Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness: topic
This is a public forum
A Survey About the Meaning of Consciousness
Alfredo Pereira Jr
Wednesday, 18 June 2008 15:01 UTC
Dear All:
The success of Hans Ricke’s effort to discuss the definition of ‘consciousness’ offers an opportunity to appreciate similar efforts, make comparisons and look for a synthesis.
Chris Nunn (one of the Editors of the Journal of Consciousness Studies, and author of ‘De la Mettrie’s Ghost” and “From Neurons to Notions”) made a very relevant survey 5 years ago, on the (now inactive) Psyche-B discussion list. Below I reproduce a summary of the results (written by Chris) for our discussion
According to Chris, the results seem to show that there is (or at least was) a range of meanings attached to the term ‘consciousness’ , which appear sufficiently different from one another to
imply that people may often be talking past one another when discussing it. What are the main meanings suggested by the results? Can we do anything to improve matters?
Alfredo Pereira Jr.
[Summary by Chris Nunn]
Questionnaire results from 62 respondents to a posting on the Psyche-B list in 2003. The ‘consciousness’ questions (4 – 18) were derived from responses of 20 people on the list to a previous open-ended enquiry as to what they meant by the term ‘consciousness’. Figures in brackets refer to of respondents answering ‘yes’ to each question; the in q. 2 is >100 because a few people had more than one affiliation.
Please note that the 62 respondents were a self-selected sample, from a total of around 600 subscribers to the Psyche-B list at the time.
(1) My age is: < 35 (21) 35 – 55 (47) > 55 (32)
(2) My main professional affiliation is:
Computer studies/AI (15)
Neurology/ neurophysiology (15)
Philosophy (24)
Physics/ mathematics (5)
Psychology (21)
Psychotherapy (6)
Other (26)
(3) My language status is:
Native English speaker (73)
Not native, but am fluent in English (18)
English sometimes gives me problems (8)
(4) Consciousness is the form of mentality with which we are most familiar (45)
(5) Human consciousness comes in a range of grades/intensities (68)
(6) Consciousness is a name for the condition an organism is in when there is something that it is like to be itself (42)
(7) Consciousness is a ‘suitcase’ word for a range of cognitive functions which may not have much in common with one another (35)
(8) Consciousness is an emergent property (52)
(9) Consciousness is a simulation of reality in relation to both the environment and the body (27)
(10) Consciousness is a qualitatively distinct aspect of the universe that human, and perhaps other, brains are able to access and experience (35)
(11) Subjectivity is essential to consciousness (63)
(12) Consciousness is the difference we perceive when we wake from
dreamless sleep (40)
(13) Consciousness is characterized by knowledge that we have it; i.e. introspectability/reportability (42)
(14) Consciousness is, in some meaningful sense, a unity (50)
(15) Consciousness is the sum total of the qualia that we experience (32)
(16) Consciousness is a function of human verbal abilities (5)
(17) Consciousness is something which could, in principle, be generated
by machines (39 )
(18) The nature of consciousness is such that animals may share it to some degree (82)
And now for two final questions:
(19) The list of statements (4 – 18) misses one or more essential characteristics of consciousness (47)
If ‘yes’, please describe what is missing.
(20) None of the statements (4 – 18) captures the essence of consciousness (32)
If ‘yes’ please state what concept(s) are missing.
The final two questions show that around half the respondents (13 people answered ‘yes’ to both questions) thought the statements incomplete or very incomplete, but their responses were a mixed bag. Some identified concepts that were missing from the list (intentionality; some notion of dynamic interaction with physical, social and cultural environments; emotional, ethical and spiritual dimensions). Others made cryptic statements or expressed puzzlement. A few stated their personal theories. A final subgroup re-worded one or more of the statements provided (when it was very obvious that this was what they had done they were given a ‘yes’ in relation to the appropriate statement, even if they had not already provided it themselves; this was done in 7 cases, most often in relation to question 7).
