness.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Sounder » Sun May 08, 2016 7:05 am

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/04/06/h ... roscience/
Heart Consciousness the Next Frontier in Brain and Neuroscience

Dr. Fahad Basheer, Contributor
Waking Times
During organ transplantation there have been numerous reports of emotions, memories and experiences being transferred along with organ which is been transplanted from donor to the recipient.

Dr. Pearsall, an American cardiologist, has collected the cases of 73 heart transplant patients and 67 other organ transplant recipients and published them in his book, “The Hearts Code” (1). Here is a sample of a case that has been reported:

Claire Sylvia develops desire for chicken nuggets and green peppers.

On May 29, 1988, an American woman named Claire Sylvia received a heart transplant at a hospital in Yale, Connecticut. She was told that her donor was an 18 year-old male from Maine who had just died in a motorcycle accident.

Soon after her operation, Sylvia declared that she felt like drinking beer, something she hadn’t particularly been fond of before. Later, she observed an uncontrollable urge to eat chicken nuggets and found herself drawn to visiting the popular chicken restaurant chain, KFC.

She also began craving green peppers which she hadn’t particularly liked before. She started behaving in an aggressive and impetuous manner following the surgery. Sylvia also began having recurring dreams about a mystery man named Tim, whom she felt was the organ donor.

She searched for obituaries in newspapers published from Maine and was able to identify the young man whose heart she had received. His name had indeed been Tim. After visiting Tim’s family, she discovered that he used to love chicken nuggets, green peppers and beer. These experiences are documented in her book, A Change of Heart (2).

In 1974, the French researchers Gahery and Vigier, working with cats, stimulated the vagus nerve (which carries many of the signals from the heart to the brain) and found that the brain’s electrical response was reduced to about half its normal rate when stimulating the vagus nerve (3).

The heart appeared to be sending meaningful messages to the brain that it not only understood, but also obeyed (4). Later, neurophysiologists discovered a neural pathway and mechanism whereby input from the heart to the brain could inhibit or facilitate the brain’s electrical activity (5).

Dr. Armour introduced the idea of functional “heart brain.” His research revealed that the heart has a complex intrinsic nervous system that is sufficiently refined to qualify as a “little brain” in its own right, due to its independent existence.

The heart’s nervous system contains around 40,000 neurons, called sensory neurites. The heart’s brain is an intricate network of several types of neurons, neurotransmitters, proteins and support cells similar to those found in the brain proper. Its elaborate circuitry enables it to act independently of the cranial brain to learn, remember, and even feel and sense (6).

Information from the heart, including feeling sensations, is sent to the brain through several afferents. These afferent nerve pathways enter the brain at the area of the medulla, and cascade up into the higher centers of the brain, where they may influence perception, decision making and other cognitive processes (7).

When heart rhythm patterns are coherent the neural information sent to the brain facilitates cortical function. This effect is often experienced as heightened mental clarity, improved decision making and increased creativity. Additionally, coherent input from the heart tends to facilitate the experience of positive feeling states (8).

States of increased heart rhythm coherence are associated with improvements in cognitive performance (9). The brain’s alpha wave activity is synchronized to the cardiac cycle. During states of high heart rhythm coherence, alpha wave synchronization to the heart’s activity significantly increases (10).

The heart’s afferent neurological signals directly affect activity in the amygdala and associated nuclei, an important emotional processing center in the brain. The amygdala is the key brain center that coordinates behavioral, immunological, and neuroendocrine responses to environmental threats. It compares incoming emotional signals with stored emotional memories, and accordingly makes instantaneous decisions about the level of perceived threat.

Due to its extensive connections to the limbic system, it is able to take over the neural pathways, activating the autonomic nervous system and emotional response before the higher brain centers receive the sensory information (11).

The heart communicates information to the brain and throughout the body via electromagnetic field interactions. The heart generates the body’s most powerful and most extensive rhythmic electromagnetic field. The heart’s magnetic component is about 500 times stronger than the brain’s magnetic field and can be detected several feet away from the body.

It was proposed that, this heart field acts as a carrier wave for information that provides a global synchronizing signal for the entire body (12). There is now evidence that an influential electromagnetic communication system operates just below our conscious awareness. Energetic interactions possibly contribute to the magnetic attractions or repulsions that occur between individuals, and also affect social relationships.

