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
-
Reposted to eliminate unintended crossed out areas from use of dashes
Re: Costa: Premotor theory is meant to be a model for the ongoing categorization of association cortex including prefrontal ie of widely distributed networks not just the primary sensory modalities. This implies that motor reafference mediated through the basal ganglia and cerebellum is essential for ongoing learning. These have therefore, psychological and sociological correlates.
I want to reply that this fact with evidence, make a lot of sense=behavior =a fact of a relationship with the environmental. Language has it roots in self oriented action and related communication. I want to suggest another important factor that may be involved although to stress that from the orientation given data and interpretation may be very accurate, but may not reveal actual dynamics interms of environmental interactions, response to stresses, as causation of both the diseased state and the physiological response rather than the attribution of disease to altered molecular mechanisms. In this sense mechanisms (assumptions of evolved psychological and social characteristics related to consciousness) would be in a broad sense correctly interpreted, but falsely ordered –i.e. in the pathologies described it is possible for physiological phenomenon to originate externally in the environment and for the two possible conditions (inborn problems and problems related to external causation)to be indistinguishable scientifically. In the case of molecular genetics ‘phenomenon of imprinting’ ( the acquisition of traits from the external environment) and reverse transcription of RNA to DNA emerged to awareness after basic genetic mechanisms were elucidated –add an, almost incomprehendable in scope, extra dimension to interpretation; even a means of Lamarkian inheritance of induced physical traits from basic concepts is possible if one can integrate facts creatively to intersections that result that way. My point is that regardless of the accuracy of interpretation of physical data an actual route to understanding is dependant on knowing the path to pathologies. If one views all pathology as parasitic in nature involving agents that get under the skin: 1) Physiological function attains a much more stable and less prone to error status-pathologies originate from the external and otherwise mutationally caused change to cause malfunction is absent 2) Pathology, in terms of a reaction to external stress attains a new perspective: a) An autistic person from this perspective has learned a restricted range of potential motor responses from an agent, having penetrated the skin, imposes a (sensual only)?) threat to free movement or a fear. His experience is internally oriented and not observable; the same might be proposed for schziophrenia and in both cases a internal physiological correlation of function with alterations of behavior or experience might not be discriminated a secondary in the chain of causation. This actually simplifies things considerable=i.e.disease states are not related to fluctuations in evolutionary behavior from phenomenon of particulate spatial properties of a molecular genetic nature. A whole picture of evolution emergences that has shed many implied, intricate paths and mechanisms, that could be explained sufficiently from the environmentally initiated with ensued propogation in a genetic sense .= leaving intact and sound core philosophies and science of genetic mechanisms in the wake of a growing list of exceptions. At the same time a new perspective invalidates the old conceptual picture. DNA as a physical phenomenon totally of meshing surfaces rather than of a language, two views that can diverge into different empirical pictures. The language we ascribe to DNA with specific variables is a restricted view from a narrow perspective modulated by restriction in time interval of observation, provides a conceptually invalid view of realities of nature. This would naturally lead to confusions in other studies. History, consciousness maybe modulatable by unnoticed transient agents acting, found a place under the skin, into history/science interpretation, in a wake of function that is explainable by normal= simplier mechanisms= though the elucidation/tracking of such transients may be as complex and challanging. Regardless of physiological correspondences to observation the normal mechanism has to be known as the base line, the control…..it might turn out that such normals are very stable and dependable as to enable the release of efforts and energy towards other things –i.e. externally caused internally modulated inheritance of behavioral traits . (hopefully before we all assume some aspects of autism ourselves from constricted spaces of view). Marvin
-
Dear Hans,
Any definition of consciousness should embrace all possible conscious states. There is an annual Chinese Vegetarian Festival throughout the Malay peninsula from Bangkok to Singapore in which many thousands of participants become totally possessed at required intervals when they invite the spirits of the Nine Emperor Gods to enter. When possessed they can spontaneously speak Hokian Chinese although the great majority can not normally speak the language. They act independently yet cooperatively according to the needs of the festival, performing many very unusual feats. When they come out of the possession state they generally retain no memory of it. They are certainly conscious when in the state and the state is linked to their personal biological body to which they later return as ordinary people. But this phenomenon and others indicate that consciousness is not a phenomenon that is totally dependent on biological processes. It has properties that transcend biological processes. There is more on how this can work in various articles at the website.