[PS.: I remember I put an X in “English sometimes gives me problems” – Alfredo]
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
Re: Alfredo
I like question 7 the best because I can reduce it to alternatives with which to construct a definiton. My thoughts proceed:
A) Consciousness is the product of many different physiological functions-granted. However it is either one thing that is the consequence of many functions or it is many things derived from many functions. One cannot say the word “I” and be refering to many things. If one wishes to define consciousness as many things he must then escape from his automatic perceptions in search of truth, which, in doing so, automatically defines the truth to be beyond the scope of percpetion-i.e total abstraction. Reflecting a step further, this implies that that there is no truth to be found from perceptions. One can chase windmills this way, seduced by perplexity, but this seduction is also the ultimate cause of the pathologies that motivate our inquiry’s to start-maybe even more so than we perceive they do if we can assume that we are always seduced by perplexity, the world is nothing but perplexing, and the pathology discussed is nothing but derived from (is) an altered physicial path—an, unpercieved loss of physical (physical = at some level of processing) bearing which is even more perplexing and seducing, creating a propensity for abstaction. in the absence of evidence one would hardly be inclined to do other wise. we ‘smell’ perplexity and abstract about it at all levels at which sometimes there are tangible solutions that can be pinned to a location and events. What else do we do but make decisions based on evidence which is always incomplete/open? itis possible from exploration at this level to intuitively suggest that we really do not know anything but perplexity itself-why cannot we define consciousness this way?
-
Dear Marvin:
The search for truth leading to perplexity is the tragedy of contemporary Philosophy. Is “consciousness” the same tragedy? I do not think so, since consciousness is something every human being (and possibly every animal, each one with a proper degree) has, while the search for truth and the resulting pleperxity is an activity found in very few animals.
On the other hand, I agree with you that the conscious subject (the “I”) is unitary for each living being.Best
Alfredo
-
Re: Alfredo “The search for truth leading to perplexity is the tragedy of contemporary Philosophy. Is “consciousness” the same tragedy? I do not think so, since consciousness is something every human being (and possibly every animal, each one with a proper degree) has, while the search for truth and the resulting pleperxity is an activity found in very few animals.”
I think you are correct if one defines perplexity in a common sense such that one must assert himself cognitively to be perplexed -and it seem that only humans can do that. If one defines it simply as in the laboratory training of a rat for instance—one can say the rat is ‘perplexed’ at each decision point encountered in his training all can be reduced to decision making which is conditionable in both humans and rats. By “perplexity” I mean openess in the sense that a choice always exists-the future cannot be predicted. One can in this sense attribute perplexity to passive perception, daydreaming, mindless stareing in the absense of attention/thought – maybe there is a better word since we associate ‘perplexity’ with active questioning. I think the universe is a perplexity whether we are thinking about it or not, have question or not; in the sense that all facets of it are actively seeking; from the chemical, molecular, to the conscious self. The word perplexity does entail awareness, openness of nature, that might have an additional form in humans involving active abstraction which can become pathological-from this view with perplexity at the head, a space is needed for defeating abstraction- and is driven by an innately possesed desire to be seduced by the open. At all levels-one might be able to accomodate sexuality in the same definition-its’ spciala nd psychological aspects as well as to maintain still a place for lower animals etc. In a pathological state, if a defining fact of the open is absent, abstraction can exceed the oneness that is necessary and primary to meaning. I view many science ideas, when direct evidence is not directly/ physically available (electrons/photons with mass that cannot be weighed etc.) as incoherent -abstracted and failing also eventually as you suggest philosophy to fail. My ideas come from a combination of both science and philosophy. The difference, I think may be new to myself, is that I view the world as a surface(area/volume) that begins (near zero or early times ) with the highest complexity/sequestering (as one might view the brain to be exceedingly complex/sequestered) verses the highest energy state. As process not appearing very different from that structured from the laws of thermodynamics-e.g conservation of energy, loss of order with time, but studyable only with ratios in which change occurs change in a direction towards neutral. In my theory it would make no difference whether one visualized the start state as a more complex reflecting brain, or simply a more complex, more seqestered surface(long routes to ground) surface (single sided theoretically from which volume and space are only theoretically extrapolated). This is different from the statistical interpretation that exists -says that an (a surface) arrangement preexistes each present arrangement-though possibility may be ascribed to chance and randomness, that a specific, non statistical and unknowable beginning (or as ratio of the present to the past) state existed from we arrived..ad-infinitum (for ever). Passively stare in any direction, to rest the eye ? etc. and it is some form of ‘perplexity’, openess/seeking that funds all metabolic energy. I call it perplexity, though one might associate perplexity normally with only human confusion, in that if one could project a human to be at any or all intersections that exist, he will find a paradox with exclusion..so one can say it is a perplexity whether he is there or not, or even go farther to say, confusingly, that the properties of cognition are also properties of everything and that there woul dno t be an intersection where man could (would) not potentially be
-
This content has been removed by the forum moderators.