It was also found that one person’s brain waves can synchronize to another person’s heart (13). When people touch or are in proximity one person’s heartbeat signal is registered in the other person’s brainwaves (14). When two people are at a conversational distance, the electromagnetic signal generated by one person’s heart can influence the other person’s brain rhythms.

When an individual is generating a coherent heart rhythm, synchronization between that individual’s brainwaves and another person’s heart-beat is more likely to occur (15).

Individuals capable of generating high ratios of heart coherence were able to alter DNA conformation according to their intention. Intending to denature (un-wind) or renature (wind) the DNA had corresponding effects on the UV spectra (16). As people learn to sustain heart-focused positive feeling states, the brain can be brought into entrainment with the heart (17). The conclusion is the need of pointing to the heart as the center of consciousness (18
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Sun May 08, 2016 7:20 am

Sounder » Sun May 08, 2016 10:58 am wrote:
nothing causes or organises it, this is implicit in the word 'fundamental'.

like I wrote, words on a page.

when we get to the Planck level of things, no more divisibility is possible, so it can be regarded as a fundamental level.

Wow, and said with such confidence.
I don't see anything wrong with rational consciousness 'ruling the roost', as above, we can treat that as a temporary assumption.

Yes, you and billions of other folk feel that more rational consciousness is always better while Gregory Bateson feels that this is driving an ethics of Maxima and ruining the homeostatic balance of individuals, culture and society.
** I'm using 'intellectual constructs' as an indication of consciousness, not a definition.

Nice try, but when you suggest that animals do not have consciousness because they do not pass ideas around, you seem to be equating rational consciousness with all of consciousness.


Bolded parts in order:

1) Not really, I said it 'can be regarded' as a fundamental level. ie a temporary assumption as the Planck level has resisted all attempts at penetration.

2) Not really. I have not said that 'rational consciousness' is better (why better?) but that it is the only construct that is demonstrable if we wish to build a model.

jakell » Fri May 06, 2016 6:12 pm wrote:...I don't see anything wrong with rational consciousness 'ruling the roost', as above, we can treat that as a temporary assumption.. the contents of the present frame. Whether some people believe this to be an absolute fact doesn't change the results....


3) I have not suggested that animals do not have consciousness:

jakell » Sun Apr 24, 2016 8:03 pm wrote:
On my previous forum, when we got around to discussing this issue, and looking at consciousness from an evolutionary point of view, we inevitably got around to discussing whether animals are conscious or not.

I stated, for the purposes of argument, that they are not. Not because this isn't possible - who's to say that, a lemming for instance, didn't develop consciousness at one time and even continue with this through it's lifetime? - but they don't display it collectively as a species and pass ideas from one to the other and ideas from generation to generation.
Only because it isn't demonstrable do I put it aside, no real evidence. (apart from Gerald that is)

We get various anecdotes involving pets showing conscious awareness and I would say that this is possible, but they don't go out and transmit it to others and develop this into something more, again the cases are isolated. It's also very interesting that these are nearly always involving (strong?) contact with humans and therefore it could be said that we are the source of this ability, and animals need us as a trigger, it's not inherent in them.


I'd use some bold to highlight the salient points but I think the caveats I've used are plain enough, even if they are going to need a lot of repetition. Also, I left the link headers in (is that so hard?)
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby 82_28 » Sun May 08, 2016 7:21 am

Interesting for sure, Sounder and thanks. At least for me it makes me curious as to the origins of "have heart" or "take heart in" "he/she has a good heart" "he/she is heartless" and etc. Fuck. Now I have to research the etymology which I probably won't get around to. I have this huge unsearchable text on the history of language and I wonder if there is any mention on the early contexts.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby coffin_dodger » Sun May 08, 2016 8:12 am

Thanks, Sounder. The strength of belief in one area is proportional to the strength of disbelief in a conflicting area.
The deeper one is embedded in an established belief, the further the shore of alternatives recedes.
Ho hum, such is human nature, (currently).
User avatar
coffin_dodger
 
Posts: 2216
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:05 am
Location: UK
Blog: View Blog (14)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby Sounder » Sun May 08, 2016 8:33 am

Interesting for sure, Sounder and thanks. At least for me it makes me curious as to the origins of "have heart" or "take heart in" "he/she has a good heart" "he/she is heartless" and etc.


One trouble with the internet is that heart signals are more difficult to translate, transmit and receive in this medium compared to face to face exchanges.

