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 Michael,
1. I do not think my own definition would be of much help in this venture. I think personal insights or theories are more of a hindrance in this kind of process when scientific unification is the goal.
But my position is close to Colin McGinn’s, some of David Chalmers’ if you want a direction.
2. I do not think in these matters metaphysical considerations can be altogether avoided, because many basic assumptions in science have the quality of being metaphysical ( try to address matter without being metaphysical ). I kind of regret that, but I think that is the truth. I think consciousness is entirely natural, if that helps to clarify.
3. It clearly has a key role for human beings. Without consciousness we would not know anything at all.Instead of giving a definition I prefer to propose some basic aspects about the terminological work that needs to be done:
4. Aspects of a terminological work
4.1. Consciousness is about awareness, about being aware. This can be put more precisely:
4.2. Consciousness is in the first place NOT about:
4.2.1. what we are aware of
4.2.2. the reliability of what we are aware of
4.2.3. what we think we are aware of
4.2.4. what we think about what we are aware of
4.2.5. how we feel when we are aware of something
4.3. Consciousness IS in the first place about THAT we are aware at all.Yours friendly
Hans -
Dear Hans,
This discussion about definition looks a little byzantine for me, why not to talk about “What kind of experiments can I do to study consciousness?”
Best,
Sebastian -
Dear All:
I am happy with the variety of perspectives in this discussion. Hans will have a good time analysing all the conceptual possibilities emerging from the discussion.
I would like to reply to each post but it is beyond my reach. Instead, I will continue the effort to find an ecumenical definition.
After I arrived to my favourite definition, I figured out how to unify it with Arnold’s, which resonate to Marvin’s and others. So here is it:a) consciousness is structured sentience,
b) that evolved in human beings to a spatial 3-D and temporal egocentric framework,
c) that is used to control action,
d) that occurs in a natural, social and cultural environment.
How good is this definition Hans? I guess that at least some grammatical improvements are needed.
Best
Alfredo
-
Dear Sebastian:
Today we fortunately have many experiments addressing consciousness, the problem is that in the absence of an agreed conceptual reference (about what consciousness is) we are not sure that the experiments refer to the same kind of phenomenon.
Please check the Forum “Visual Consciousness: Too Many Correlates” here in BPCC for an example of the lack of conceptual grounding – besides complex experimental issues that characterize this fascinating area of research.Best
Alfredo
-
Dear Alfredo,
well done and a courageous step to create a bridge between many different approaches to consciousness!
Chapeau…
-
Alfredo,
I think your last definition is better. I’m glad you changed your view of consciousness from being “able to control action” to being “used to control action”. This is an important distinction.
Of course consciousness evolved because it enhanced adaptive action in a complex and uncertain world.
Best,
Arnold
-
Chris:
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
RE:I found Chris Lofting approach and description interesting mainly because it is suggestive of reference I found in Nature Precedings that descends right to a philosophical issue of the world of man, nature and an inside and outside unity of all things in terms of mechanism of action i.e a primary principle that precedes chemical action and neurology -makes them parallel to one another-consciousness as a fundamental principle of the world (that includes science); The concept is important and ignorance of it is basic to much scientific confusion, when we study anything scientifically we ourself are consciously asserting in a way that is not external to what we theorize about i.e in knowing about knowing we are knowing and knowing involves a lot of things we just simply cannot be readily aware of. The wordl I believe did not come about in the order given in science history i.e that the universe is a system of planets with life on them-matter present from which life evolved..and a tendancy to explain matter and then life as having evolved from what we understand of matter-they both come from the same and we do not understand matter very well of where or comes from=in fact this ontology and epistemology may be incorrect and useful aid might be to see life first in everything. This may not have been arrived at -it gives the living a less special quality and it is matter that one struggles with for survival-hardness in objects is how matter is primary discriminated for the corporeal self and what threatens the integrity of the corporeal self -is a causative agent of injury. The history of medicine begins from this perspective and science evolves from the same. My ideas of this are not new -date back centuries btuthe ideas -seemingly sound though by necessity descend in a darkness thatis never totally resolvable on the theological, do not seem to have had the slightest influence. The latest important referral in history is from Nietzsche who suggested a medical pathology to account for behavior with hopes that science could remedy the situation. But is seem that science from his day functions as if inflicted with the same disease….