-
What was surprising to me: the high level of agreement in question (16) Consciousness is a function of human verbal abilities. Only 5% had this view.
Regarding how often consciousness and mind are referred to as synonymns, that is a real surprise. Most participants must have a view of consciousness that it experiences sort of directly, without going via a reflection using language and abstraction. Possibly in a sense like in ‘creature consciousness’ ( Rosenthal ) or ‘core consciousness’ ( Damasio ).
Mental refection is necessary for many higher level forms of consciousness I believe. So people must have the view that consciousness is in the first place something basic and the higher functions are regarded in a different context.
-
Repost: My last post was rearranged and I am reposting it.
A couple of spelling errors in last post : ..’a space (with a framework delineated by perplexity/paradox) is needed for ‘defining’ rather than ‘defeating’ abstraction.’
It may be hard to construe, as I am suggesting, that a (the) paradox exists materially, tangibly whether a mind construes it by interpretation or not..a basic logical way/construction to the world in everything held in contrast to a capacity to perceive otherwise-individuals as ballons that are inflated to occupy space but can only see in one direction at a time, much less appear as a mistaken perception or cognition to fill space differently than surrounding non-inflated space a randomess -has been said a million ways over history. I like the word “mirrors” the best but one must also be carefull with it as the statement ‘man as a measure of all things’is not the same as ‘man mirrors nature’. I think the best potential turning point in history is with Boethius and the notion that “knowledge is dependent on the nature of the knower” with respect to an all knowing god,divine foreknowledge and the free will of men”. One may today think it logical to reject foreknowledge and give god a free will that is inherited by man, or say scientifically that it makes no matter altogether as the issue is illogical,beyond experience intothe supernatural, but this is only a contemporary view-from a looking back to view growth-and does not necessarily have to be a correct view with postive progress. I think the best example in philosophy to use as contrast to illustrate is with in the words of Saint Augustine ( and others also) that “given an infinite amount of time all that is possible to have occured,is possible to occur will occur”. I simply disagree with this notion… whether one can conceive of a start/beginning or not..any route can be preceeded only by the specific route that preceeded it…the route to present -the only existence-is singular and not infinite. How can something possess both infinite time and be singular?... “perplexed?” …...This can appear simple…change an event in the past and all will or will not change..
ubiquitous perplexity..why attempt to figure out anything?.. if everything is perplexing what does any perplexity have to do with the price of eggs (maybe oil but not eggs) To jump to the answer to this question …because history ..path of events, is not only what escapes us really (in theoretical theory) but history and path is the actual topic of all discussion, whether in any kind of science, medicine, consciousness, social science, the everyday news.. etc…history can be construed as nothing but a chain of witnessible happenings. I purport that an absent record or witness of something, is the cause of/modulates all the pursuits of modern man. This makes common sense, as many philosophers have tried to expose abstraction and generalization in language for what it is for many centuries, are ignored, givenless prominence,also fall short of real explanation, I attribute it to a simple instinct to seduce a perplexity that exists as a result of a course of ‘witnessible’ events or clues to events rather than existing from question and abstraction. If science can be likened to the collection of evidence at the scene of an accident-suggesting a perplexity -this is yet a second face to a perplexity that always exists. If one is unaware enough of the nature or existence of a specific accident in his data collection, his analysis can go off the map literally-beyond the hiway to an abstracted null/general location;and if learning applied in this way attaines a position at the “steering wheel” where else could it logically lead but off the road if understanding is deficient. I have been told by some that my ideas are not understood, and again are not that complex, that I can conceive of a different path of history (within the “road-accident senerio presented”), in which my ideas could be common. It is hard to say whether science or philsophy is blamable for failure, but I think it is important to understand that it is behavior that underlies all ..e.g. if science had come up with the accepted idea the ice was hotter than rain because it had more energy and order, a matter of perspective of emptyness verses fullness, fatalism, or if people were construed as the lowest evolved species because they were the youngest-would modulate what type of science evolves; or in a second example in which fact is not involved at all .. “square, unwhole entities not only are the building blocks for architecture but composed the rudiments of all” if one only built buildings..the validity of accepted fact becomes superfulous..is a matter of what people do from what they construe of life.
