Consciousness

[Dondante]

I'm interested in opinions on the origin of consciousness. By consciousness, I mean specifically this definition:

"The presence of a subjective experience; a qualitative feel.”

I’m referring solely to the subjective quality of experience. This is not to be confused with self-consciousness, which many people seemed to have trouble with in the previous thread. Consciousness requires only awareness of the external world. From this definition, I'd say that it's reasonable to assume that at least all higher mammals are conscious, and there's likely room for consciousness in other animals as well. Personally, I'm not convinced that the panpsychist theory of consciousness is too unbelievable.

Also, let's avoid conflating the psychological mind with the phenomenological mind. I mean to consider ONLY the subjective quality of experience; the fact that it is like something to be you. I believe psychology can be explained through third-person data, although our understanding of it is far from complete at this point, but the existence of a subjective experience is utterly unexplainable.

S_S, you say consciousness evolved, or was selected for, but I'm hesitant to believe that it does anything at all, so that would preclude adherence to the laws of evolution. When you say it was selected for I believe you refer only to the psychological mind. Psychological constructs are undoubtedly subject to evolutionary forces, but I don't believe this is so for the simple fact of subjective experience.

I share psoodonym's skepticism. Here is his statement from the previous thread:

I've never understood why we must experience anything to do things like "learn" to avoid injury etc., and thus to survive.

… I understand how my shirt emerges from cotton, or how in stereochemistry chemical properties emerge irreducibly not from the substance of their constituents but from the immaterial spatial relationships those constituents hold to one another. But while material description does not exhaust the description of properties emerging from spatial relationships, third-person data still does. This is why I'm a little confused by the analogy you make between the digestive system and the mind: because the digestive system's kind of emergence isn't a problem in the same way the mind's is. To go back to stereochemistry, unlike the physical and mental, it's clear that substance and spatial relation aren't two distinct ontological categories.

That the brain is intrinsic to mental interaction with the physical world is obvious, but Intentionality, the fact that mental events are always about something, and physical events never are, is a huge chasm that in my opinion couldn't distinguish between the two more deeply or decisively. "Aboutness" is fantastically different than "thingness". Epiphenomenalism seems like something from nothing. That the mental can fundamentally emerge meaninglessly from the physical just because purely physical, non-experiential components are arranged complexly in certain ways--despite its being the predominant view among scientists--seems like dogmatic and magical thinking to me that falls far short of what our intuitions tell us. Notice the austere distinction between fundamental intuitions about ourselves and our frequently wrong intuitions about the physical world. As a matter of simple epistemic privilege these latter intuitions are the one's frequently displaced by scientific description and not the former.

S_S, I think you also undeservingly put humans on a pedestal by saying we are god. If anything, I’d say humans are no more god than anything else existing in the universe. There is no clear distinction that can be made between humans and the rest of the animate world that would entitle us to a superior status of being. Our superiority is self-ordained, and in contradiction what we know about evolution, interspecies relationships, and the origin of mankind. You seem to think that the neocortex is a special organ that gives rise to consciousness, but I think again you are confusing the psychological mind with the phenomenal. The neocortex did eventually give rise to self-consciousness, but that is a completely different matter.

So what constitutes awareness, and when did it appear? Was it the evolution of the cortex? Did it just pop into existence out of nowhere? I don’t think so, but I’d like to consider other opinions. Was it the evolution of a nervous system? A single neuron? Even amoebas sense their environment. I see no place to draw a line between the aware and the unaware.

 

[time traveler]

^^That was pretty heavy stuff, i needed to get a coffee and read it again

If anything, I’d say humans are no more god than anything else existing in the universe. There is no clear distinction that can be made between humans and the rest of the animate world that would entitle us to a superior status of being.

Animals have been around for 100's of millions of years, And as far as i can tell all they have done is eat sleep fuck and die. In the past 250years we as a race have gone from from simply excepting our existence as the grand design and will of a singular master being (god) to having accurately quantized the particles and dynamics of the entire universe. From the sub atomic to the cosmic we are now masters of our own destiny. Science, Art and philosophical discussions like this define the TINY spark of GOD that exists inside us all. The rest is just mammal with all the shortcomings and habbitual behavior that comes with being mammal.

