Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
The quest for a definition of the term 'consciousness'
Hans Ricke
Saturday, 17 May 2008 08:55 UTC
Arnold chose this expression of a quest to refer to what I am doing elsewhere, in fact almost fulltime since a while.
And he also gave his own definition, which is a remarkable one :
“I suggest the following succinct definition:
Consciousness is a transparent phenomenal experience of the world from a privileged egocentric perspective."
My actual concern is the situation that no generally agreed upon definition or a set of definitions exists within the fields of science that are working on the phenomenon of consciousness. This missing definition could be a kind of minimal consensus, with very few properties, but even that does not seem to exist.
There are many different views on this matter:
Thomas Metzinger: – an ill-defined term
David Chalmers: – we need more definitions
Christof Koch: – we just need a rough definition
Max Velmans: – we follow the common usage in which the term “consciousness” is synonymous with “awareness” or “conscious awareness”
Andrew Brook: – It is unlikely that consciousness studies will ever achieve a sound scientific footing with such an imprecise and ungainly conceptual toolbox
( these statements – Chalmers and Koch – not to be taken literally, but from how I remember the talks )
My idea that a well founded group of veteran consciousness researchers should be locked up like in a ‘conclave’ until they have come up with some sensible agreement has not been entirely embraced, which may be due to many reasons.
I still think this task is overdue and the current situation is almost embarrassing and it is the obligation of those people who want to establish a science of consciousness.
So getting back to Arnold’s definition I do not think it is possible to find wider agreement upon a definition like that. Also I believe a process of definition will need a longer determined effort, in which properties will be included others will be excluded. As long as there is not even undisputed wether consciousness is a real or an illusiory phenomenon, as long as there is still unlclear wether consciousness is only receptive or as well active, we are facing quite some task, but I think it is worth going for it.
references:
Max Velmans on Defining Consciousness
Andrew Brook on Terminology of Consciousness
John Searle on Consciousness
Thomas Metzinger on The Problem of Consciousness
Robert van Gulick on Consciousness
Rocco Gennaro on Consciousness
David M. Rosenthal on Concepts and Definitions of Consciousness
Please note this:
Hi all,
even though there were some interesting new turns last week, we have decided to lock this thread for several reasons. We may reopen it when the special edition of the Journal of Consciousness Studies covering this topic is out.
Meanwhile the thread stays locked and pinned. If you want to continue certain lines of thought please open a new thread for this.
Yours friendly
Hans
Updated 07 April 2009 06:50 UTC
-
Replies
This topic has been locked by the forum moderators.
Jump to resultsResults
-
Dear All:
With our discussion, I think I finally found my favourite definition:
“Consciousness is sentience that evolved to the point of being able to control action”
Sign. Alfredo P. Jr.
-
Dear Arnold,
although this part of your theory deserves its own thread in my opinion, we can follow it here a little more. I doubt though, that this very explicit concept can have a spot inside the unified basic definition of consciousness that I am looking for, that I hope more people will keep looking for as a coordinated effort.
You state:“My claim is that we/you experience space by being at the center of the brain’s innate representation of space; i.e., your self-locus is the absolute origin of your brain’s retinoid embodiment of your egocentric space. This is your transparent phenomenal experience of the world from your privileged egocentric perspective. For you, as a conscious person, all that you can experience must be contained within the bounds of this biological phenomenal space.”
In this statement the use of ‘space’ is not completely clear. When you address the ’_brain’s innate representation of space_’, what is represented? is it outer space, like a space between two notes of a melody or between the earth and the moon or is it an inner space, like the space between the words that we think or is it which would be even more difficult to represent a kind of ‘space as such’?
Also what means representation in this context?Your proposal is extremely difficult in my opinion, that is why I doubt it can be part of that general, basic, unified definition that I hope can be formulated. Then you also demand that we ‘be’ at this space. What does that mean?
Let me guess: you are also calling this ‘self-locus’, which I would understand ( it is another new term from your side ) as an inner space where we get the feeling of self from.
I tend to agree that this kind feeling exists, although by self normally many and many different things are understood.
But in the following you make it much too complicated in my opinion: how would this self-locus be the absolute origin of anything? And what is anyone’s brain’s retinoid embodiment of anyone’s egocentric space?I have to say, although this sounds impressive, you fail to stay ‘on the carpet’ which you definitely should.
Moreover the next formulation seems to adress the outside world again ( phenomenal experience of the world ) – so definitely you switch between outer and inner, which is probably incorrect or inconsistent.This proposal is by far too difficult to even judge wether you succeed to address an essential aspect of the phenomenon we want to define.
It may be, sound interesting, but needs a second try in my opinion. If you would, what I assume your are trying anyway, correspond to the GWT ( Baars ) in a more obvious way, the chances would be better.
Yours friendly
Hans -
Dear Alfredo,
just a quick answer to one point:
“Alfredo: Most parts of digestive and assimilatory processes are not conscious.”I am not referring to this, I want to address the fact that while we are digesting and assimilating and so to say are resting, our conscious experience ( e.g. visual ) of the world is continuing, in my opinion without relevance for any action.
Yours friendly
Hans -
Dear Hans:
Action space is the world of social life and culture. From the moment you thematize your digestion or your leisure, you are acting.