That is also perplexing-a paradox. If everything involves a paradox we should see only paradoxes also in the microscope – and I believe it is all that is essentially there.Marvin
-
” If everything involves a paradox we should see only paradoxes also in the microscope – and I believe it is all that is essentially there”
the derivation of meaning is grounded in the brain’s mediation processes where they are asymmetric and self-referencing. A consequence of such is (a) the autological – we can get something to describe itself and (b) paradoxical where we confuse part/whole dynamics in interpretations.
See examples in my text on paradox
For fuller coverage of anti-symmetry/asymmetry/symmetry in our brains see the categories
An essential point is that all of our experiments etc reflect our brains and so we can FORCE paradox to emerge due to failure in understanding what we are dealing with. IDM brings out how all of that works.
Chris.
-
Dear Hans:
The results to questions (5) and mainly (18) reinforce your comment. It seems the majority of respondents agree that consciousness has degrees and that human linguistically mediated consciousness is just one step in the evolutionary ladder.
What called my attention is that only 35% of the respondents answered “yes” to question (10), while 63% answered “yes” to question (11). These results suggest that the majority of researchers were still assuming an objective/subjective dichotomy (“if a property is subjective then it is not objective”, and vice-versa).
In this regard, it is important to remember that the modern concept of consciousness appeared in the History of Philosophy with Hegel (in the book “Phenomenology of Spirit”), exactly when he was criticizing the “opposition of consciousness” in terms of subjective and objective aspects. Hegel’s well-known solution is the idea of a dialectical process that generates new historical realities integrating both sides. Chris Lofting’s efforts (as well as the new transdisciplinary paradigm discussed by E. Morin and B. Nicolescu, among others) are similar to Hegel’s, when proposing a model of thinking that overcomes dichotomies and moves towards progressive integration. One of the differences is that these contemporary authors focus on the negation of the Principle of the Excluded Middle, while Hegel based his philosophical theory on a new concept of Negation that contemporary analytical philosophers systematically refused.Best Regards
Alfredo
-
From my perspective things get very circular when one seeks a concrete footing in definition. From this thought I wish to summarize what I think so that responses in the qustionaire can be sorted into catagories.
assumed starting facts
1) All things emanate from a process of unfolding-physical-psychological etc. 2) History entails two types of demonstrated behavior. a) problem solving that is based on a means to an -=e.g. “I want a free society, so I will purge all those opposed to me” ( a violation of freedoms)-at the root of this phenomenon is a philosophy, sometimes deeply ingrained, that man is a measure of all things. And accordingly assumed freedoms in the approach towards problems. This is an inductive approach that overlapps into the realm of thoughts about creation -an inductive event. b) a more passive approach to problems that involve a philosophy “man is a mirror to nature” rather than an embodiment of it.
At the root, once this division (a verses b)is established is the profound dilemma …what is nature? We evolve from roots where thinking and the employment of language more inline with either a) or with b as the way in which we comprehend and interpret our surrounding. Digging even deeper into mechanisms of brain function, perception we have come across asymmetry, parity, and oscillation as facets common to all-facets that have more of a shape in our minds than actual language. We each will expend different amount of energies to make (theoretical) analogies-for each a different path length, depending on the state of ones acquired understanding (at the outset) will be accomplished = the amount of accomplishment can be greater for one who travels to a more comprehensive view, than one who begins with a well integrated view of himself as a minority in representation of an incomprehensible amount of things that mirror some representation that is not yet grasped or maybe not graspable/only approachable (but I think if a unity exists so does a unifying concept). An added factor is that nature, in my visualization measures and counts only path lengths and not absolutes (concepts)=one must agree that what is measured by nature must also be more important.. concepts turn into abstractions into tools into longer paths -it maybe very hard to see, for instance that the concept of a world as oscillations and asymmetry =which may be actually the case-may have no more practical meaning at some later time than the observation “matter is hard” had at another time, (until we have encountered then the concept of gaseous’ to form a new idea). Even what may appear ‘as the most gifted and creative contributions actually depend, and for rating responses , only on the actual path taken by the exact creating individual and when it comes to science theory I am not sure that much of the darkness that surround us does not emanate from this fact = science itself is second step removed from history which is central to it = history central to all. Once we arrive at, first, a good definition/new concept we can get disappointed that it itself is not an end but part of a path which I think is modulated by the active verses passive consciousness and again modulated/tested for inductive content (which spoils path length/actual accomplishment). Theory, even the best or exactly correct theory(if a correct theory were to exist) is only second or even insignificant with respect to relevance (best relevance=grestest gain in pathlength),a potential good stepping stone if timely and lucky in circumstances) We might find ourselves left with words of understanding (of nature/life)(and subsequent behavioral adjustment) only ( as maybe to the only relevant out come) and science to cause change as inductive only. One who travels from one passive (more innately acquired) construction/explanation of nature to a new other makes the longest trip. The details = facts of his constructions maybe superfluous. When we try to study consciousness the problem of “realism verses nominalism” is all that we do comment on and thus lines the race track in the most esoteric of studies, and wherein nominal/real and longest path length (life time) =if there is logic to anything-must reduce, in synergy, to (a) real (and physical)(of unity?) (humans/earth as the nominal topic) threat to path length. whose features from this perspective might be given easily a good medical at least symptom description) diagnosis by even a beginning doctor= a better definition and universal problem description for all of our orientations, such that I would not take the quest for definitions in consciousness study, the search for unity too seriously, unless your paycheck depends on it, but still not to get ulcers over it. It is, again, not unimportant either.