Consciousness can be interpreted too broadly. My dog and i are both by your definition conscious. We are walking along a new path and both feeling very thirsty. We both consciously see a new tap, but only i have the cognitive ability to know if i turn the handle, water will flow out. Walk down the path a few more times and the dog might habitually associate the tap with water, but nothing more


So it seems conciousness is evolved. The real question is our cognitive ability evolved or divine ? I personally like the idea that many thousands of years ago our ancestors set off a tiny spark by eating too many mushrooms

 

[B9]

My guess would be that a sudden spark of awareness occurred in a 'person' who perhaps was closely connected enough with their 'family' group to communicate things I suspect with eye contact and body language rather than speech. Still today we see more in a persons eyes than we can necessarily glean from their words. The thread will of course be unprovable either way, but that's beside the point. My money is on a perception change allowing different perspective. Maybe drug induced, maybe not. But I assume that this would arise in only a small number of cases maybe only one.

It interests me that many people seem to be of the opinion that creation myths and early mythical or legendary accounts about our ancestry should be so easily dismissed. The people who carried these myths ( or oral histories) were humans. Like us . Would we forget a story told by another when it was our only form of communication ? The memory would be a sharp tool then I imagine.

Speculation pfft. I'm not even sure I've answered the question in anything like the right context actually .But I am sleepy so forgive me.


The way I presume it will have worked would be an awareness of past and future , without that nothing would be worthwhile thinking about! The concept of time is where it's at I think.

 

[TheGreeenGlob]

It interests me that many people seem to be of the opinion that creation myths and early mythical or legendary accounts about our ancestry should be so easily dismissed. The people who carried these myths ( or oral histories) were humans. Like us . Would we forget a story told by another when it was our only form of communication ? The memory would be a sharp tool then I imagine.

^^^ Have you ever played the game telephone as a kid? The original story can't even be passed through 30 people with out it getting changed. Also, like you said, they were human just like us and humans have a tendency to exaggerate, modify, and liven up stories to make them more entertaining and interesting.

S_S, you say consciousness evolved, or was selected for, but I'm hesitant to believe that it does anything at all, so that would preclude adherence to the laws of evolution. When you say it was selected for I believe you refer only to the psychological mind. Psychological constructs are undoubtedly subject to evolutionary forces, but I don't believe this is so for the simple fact of subjective experience.


S_S, I think you also undeservingly put humans on a pedestal by saying we are god. If anything, I’d say humans are no more god than anything else existing in the universe. There is no clear distinction that can be made between humans and the rest of the animate world that would entitle us to a superior status of being. Our superiority is self-ordained, and in contradiction what we know about evolution, interspecies relationships, and the origin of mankind. You seem to think that the neocortex is a special organ that gives rise to consciousness, but I think again you are confusing the psychological mind with the phenomenal. The neocortex did eventually give rise to self-consciousness, but that is a completely different matter.

I think it's possible that all living creatures have consciousness. It's even possible plants have some sort of immediate conscious experience.

I think consciousness would be a necessary tool for survival. The understanding and awareness that you are alive and need to have certain needs met(eating, drinking, mating, etc) would be vital to the development of a species.

Also i'm not sure what was said about humans being gods or on a pedestal but i'll offer my view. I think all things, including humans, are a part of the god force, or "god" as many people would understand it. i think "god" is not an external being, i think "god" is in all things, limitless energy, the energy that makes up everything in the universe. If anyone knows anything about taoism thats basically what i'm taking about. Also fields of science such as quantum physics, in some scientists view, help support this concept. String theory, from the very basic understanding I have, states that inside ever atom the smallest, impossible unit that makes this atom possible is a tiny vibrating strand of energy. Meaning everything in the entire universe from you, your organs, your cloths, planets, space is all made up of energy. Which all means everything in the universe is ONE, and interconnected field of energy and we are effecting that field on a daily basis.

 

[Dondante]

Animals have been around for 100's of millions of years, And as far as i can tell all they have done is eat sleep fuck and die.

When you boil it down, humans aren’t much different. And you skipped my question … I’m not asking about what makes humans different, unless you are saying that humans are the only aware creatures … which is an radical idea, definitely not backed by any scientific evidence. I’m asking specifically about awareness. When did it come to be?

