Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
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
-
Alfredo, you wrote:
“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.”
I suggest you take a look at my old page covering analytical vs dialectical logics
… and THEN go through the logic coverage in Categories of Mediation
What we find are the brain dynamics covering the excluded middle (XOR) and the included middle (EQV) and so bring out how A/NOT-A is (a) opposite and (b) equivalent. In doing so we map out the range of different perspectives being sourced in brain dynamics and in philosophical perspectives often ignorant of brain dynamics!
An example of the different perspectives coming out of the brain research is in a focus on representations in particle physics where we have:
Asymmetric dichotomy (IMP) – fermions/bosons
Excluded middle dichotomy (anti-symmetric,XOR) – positrons/electrons
Included middle dichotomy (symmetric, EQV) – forms a BEC (Bose-Einstein Condensate) where boson PAIRS raised to high energy levels shift from boson to fermions etc etc.The IMP operator covers modal forms (what is possible/necessary) and is an asymmetric operator.
The XOR operator covers local context, high energy, parts focus (and so the difference between the positron and electron is ONE aspect – CHARGE; this is anti-symmetric, all else is ‘same’ and so covers symmetry)
The EQV operator covers non-local context, wholes focus, symmetry. These dynamics are reflected in brain oscillations as it mediates with reality. This also allows for variations in oscillations that can contribute to a general mental state and so ‘unique’ form of interpreting reality (and THAT takes us into persona categorisations such as the MBTI etc etc etc)
So – the IDM dichotomy material goes way beyond Hegel or other ‘ancient’ philosophers in that we focus on what the brain does, not on speculations from the past.
Doing any philosophy/science etc without understanding neurology is a waste of time these days – as such Hegel, Kant etc etc etc are all of for review, or else we just ignore them (analytical negation) or just keep the good bits (dialectical negation) ;-)
Chris.
-
Alfredo,
In a context of logic, the mediation position maps to the notion of “Indeterminate” and so a three-valued logic covering T,I,F
Consciousness equates to “I” and brings out the uncertainty nature of language creations where they are in perpetual transcendence mode, never able to complete – but then they are not supposed to since they are agents of mediation! The moment mediation stops, so does consciousness in that we fall back on the T,F of dyadic logic and so the realm of stimulus/response – our instincts realm and so autopilot.
What this indicates is consciousness operating in the middle that T/F logic excludes. Furthermore, all of the ‘incompleteness’ and ‘uncertainty’ we find in specialist languages (e.g. QM and Meta-Mathematics) are in fact properties of the methodology of problem-solving and so the realm of “I”.
In IDM the focus is on meaning derivation and so on language and representations where we introduce a ‘shift’ to Hegel’s perspective to give us:
Representation = mediation (stimulus, response) first time through, and then
Representation = mediation (representation)
as much as you like (and so bringing out the self-referencing dynamic at work in meaning derivation). (also see Charles Peirce’s work on triadic forms)
The representation is in the form of (a) a symbol for the original stimulus and (b) a habit for the original response – thus our languages come out of the realm of excluded middle with the aim to ‘collapse’ meaning into a T/F determination (this is energy conserving and so oscillations in the brain reduce or stop when a resolution is found and an instinct/habit is made – there is no need for mediation)
The logic operators in three-valued logic extend the traditional two-valued forms (i.e. negation, conjunction, disjunction, equivalence) to give us such extensions as:
Cyclic negation
Diametrical negation
Quasi-implication
Alternative implication
Alternative equivalenceThese cover properties that emerge from the presence of consciousness in the making of meaning and so the development of languages to aid in resolving, in communicating the resolution, of issues where basic, immediate, responses of T/F to a stimulus don’t work (thus we introduce the association of consciousness with DELAY).
Thus we keep coming back to consciousness as an agent of mediation that emerges from high level differentiation performed by the neurology in the processing of sensory data. The success of this dynamic has been the precision it offers in refining instincts/habits and so (a) making symmetry and (b) breaking symmetry, but also the consolidation of the mechanism to transcend itself through language development – its apparent foundations in ‘paradox processing’ (A/NOT-A in the same space/time – were that includes self vs others) have set a foundation for movement into rich language development for social ‘highs’ alone (and that covers reality and imagination).
Chris
-—————————————
Intro to IDM -
Dear All:
Thanks to Malcolm Dean I acknowledge a discussion of the Science of Consciousness that was published by The Journal of Anthropological Consciousness. Morten Overgaard published a target paper that was commented by our Dr. Baars and others. All the PDFs are freely available at the Journal´s Site
Best
Alfredo
Journal of Anthropological Consciousness 13 (2003)
Foundations for a science of consciousness.
The target article for this issue is about the so-called problem of consciousness and the author suggests a way to define consciousness, and discuss why consciousness has been conceived of as a problem to scientific investigation. Arguments that consciousness cannot be studied empirically are analyzed and refused. From here, the article goes on to suggest a way to perform empirical studies. The author suggests introspection as a sine qua non for consciousness studies, and he discusses with which validity introspective techniques can be applied in experimental settings.
The target article reviews the notion of ‘neural correlates of consciousness’ to explore the explanatory value of such brain measures, and with which strategy such measures can be obtained. It is, furthermore, the argument that with the use of a terminology that is not dependent upon an acceptance of the theoretical frameworks of the cognitive sciences, and that is open to concepts used in general psychology, so-called general psychologists would be able to make relevant operationalisations and empirical testings of their theories.
Target article
Morten Overgaard : On the theoretical and methodological foundations for a science of consciousnessCommentaries
Bernard J. Baars : The mind-body problem is scientifically untestable and irrelevant.
Antti Revonsuo : Notes on the Foundations of Consciousness Research.
Andreas Roepstorff : Outlining the Sandpit of Consciousness Studies: a question of Foundations or of Style?.
Erik Schultz : Brain, mind and consciousness
Logan Trujillo: Are verbal reports all we will ever have in a science of consciousness?.
Søren Willert : Is consciousness a thing or an adjunct?Reply
Morten Overgaard : Reply to the commentators . -
Dear Alfredo,
that is great material. Maybe a bit problematic to put it in this thread, but better kind of then in the quest thread.
Morten Overgaard has a definition: “A conscious state is a mental state, individuated by its content, a subject is directly aware of being in.” which is also difficult and moreover it is state oriented.
Maybe because I am German, state oriented definitions are not my first choice. I think we have gone along the ‘entity’ concept of consciousness more or less – the phenomenon that is conconscious, that provides conscious experience – in the quest thread. We associate state ( Zustand ) with waking and sleeping states, so these distinction have to be systematized under the ‘vigilance’ concept of consciousness, which is one of the easier concepts that is well established and works well.
Anyway great material!
Yours friendly
Hans
Results
-