Best regards,
Robert Campbell -
Dear Bob,
this thread is not about any definition of consciousness, at least this is my wish. There are many definitions of consciousness available and some of them are as well contradictory and defendable.
So what I am after here is a concept – or a few concepts – that can be agreed upon by the scientific community as the starting point for further research. There has been a long history of more or less scientific investigation of consciousness and the definitory process can take this into account.
There are essential issues within this topic that need to be addressed and there would have to be a preliminary decision about controversies.
Essential issues that have been brought into this thread are:
1. is consciousness an emergent phenomenon or has it always been there ( that is e.g. more or less by panpsychism )?
2. is consciousness an illusion or a real, natural phenomenon?
3. is consciousness only receptive or has it other aspects – e.g. memory and action control?
It has to be decided what is essential and what not, as well as what is agreable and what not.
The disagreable and non-essential issues have to be put aside for another go when more data and more investigation has brought more clarity of how the nature of consciousness must be understood.Your post is interesting and it would be good to know how reliable this finding is. If it were reliable it poses questions that go in the direction of Jungian archetypes, Sheldrake’s morphic fields etc., which I would address as: is there a memory of some kind outside living human beings?
Thus I would not address it as an issue for consciousness in the first place. If we look into consciousness as knowledge and social forms of knowledge that is a different approach. In any case I think this issue is very controversial and can thus not be part of a preliminary and basic and unified definition of consciousness.Yours friendly
Hans -
Dear all,
I would like to propose first the first time an issue to exclude something from the preliminary and basic and unified definition of consciousness. I suggest to exclude the mind. More specifically the thinking part of the mind.
The argument for this I put in a very simple form: consciousness is aware of thoughts, that is why they cannot be part of consciousness.
Generally speaking we need to exclude issues from and include issues to the definition, so this may be the first try to exclude.
Yours friendly
Hans -
Dear Hans,
As you infer I also don’t think consciousness can be defined as a separate thing in itself. One might say it is the un-definable awareness behind phenomenal experience yet related to it in a way that allows us to define certain characteristics of phenomenal experience. The point I was trying to make in the above response is the latter has both universal and thus transcendent qualities as well as qualities related to a personal self and physical biology.
Arthur Koestler’s concept of the holon or part-whole may be helpful in this respect. Phenomenal experience is Janus-faced, looking in two directions at the same time, both toward a transcending world view of some kind that intuitively integrates experience and toward explicit self expression within this perceived integrating context. These two perspectives have their biological correlates in the intuitive right neocortical hemisphere that displays holistic integrating characteristics as opposed to the linguistic left hemisphere that rationalizes techniques of explicit behaviour accordingly. These two are reflected across the primitive limbic system that fuels emotional energy patterns that animate our thoughts and actions.
The sympathetic autonomic division fuels emotional patterns appropriate to immediate explicit thought and behaviour. The parasympathetic division acts in polar patterned restraint conserving the long term interests of the personal self as well as the biological species. Both draw on archetypal patterns reaching back through our cultural evolution and animal ancestry. Left brain reason thus tends to work in accord with the sympathetic division. Right brain intuition tends to work in accord with the parasympathetic division.
I think what is needed in discussing this sort of question is a structural framework that can facilitate intuitive insight as opposed to a behavioural framework of understanding. Otherwise the behavioural framework tends to focus exclusively on left brain language and can get bogged down in circular semantics.
Best regards,
Robert Campbell -
Dear Hans,
If a discussion on consciousness is restricted to knowledge and social forms of knowledge then one runs the real risk of seriously prejudicing the whole exercise from the beginning. Human phenomenal experience is complex and extremely varied.