Our awareness is undoubtedly much different from that of other animals … primarily due to the close association of language with our perceptions. But even then, many primates have primitive language systems, and probably have an awareness that matches up with those systems. When the topic of human identity comes up, it seems people want to draw some imaginary line between human and not human, but it doesn’t seem like there is anything magical that sets us apart along the evolutionary tree. We are just another product of evolution.

My guess would be that a sudden spark of awareness occurred in a 'person' who perhaps was closely connected enough with their 'family' group to communicate things I suspect with eye contact and body language rather than speech.

Are you saying that humans are the only species capable of this? I’d say the former came before the latter. And I’m not sure what eye contact and body language have to do with awareness.

My money is on a perception change allowing different perspective.

Again, I’m talking about awareness. “Perception change” seems to mean that there was perception to begin with so that is not what I’m asking about. Here’s what I’m getting at.

Consider the fact that it is like something to be you. I am not a philosophical zombie; I have an experience associated with my existence. Assuming all humans have a subjective experience, what I’m asking is, when did this experience come about? When in evolutionary history did the first life form have an internal experience?

Chalmers states in his book, The Conscious Mind, “Phenomenal states, unlike psychological states, are not defined by the causal roles that they play. It follows that explaining how some causal role is played is not sufficient to explain consciousness. After we have explained the performance of a given function, the fact that consciousness accompanies the performance of the function (if indeed it does) remains quite unexplainable.”

I hope everyone can see the difference here.

Chalmers goes on ... “Does a mouse have a conscious experience? Does a virus? … Either there is something that it is like to be a mouse or there is not, and it is not up to us to define the mouse’s experience into or out of existence. To be sure, there is probably a continuum of conscious experience from the very faint to the very rich; but if something has conscious experience, however faint, we cannot stipulate it away.”

I think consciousness would be a necessary tool for survival. The understanding and awareness that you are alive and need to have certain needs met(eating, drinking, mating, etc) would be vital to the development of a species.

But why? Why couldn’t it be automatic like psoodonym said; why is subjective experience helpful for survival? Isn’t it logically possible that animals could perform all these functions without having any associated conscious experience … an encoded system of reacting to the environment, totally automatic. With regards to understanding you’re alive (aka a self-concept), that may serve a functional role, and thus be evolutionarily advantageous. Still, a self-concept seems to be learned, and not present at birth, whereas consciousness is ever-present. I think our awareness of self makes it very difficult to independently consider the subjective experience definition of consciousness from the self-conscious definition. Analysis becomes tainted when done from our self-conscious viewpoint.

I did enjoy the rest of your post. Thanks for the responses everyone.

 

[Xorkoth]

I will contribute a large post when I have time and have digested this. For now, I just want to ask you Dondante (and others), a question. I agree that self-awareness and consciousness are two different things. In that respect, humans may be different from other animals (although I refuse to believe that no other animal is self-aware). My question is, what do you think is the significance, if any, to the raw force of consciousness, since humans have gained the power of self-awareness? Do you think it could have any sort of impact on the raw force of consciousness at all, or is it just a phenomenon that only affects our subjective experience of life?

 

[5-HT2]

Wasn't there a thread about this in P&S in the not-too-distant past?

 

[Dondante]

^^There may have been. I just wanted to make sure samadhi_smiles, psoodonym, xorkoth, and the rest of the PD crew would contribute. I know many PD'ers don't visit all the forums. This can be moved if necessary ...

 

[Beenhead]

If I wasnt studying right now, Id chime in. Before I go to sleep though.... cool stuff.

 

[Dondante]

And to Xor, here's my take on self-awareness (I've been thinking about it all day). I think self-awareness is a psychological phenomenon (functional and reducible to objective analysis) as opposed to phenomenological. Of course, self-consciousness is associated with a phenomenal state, as are other psychological concepts, but the psychological component is still completely distinct from "raw consciousness." Raw consciousness is characterized only by the way it feels; a psychological concept is characterized by what it does.

Edit: Speaking of reducibility, there was a recent fMRI study that places the physiological location of self-awareness in the superior frontal gyrus.