Best
Alfredo
-
Hans,
In its most general sense, the concept of representation is commonly understood to mean something that takes the place of something else in some respect. I think that representation is a fundamental concept in our effort to understand consciousness for the following reason:
I believe that we will not understand consciousness/phenomenal experience unless we first take account of the crucial fact that we have no sensory transducers that can directly evoke in our brain an internal representation of the coherent volumetric properties of the real 3D space around our egocentric origin. (For simplification, I put aside the temporal dimension). This means that that the brain must have an innate biological mechanism that can provide an ecologically useful internal representation of an egocentrically organized 3D space within which all phenomenal features of the world must be properly bound and registered. The retinoid system in my theory of the cognitive brain serves this function. I elaborate on this claim in my paper "Space, self,and the theater of consciousness (2007), Consciousness and Cognition. Also, see my review of Revonsuo here:
http://people.umass.edu/trehub/Revonsuo.pdf
Those who believe that we can act adaptively in a human fashion without an internal representation of egocentric space, must carry the explanatory burden of showing how this can possibly be accomplished in the real world.
With regard to the problem of definition, I don’t think you can separate a useful definition of consciousness from a plausible theory of consciousness. Each of us will have our favorite definition, but how widely any particular definition will be accepted is an empirical matter. Do you propose to take a poll?
-
sensory systems present a representation of reality in the conversion of sense data to what the neurology deals with – frequencies, wavelengths, and amplitudes. Thus the roots of meaning are in what is POSSIBLE given the dynamics of the neurology.
Sensory system harmonics elicit emotional responses and as such again bring out a focus on frequencies etc. Thus we can identify a core sense of meaning from sensory stimulus to emotional response in all neuron-dependent life forms that have the fight/flight dichotomy self-referenced in their brains (as we do).
The dynamics of the neurology cover whole/part processing aka symmetry/anti-symmetry. Self-referencing of such, through brain oscillations, will elicit a set of categories usable in communicating meaning emotionally through resonance.
The oscillations across anti-symmetry/symmetry (manifest at the level of behaviours in the form of oscillations across brain hemispheres as well as front/back and surface/core etc) elicit an asymmmetric, power-law based, set of categories that allow for the development, given depth, of language through the use of analogy (aka pattern matching)
Thus we can identify FREE of ANY sensory system, a set of universals that come out of neurology and its mediation in dealing with reality. The ASYMMETRIC format equates to the development of language AND OF CONSCIOUSNESS given enough complexity to allow for the high differentition skills of consciousness, and THAT comes from self-referencing.
This is covered in the draft Categories of Mediation
Chris
-
I joined the Nature Network today, this evening. I’m not ready to begin blogging or posting yet, I still have a manuscript to book project I have to finish. I cannot help but comment on a definition of consciousness as I’ve spent alot of time on the subject myself.
“Consciousness is that “thing” in the back of your eyes."
An objective definition of consciousness I will give no comment to at the present time.
-
Dear Arnold,
I am afraid I made myself not clear enough: I do not think scientific matters can be decided by polls. What I think would be good to have before theories are considered is a general understanding what the theories are addressing.
I am not saying what you want is meaningless or impossible, I just think that has been done in extent for the last 20 years at least, leaving a terminological mess that requires tidying up! Not counting the at least 2000 years of theoretical approach to what consciousness is. Not counting the approaches by many different cultures in their own way, because consciousness is one of the most fundamental issues in the nature of human beings.
Every science needs to make a clear statement what its subject is, what is investigated. This isue has not been resolved as you know much better than I do.
Some people think it has, some think it cannot be, some think we do not have to resolve it.
I think we have to resolve it and it is not only handy and makes research, communication more easy, but it is a basic requirement to be taken seriously as a science.
This is what this thread should be about: is there a chance for a basic unified definition of the term consciousness, so that everyone in the field and many people outside the field know what we are addressing, investigating and talking about?
-
Dear Marvin, Chris and Kurt,
thank you for recently joining this thread.
I think it may be more difficult to keep an overview of this thread when more approaches are thrown into the ring.
Yet I will throw in myself a new aspect: consciousness ( even though we have not clearly stated what we mean by it ) can be regarded in different time frames. There are more than three conceivable obviously.
1. the scale of evolution from e.g. the first single cell organism ( or any other more reaonable being ) that we may attribute consciousness to, to our days where we have human consciousness – how did consciousness evolve within this time scale?
2. the scale of child development starting from intrauterine point, e.g. when the brain is developed, when audition is developed etc. to the age of 18 to 24 four months when many scientists think that consciousness is fully there in children, including self-consciousness.
3. the scale of circadian rythms, which is the basic frame in which human beings repeatedly experience similar events, like waking up, knowing essential things about the inner and outer world, taking action, learning and doing and not-doing all the things that make up the life of human beings.Each considered time scale may lead to a different view of what consciousness is, but I think we should and can avoid this difficulty.
Yours friendly
Hans -
Dear Hans,
I have two questions for you:
1) How would you define consciousness?
2) Does consciousness serve any functional role or does it simply exist on some metaphysical plane?Michael Baggot
Results
-