Marvin
The paper I refer to about visual representation Representing an Object by Interchanging What with Where
Jong-Hoon Ahn1 & Yillbyung Lee1 in nature precedings http://precedings.nature.com/documents/1686/version/1 connects cognitive symbolism with visual detection..on the information for symbolic representation (the ‘what’) and the visual representation (the “where’) are interchanged. A mask made from the shadows of borders of the ‘where’ when overlayed on it in some manner produce the ‘what’…I am a little unclear about it as I cannot find the note and copy for my original reference –or the paper was modified since I first found it, but originally presented a diagram showing how a mask of an object created from the where and overlayed on it produced the ‘what’. (what could a second mask of the produced ‘what’ overlayed again produce?). This to me suggests, ,as one begins with two entities the visual object and its’ representation and results with both from one-a detection of change in space involving a witess pair, the spatial (conglomerate) object and the spatial (conglomerate) detector, object and detector also homogeneous inside and out with respect to the same the same ( a distribution of densities of space and force) concept I am discussing on the universality of cognition and the dualism created of mind and matter-is the first article of a scientific nature I have found that relates to this topic. I found Chris’s definition and approach the broadest and the most potentially receptive with room for the unknown. Self referencing and self referral equal in meaning-the mind/brain detects and relates internally concetually in the same manner as the object is detected and symbolized. This must involve frequencies that one can superceed upon the chicken egg paradox to state just exactly what is the case, is observed, if one cannot further dissect the problem. I have just submitted a new paper “Induction, Space and Ethics” to the Ludus Vitalis Forum on knowledge and future that I will post to my internet site Complex ideas for your simple time http://www.marvinekirsh.com -
I’m not referring to anything we are not all already quite familiar with: the sensation of an itch on the arm is immediately brought to the attention of that thing directly in the back of the eyes. This thing in the back of your eyes will then direct your other arm to bring the hand to scratch the itch. The thing in the back of your eyes is aware of every moment from first sense of an itch to the urge to scratch and then to the actual act of scratching your arm.
The toothache is not brought to the attention of your ears, or your fingers or toes, or somewhere inside your chest. The pain of a toothache is brought directly to that thing in the back of your eyes to be aware of and to ponder upon moment by moment.
And not to trivialize the obvious with further examples, allow me to move on. What Hans question seeks is a definition of that moment by moment unitary aspect of realizing the existence of that thing in the back of your eyes. Not sub-consciousness or any other ancillary product or aspect of Consciousness, a definition for the waking sentient state of consciousness will be wrought by focusing on that thing in the back of your eyes. That “thing” in the back of yours and my eyes …
The act of pondering for definitions of consciousness causes the mind to construct a vantage point where the attention is focused on itself. The thing in the back of your eyes is focusing on that thing in the back of your eyes. One has stepped outside of themselves and looks inward as if an unbiased observer. The thing in the back of the eyes has separated from itself and begins to focus back upon the state of consciousness it derived from. An objectivity has been created. And as far as I can tell, what happens now is like the dog that chases after its own tail. Objective and the subjective states of consciousness are now focusing on each other for definitions of that unitary aspect of consciousness that is happening moment by moment from the vantage point of from directly in the back of the eyes. Words seem unable to capture the essence of consciousness, rather the statements seem to encompass either the subjective or the objective moments of experience and thought.
…
I’m of the opinion that these objective/subjective states of consciousness are necessary if one were to someday define what consciousness is all about. Attempting to construct a computer system that mimics biological cognition, …
Excuse me, please? I’ll leave the thought like this for now.
-
Hi Marvin,
The abstract of the mentioned paper ends with:
“In conclusion, these results show that the what-where interchangeability might play an important role for organizing those two into internal representation of brain”
From my research there is no ‘might’ about it, it DOES lead to the management of meaning through category formation and on to language formation given enough depth in the self-referencing of the ‘what/where’ dichotomy – manifest in brain oscillations across the hemispheres that cover the more generic differentiate(what)/integrate(where) categorisations. The other dichotomy isomophic to this is that of anti-symmetric/symmetric (part/whole) etc.
By working on what the neurology can do we can map out a set of representations free of dependence on any sense and so working as universals where local context (or more so a hierarchy of such) customises the categories to ‘best fit’ that context.
That is what the IDM material is all about – a core template of meaning grounded in the adaptation of neurology to context (an adaptation we can trace back 600 million years to basics of sponge life etc)
If we then focus on the oscillations and so mediation dynamics of the brain we can trace dynamics down to the FM/AM dichotomy of the neuron.
See references in my older text
The focus there is on vision adaptations that lead into audition adaptations. Studies on synesthesia then take us to consideration of the SAMENESS across all sensory systems where identification of sich brings out the patterns of the neurology – and so the focus on frequencies, wavelengths, and amplitudes (also covered in the later text )
THAT text brings out foreground/background dynamics and so use of attention to encapsulate and so objectify context.
The Categories of Mediation text summarises it all into mapping out a basic, primitive, language based on self-referecing dichotomies and in doing so shows the consequences of the ‘entanglment’ of the elements of a dichotomy, ESPECIALLY the asymmetric form of dichotomy that is an energy-conserving form of trichotomy and so of mediation.
Consciousness appears to emerge from this asymmetric position and so emphasises the uniqueness of such.
Chris.
IDM intro -
BTW Marvin,
your mention of paradox brings out a property of asymmetric information processing that, when transcended, leads us into the realm of the autological (systems that can describe themselves).
This is covered in the Categories of Mediation work but has its roots in my analysis of paradox processing and brain dynamics in dealing with such – in the form of brain oscillations. See the orginal paradox processing material
In the more recent categories of mediation the paradox is mapped to asymmetries in dealing with oscillations across anti-symmetric/symmetric dichotomy aka part/whole aka mereological/topological.
Chris.
Results
-