When the Brain Loses Its Self: Prefrontal Inactivation during Sensorimotor Processing. Neuron 2006 50: 329-339.
http://www.neuron.org/content/artic...l inactivation during sensorimotor processing

If self-awareness can be equated with having an ego, then awareness of the self is an illusion. The ego is nothing more than an automatic mechanism, a psychological construct selected for by evolution. It's shaped by heredity and validated from childhood by social authority. Self-awareness is also learned ... it's lacking in humans at birth, and is never formed in most animals. It can probably be concluded that there are degrees of self-awareness. While humans, some primates, and dolphins can pass the mirror test, humans undoubtedly have a far more developed and acute sense of self-awareness.

Evolution of the neocortex certainly brought about self-consciousness, which must have been adaptive for the human species. It's likely advantageous to be able to recognize that one exists as an individual, separate from others with their own private thoughts for many reasons. Self-awareness probably aided early hominids in cooperating as a group ... created a platform for accountability and increasingly complex social systems.

 

[mulberryman]

Hey, Xorkoth, I think I'd disagree about animals, if only because my cat seems only aware of herself...

 

[Xorkoth]

^^ My 2 cats are amazing... the mother of my other cat, especially, is the most amazing cat I've ever encountered. Everyone who meets her gets the same exact reaction to the energy she puts out. She's only 2 or so, but she has an aura of an ancient motherly archetype of some sort. Also the circumstances in which she came to us are quite amazing. She communicates to an amazing extent through her eyes and body language. And she's just so smart... you could not convince me that she isn't self-aware.

Cats are misunderstood animals, I think. They're just like people though, in that if you don't treat them with respect and regard them as individuals of intelligence, you won't see it.

 

[B9]

And I’m not sure what eye contact

Simple it must come before speech.

humans have a tendency to exaggerate, modify, and liven up stories to make them more entertaining and interesting

In todays society yes, back then we don't know. I think that value would be placed on accurate recall as consciousness expanded then some will probably have begun to slightly alter stories in order to manipulate. However there is no reason to suppose this would have occurred at the start, particularly when they could have been fucking with their survival.

 

[swilow]

How did conciousness emerge? It could be more a question of how matter emerged from conciousness....

 

[Dondante]

^^Or are matter and consciousness inseparable? How deep does the relationship go?

Physics tells us that the world is pure information. Consciousness seems to be something over and above a physical picture of reality; there is an intrinsic quality to it.

I'll quote Chalmers again:

"Physics requires information states but cares only about their relations, not their intrinsic nature; phenomenology requires information states, but cares only about the intrinsic nature. ... We might say that internal aspects of these states are phenomenal, and the external aspects are physical. Or as a slogan: Experience is information from the inside; physics is information from the outside."

 

[B9]

^Perhaps we ( somewhat like on psychedelics at times) are seeing the same thing in two completely different ways !At the same time !

 

[fastandbulbous]

Or are matter and consciousness inseparable? How deep does the relationship go?

Well selective brain damage (strokes etc) can cause radical alterations in conciousness/self awareness, even to the point of abolishing it, but leaving the body's autonomic functions operating as normal (persistant vegitative state). I'd say that points to conciousness being intimately linked to the brain and ruling out the possibility of conciousness existing without having the correct, functioning hardware to run it on

 

[redeemer]

In my opinion, panpsychism, the thought of consciousness as an intrinsic property of matter seems like the most meaningful explanation at the moment. The huge difference in functionality between an atom and the structure of the brain is similar to the huge difference in the consciousness of an atom and the consciousness of the brain. Although admittedly, I only know of this view and the "classic" view that consciousness emerges when matter is arranged in certain patterns (like the brain for example).

In the past 250years we as a race have gone from [...] to having accurately quantized the particles and dynamics of the entire universe.

I disagree with this statement as I don't believe we have done that, and I'm not sure if we ever will. We have developed a theory that describes the universe as consisting of particles but it is only accurate to a certain degree (like all theories before it have been), it is a way of viewing reality not an absolute description of reality "as it is".

I think consciousness would be a necessary tool for survival. The understanding and awareness that you are alive and need to have certain needs met(eating, drinking, mating, etc) would be vital to the development of a species.

But why? Why couldn’t it be automatic like psoodonym said; why is subjective experience helpful for survival? Isn’t it logically possible that animals could perform all these functions without having any associated conscious experience … an encoded system of reacting to the environment, totally automatic.