The information in my post above about the vegetarian festival held in Chinese Taoist temples is very much in the public domain and socially important. Anyone can go into the temples and witness the mediums going into and coming out of the possession states, having their cheeks pierced with large skewers without evidence of bleeding or pain and so on. It is impossible to fake especially on such a widespread scale over a period of nine days. The Jui Tui Temple in Phuket town had over five thousand spirit mediums last year and there are over a dozen temples that participate on Phuket Island plus scores throughout the peninsula. Everyone in these communities takes part and only vegetarian food is eaten. If the mediums don’t obey a strict discipline before and during the festival they can have strong reactions on rare occasions resulting in death. But I don’t mean to dwell on this unusual phenomenon. There is a wide variety of other kinds of spiritual experience also, plus hynotism, trance, coma, sleep and dream states. All are relevant to the general question.
There are also strong cultural factors. The far eastern languages are more holistic in character and structurally very different from the Indo-European languages that have tenses to verbs and link things up in a causal flow through space and time. They generally tend to integrate meaning more holistically as a gestalt, as opposed to focusing on cause and effect. They are more attuned to right brain intuition while western languages are more attuned to left brain logic. Far Eastern belief systems are very similar to that of the Native Americans. Buddhism, Taoism etc, are a veneer over aboriginal beliefs deeply ingrained in the culture. This has traditionally had a very strong influence on their technology and social organization, just as Greek philosophy has had such a strong influence in the West.
The point here is that an exclusively western behaviorally technical approach does not have the reach to address the whole human sphere. For example Africa has emotionally powerful spiritual beliefs but without the same cosmic flair of the East.
A structural approach can enhance intuitive insight into the dynamics of the creative process while fully acknowledging the empirical evidence. It can bridge East and West so to speak and seek an appropriate balance with our ancient heart in Africa. There is a structural similarity between our cultural evolution on the planet and the three focal points of the brain that integrate experience, viz, right brain, left brain, limbic emotion.
Without some structural framework of understanding to relate to, what is deemed acceptable for consideration comes down to cultural or personal biases. So the framework of understanding is very important. In my view it involves the whole cosmic order.
Best wishes,
Robert Campbell -
Dear Hans,
It seems to me that most posts on the forum have been about how human experience is organized and integrated. In this regard it should be possible to gain a good degree of agreement on gross structural features and related characteristics of the human nervous system. I suggest the following points as a tentative starting point that might help provide some coherent direction to the discussion without arbitrarily excluding some of the phenomenal evidence.
1. The limbic brain is a functionally integrated structure connected to emotional autonomic functions via the hypothalamus. The pioneering work of Papez and MacLean established that neocortical structures have no direct hierarchical controls over the limbic emotional brain. They are consigned to live together on a more or less equal footing. The limbic brain is primitive dating back several hundred million years, whereas the neocortex to which we owe our intellectual capacity has blossomed relatively recently with the higher mammals and especially humans.
2. The classic work of Sperry on split brain patients established that the two neocortical hemispheres have very different capabilities. The language-bound left brain is culturally and socially oriented. Humans are born the most helpless of creatures and must learn almost everything with the help of language and thus culture. The left brain deals with techniques of explicit performance, including our sciences. The intuitive right hemisphere is mute but excels at holistically integrating experience, such as aesthetics, a spiritual sense, design as opposed to explicit performance, etc. The right brain is not necessarily bound by social conditioning. There are variations due to handedness, etc., but this pattern generally prevails.
3. These three over-riding focal points of brain function are reciprocally reflected across the limbic system such that sympathetic energy patterns that fuel somatic thought and action act in accord with left brain function. The sympathetic and somatic systems are organized in parallel down the spinal cord with the same number of synaptic connections from the CNS to target organs in both sensory and motor nerves. Apart from the sacral portion parasympathetic energy patterns work in polar restraint and originate in cranial nerves with the same number of synapses to target organs. The two divisions tend to work in accord at the sacral level but can be inhibited by left brain social propriety. For example erection is a parasympathetic function. Since it is partly concerned with long term interests of the species arousal can relate to any attractive mate, but ejaculation is a sympathetic function that works in accord with social left brain constraints.