You may do it better than most 82-28, but look at how much effort is spent to accomplish such a task. Most folk seem happy enough simply, in their own mind at any rate, in 'winning' arguments. (in a suicidal drive for more rational consciousness, where the poison is claimed to be the only cure.)

Some day, may we all take a walk in the real world and away from this world of contrivances.

That reminds me; If you find yourself walking through the valley of death.............






























Keep walking.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby 82_28 » Sun May 08, 2016 8:57 am

I hear you. But how is it a book or poem etc can affect you? Language is a powerful way to impart what the heart means to the person. Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting theory not no hell yeah that's totally true. Simply something to think about.

I may be looking to go back to school soon (not sure) to get back into linguistics and cognitive science. Again, not sure. Last time I did it I got a nervous breakdown. Seriously, I way overthink shit and to think about thinking is very scary to me but my biggest fascination and always has been.
There is no me. There is no you. There is all. There is no you. There is no me. And that is all. A profound acceptance of an enormous pageantry. A haunting certainty that the unifying principle of this universe is love. -- Propagandhi
User avatar
82_28
 
Posts: 11194
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 4:34 am
Location: North of Queen Anne
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Sun May 08, 2016 2:56 pm

Sounder » Sun May 08, 2016 12:33 pm wrote:
Interesting for sure, Sounder and thanks. At least for me it makes me curious as to the origins of "have heart" or "take heart in" "he/she has a good heart" "he/she is heartless" and etc.


One trouble with the internet is that heart signals are more difficult to translate, transmit and receive in this medium compared to face to face exchanges.

You may do it better than most 82-28, but look at how much effort is spent to accomplish such a task. Most folk seem happy enough simply, in their own mind at any rate, in 'winning' arguments. (in a suicidal drive for more rational consciousness, where the poison is claimed to be the only cure.)

Some day, may we all take a walk in the real world and away from this world of contrivances.

That reminds me; If you find yourself walking through the valley of death.............


Even though this is correct, I don't see it as a drawback, it's an inherent quality of the medium, to be used and understood, or sentimentally misunderstood. Those who are in denial about this quality of cyberspace tend to end up in ever tighter self-referential groups, which is the opposite of the open mindedness they may claim to support.

Once one accepts the 'realities' of whatever medium one chooses to inhabit, then work can begin. Fantasies about a warm egalitarian digital utopia were understandable a decade ago, but now they are evidently naive if one is merely to look around what the net has become.
Nevertheless, it is what it is, and once understood (which can take a while), it is still pretty useful.
Last edited by jakell on Sun May 08, 2016 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby jakell » Sun May 08, 2016 3:04 pm

82_28 » Sun May 08, 2016 12:57 pm wrote:I hear you. But how is it a book or poem etc can affect you? Language is a powerful way to impart what the heart means to the person. Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting theory not no hell yeah that's totally true. Simply something to think about.

I may be looking to go back to school soon (not sure) to get back into linguistics and cognitive science. Again, not sure. Last time I did it I got a nervous breakdown. Seriously, I way overthink shit and to think about thinking is very scary to me but my biggest fascination and always has been.


Books and poems work because the context of relationship between author and reader is pretty well pre-determined, this relationship is also pretty mature.
This maturity is also similar to the reason why religion tells us more about the general human condition that science does. (although science is a pretty keen contender)

This is not the case in cyberspace, it's a free for all . Some of us who have been around it for a while should really have learned to see though a glass darkly by now.. it's not what it promised, but it is what it is.
" Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism"
User avatar
jakell
 
Posts: 1821
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 4:58 pm
Location: North England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Questioning Consciousness

Postby minime » Sun May 08, 2016 6:45 pm

It sets the Pranic – vital – currents free and removes dullness of the brain so that the higher consciousness can come down. Pranayama does not bring dullness in the brain. My own experience, on the contrary, is that brain becomes illumined. When I was practising Pranayama at Baroda, I used to do it for about five hours in the day, – three hours in the morning and two in the evening. I found that the mind began to work with great illumination and power. I used to write poetry in those days. Before the Pranayama practice, usually I wrote five to eight lines per day; and about two hundred lines in a month. After the practice I could write 200 lines within half an hour. That was not the only result. Formerly my memory was dull. But after this practice I found that when the inspiration came I could remember all the lines in their order and write them down correctly at any time.


- Aurobindo Ghose
User avatar
minime
 
Posts: 1095
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 2:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 157 guests