Thinking about it, I'm not sure I can discern between an animal acting "automatically" and an animal acting consciously. An animal has the sense of sight, what is the difference between it seeing unconsciously, and acting "automatically" on the basis of this, and it seeing consciously and acting consciously on the basis of it?

With regards to understanding you’re alive (aka a self-concept), that may serve a functional role, and thus be evolutionarily advantageous. Still, a self-concept seems to be learned, and not present at birth, whereas consciousness is ever-present. I think our awareness of self makes it very difficult to independently consider the subjective experience definition of consciousness from the self-conscious definition. Analysis becomes tainted when done from our self-conscious viewpoint.

I've often pondered what exactly it means to be self-aware. I don't think I got further than thinking that self-awareness is just an extension of our ability to communicate, ie. we have it because we can say that we have it. What do you think of this?

Well selective brain damage (strokes etc) can cause radical alterations in conciousness/self awareness, even to the point of abolishing it, but leaving the body's autonomic functions operating as normal (persistant vegitative state). I'd say that points to conciousness being intimately linked to the brain and ruling out the possibility of conciousness existing without having the correct, functioning hardware to run it on

It is hard to conclude whether consciousness has been abolished in a human you cannot communicate with. I do agree that consciousness can be diminished by damage to the brain but I don't think this necessarily implies that consciousness springs into existence from atoms arranged in certain patterns.

The thread on panpsychism, or panexperientialism which is the same AFAIK, in Philosophy and Spirituality explains it much better than I can at present moment.

 

[fastandbulbous]

It is hard to conclude whether consciousness has been abolished in a human you cannot communicate with. I do agree that consciousness can be diminished by damage to the brain but I don't think this necessarily implies that consciousness springs into existence from atoms arranged in certain patterns.

Conciousness is more like the software/program running on the hardware (neural matter). It's the neural net arrangement that produces conciousness, but the operation of the neural net correctly is dependant upon have functioning hardware. Damage to the neural net dimishes conciousness, so it's not a great conceptual leap to consider a non functioning neural net to lead to a lack of conciousness.

The fact that specific 'faults' in conciousness is intrinsically related to damage in a certain area of the brain (things like Capgras syndrome, left side neglect etc) is pretty much solid evidence in my eyes

 

[time traveler]

I disagree with this statement as I don't believe we have done that, and I'm not sure if we ever will. We have developed a theory that describes the universe as consisting of particles but it is only accurate to a certain degree (like all theories before it have been), it is a way of viewing reality not an absolute description of reality "as it is".

FFS. all i was trying to say was that we (as a whole) are pretty special and that we are getting there. I would love to see your contributions to the universal theory of everything on some snazzy well produced documentary one day.

When the topic of human identity comes up, it seems people want to draw some imaginary line between human and not human, but it doesn’t seem like there is anything magical that sets us apart along the evolutionary tree. We are just another product of evolution.

I have read this thread over and over and im still trying to see what you are getting at with this awareness thing. Awareness evolved a long time ago. The reason it is evolved is to add randomness and choice into nature. Animals cant be autonomous robots reacting purely to stimuli. They wouldn't get far.


The funny thing is that there is a big dichotomy here. Humans are just another product of evolution, true. At the same time we humans are one of a kind and fucking unique. We share 99% of the genetic code compared to ape. So yeah from an evolutionary standpoint we are just the same wetware and bits and pieces as everything else. But our minds, OH our precious minds are the kicker. Our minds cant be quantified by genetics, they are what makes us special, they are still the most complex computer known to man, it will be some time before we 100% understand our brain. Since consciousness and awareness seem to be a deeply embedded in that brain i dont think you should be worrying about it too much.

Dare i say this but god is what makes us unique. I am not religious and and as i said we are 99.99 percent the same as everything else. But that 0.01% that makes us different is the tiny god inside our mind. That tiny god is responsible for all the amazing technology and understanding in our world today, and the mammal part that remains is responsible most of the crap.

when a mouse is being chased by a cat is it thinking "god i hope i hope i get out of this alive"

i doubt it, but if a dolphin is being chased by a shark then it could be a possibility.

Awareness seems to be an evolutionary necessity, all animals have varying degrees of it and what they get out of it is infinitely debatable. But do any animals have a concept of god ? and might they get it when they pass the mirror test ?

Lastly Dondante do you think trees are aware ?