-
After my last posting, about gains in path length as the measure of real accomplishement I have had a couple of additional thoughts pertinent to the quest for a definition of consciousness. My first thought is about who what populations choose for leaders. recently a(n) ex- criminal was Chosen to lead, I think the Philipines. One might hardly envision this happening in America -all the politician s enter office in good faith and exit after exposure of corruption. In terms of consciousness ‘what was the criminal leader aware of’ (it is awareness that is judged?) -maybe more aware of honesty and the behavior of others than ordinarily encounntered. A better deducer than inducer with respect to others-an exception as an inducinng criminal would be unacceptable. Maybe Americans do not know or are not ready to apply this notion in real life. In some societies, the distinction between the inducer and deducer maybe more innately incorporated. Another example -a country in Europe hsd a transsexual leader. What is he aware of that he is picked to lead. transsexual means to me objectively 1) cannot reproduce 2) has experience living as another gender. Gender means to me in terms of politics, and later in my life with respect to (a conceptual)association of science with politics..power struggle that is directionally oriented with a goal of enlightenment towards the best rationality that is free of that struggle-open. The struggle itself reaches deep into history and is perhaps basic to all of it. How the voters chose, if I think of the worlds problems …overpopulation and the application of science..I might think that the person was elected because he was expected to be aware of “the” central issues to all. He also, depressingly, could bear no offspring and not be very exemplary of a desired future, a very unnaturally arived at atate. In American a woman can hardly win office-all of its’ founders/leaders/decision makers are men. I bring this up with respect to definition of consciousness because in all cases awareness to make active choice is involved. An ever harderproblem involves evolution and consciousness. To extend a definition of consciousness as “awareness applied to make decisions with respect to path” one can start with the random walk of bacteria. I it is random then decision making is not involved; but if their flagella motor apparatus power up to point a distinct path based on sensoryinpit (external input of anykind), Why cant this be called consciuosness? it is not different in basic nature than the complex decisions made by humans…to choose a path that best benefits metabolism. Second, if this is so, maybe we have a more sound instinctual start at survival than we conceive, with the positive decision making mechanism built into, innate with life processes. if so how does error come about?....if food is available can bacteria err? If one assumes what the error is to be suffered in humans, induction, is some form of induction possible in bacteria-obviously the mechanisms of isolation with reproductive barriers in evolution is a form of induction, but is also only a fact of ( but new) expression from recombination from what already exists. In general then the divide can be added to the list of factors involved..mankind has induced his way across divides with a furry, that obviously nature allows if he managed it. He found a way to fly like birds, walk strange lands he could not have ever reached, penetrated cells, produced fertilizations in test tubes, breached the walls of the atom, assaulted other lands with energy derived from it. the list is long and nearly all known parties are happily and busily engaged in the same, or are being pressured or invaded with forcefull coercion to comply with the same. One can only deduce that a violatable natural ethic exits and from this stand point (which may or may not be open, as open, cast in more darkennsss than a general investigation) investigate consciousness with no other thought in mind but to know a natural ethic first as opposed to knowing consciousness.
Results
-