4. Both divisions of the autonomic nervous system channel archetypal energy patterns that are conditioned through experience. These patterns display similarities to those in our vertebrate ancestry as well as our cultural and personal history. However they implicitly require tailoring by the neocortical hemispheres according to a right brain intuitively perceived fit that historically integrates experience as a whole, as well as to left brain rational constraints of social propriety. We are invested with an inherent capacity to span and integrate space and time.
5. The basal brain systems generally focus on somatic integration that parallels autonomic integration. Automated behaviour such as walking tends to be delegated to the spinal brain with conscious cerebral override as required. Spinal integration including proprioceptive input, together with vestibular and other sensory inputs are reciprocally mediated by the cerebellum with cerebral function. (There is more on how this works synapse by synapse in the website articles Nervous System –Parts 1 and 2. See “website”:http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com. )
There is more on the website about why and how the human nervous system has evolved in this way, but the above five points may suffice as a general framework to direct the discussion toward a more coherent outcome. They may be challenged or added to of course. They have social correlates in our human global evolution and cultural history, so it doesn’t confine the discussion solely to clinical studies and interpretations in the Western paradigm. The points should allow all possible varieties of phenomena.
Best wishes,
Robert Campbell -
Dears Hans, Alfredo and all
I’ve roughly read some of what’s been posted, not all. But once again than you for opening this amazing debate.
I’d say that: consciousness is, first and above all, meaning. It is the presence, for me, and with me, of a world already invested with meaning. There is not such a thing as a “pure”, meaningless consciousness — this is why the questions of perception and language are of much interest to me.
However, I think that one only definition is not even desirable in dealing with such a complex and fantastic subject like “consciousness”: every definition has an heuristic character, that is, it allows us to think different aspects of consciousness. I don’t think we need one complete definition, as consciousness would more likely be the sum of all different approaches, and supersede this sum — as they are all more or less limited by our model of thinking.
On the other hand, each approach opens the research to different consequences: some of them may offer perspectives of control over consciousness, while others may offer perspectives of freedom.
However, this opens another debate, about words like “control” and “freedom” — this would probably demand a whole other discussion.
with my best vibes from Brazil
Sérgio Basbaum
-
Dear Sergio,
I agree that meaning is one of the essentials of consciousness. I would not go as far as to say that every conscious experience must have meaning. Although that may depend on the definition of meaning.
Generally speaking most conscious experiences are full of meaning. When we consciously see, we see all kinds of things that we, without explicitly naming them, recognize and thus give meaning to what we see. This applies similarily to when we hear someone speak our language or read a book or become aware of our thoughts. All these experiences are meaningful.This is so self-evident in a certain sense, that we may even overlook it. What is puzzling in regard of the realtime property of conscious experience that meaning seems to be so complex and the timeframe to recognize meaning so small, that I wonder how neural mechanisms could be so fast, because that seems to involve in the predominant paradigm a lot of coding and decoding of information, a lot of information going into neurons and out again.
Anyway, I consider meaning to be an essential part of a definition of conscious experience.
-
Hans,
meaning has its roots in the dynamics of the neurology where such generates categories usable to communicate. These categories are derived from self-referencing a la the Chaos Game (any containment of noise will elicit spontanous order through self-referencing – our senses ‘contain’ as does our attention system – this will elicit a hierarchy of increasingly specialist perspectives)
If we go deep enough in the self-referencing we move into the categories being used as analogies – and so we can get a self-referencing system to describe itself (autological) but this also brings out occasional issues with paradox.
Language, AND CONSCIOUSNESS, have roots in this asymmetric realm where meaning is not only ‘out there’ but can be turned on itself to reflect ‘in here’.
Chris
Categories of Mediation
Results
-
