Brain Physiology, Cognition and Consciousness group: topic
This is a public discussion board
Consciousness,what are its abilities, how can we improve?
Hans Ricke
Monday, 15 June 2009 02:52 UTC
Serge Patlavskiy has put forward a remarkable statement:“When practicing, we are improving not our consciousness, but our ability to access to its hidden potentialities.”
Could we sort this out?
Obviously something can be practiced and improved on. The outcome being apparently that people who do that are more conscious after doing that than they are before.
1. Is that so?
2. How does that happen?
My concern in this context is more what actually happens than what we call it.
Still some people claim that consciousness is epiphenomenal. Does this have to be rejected for good?
Updated 21 June 2009 07:32 UTC
-
Replies
Jump to resultsResults
-
As an agent of mediation consciousness works in making distinctions and generating languages usable in the mediation. The result of such includes consciousness itself become better defined but also the increase in consciousness being self-contained and so ‘aliented’ from our social species nature. In extremes we head towards an emerging psychoticism position. Jung covered this where the shift is presented in psychotherapy etc:
“”We can say that individuals are equal only in so far as they are in a large measure unconscious – unconscious, that is, of their actual differences. The more unconscious a man is, the more he will conform to the general canon of psychic behaviour. But the more conscious he becomes of his individuality, the more pronounced will be his difference from other subjects and the less he will come up to common expectations. Further, his reactions are much less predictable. This is due to the fact that an individual consciousness is more highly differentiated and more extensive. But the more extensive it becomes the more differences it will perceive and the more it will emancipate itself from the collective rules, for the empirical freedom of the will grows in proportion to the extension of consciousness.
As the individual differentiation of consciousness proceeds, the objective validity of its views decreases and their subjectivity increases, at least in the eyes of the environment, if not in actual fact. For if a view is to be valid, it must have the acclaim of the greatest possible number, regardless of the arguments put forward in its favour. “True” and “valid” describe what the majority believe, for this confirms the equality of all. But differentiated consciousness no longer takes it for granted that one’s own preconceptions are applicable to others, and vice versa" p83 C. Jung, The Nature of the Psyche (RKP)The development of existentialism etc covers this emergence of consciousness from speciesness etc.
-
I shall respond in parts. First part:
“Describing consciousness as a defined and limited agent of mediation results in the problems of alienation you suggest. My conception of consciousness results in a different outcome. One can retain their individual identity while being socially conscious also. For example, one could participate in a demonstration against some injustice, while not being overcome by some crowd menatality that may compel others in the crowd to become violent.”
Experiments on the dynamics of attention bring out a level of awareness that is multi-tasking to a limited degree and allowing for monitoring of 7+/-2 things at once given a ‘habituated’ state. E.g. I can talk to someone in my car whilst multitasking in using snippets of that consciousness to keep and eye on the kids in the back seat as well as focus on my driving and being aware of a song on the car radio etc.
We see here the same dynamics as in a car engine – it is designed to work ‘full bore’ and it is gears that allow us to control the vehicle through slowing down the revolutions and gaining torque to do work. At the same time I can have ‘add-ons’ such as a radio and airconditioning where such ‘steal’ revolutions from the engine to operate.
In our neurology the ‘full bore’ is gamma activity (40-80 Hz) and we gear down to alpha/beta levels (and more for theta/delta levels in sleep etc) where such gives us control.
However, if a situation emerges in my driving where a novel event requires my full attention then I will instinctively shut-down the conversation and the monitoring to deal with the driving problem – to an extreme where I may even hold my breath whilst trying to resolve the issue!
This dynamic is the difference between FLUX and CONTROL. This dichotomy has its roots in the work of Pribram and Bradley and from the IDM perspective applies at all scales, not just the scale of social collectives as Bradley emphasised. (see such as:
Bradley, R.T. (1987) “Charisma and Social Structure : A Study of Love and Power, Wholeness and Transformation” New York : Paragon House
Bradley, R.T., & Pribram, K.(1998) “Communication and Stability in Social Collectives” IN Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 21(1):29-81 )This dichotomy, as a specialist form of differentiating/integrating, correlates with the hierarchies of non-nested (pyramid/tree-like format and so control focused, rigid, ‘trust no one’, and focused on syntax) vs nested (web/network-like format and so ‘flux’, there is trust across levels, local connections etc that bring out a more ‘small world’ form of network)
The energy dynamic of flux/control is for flux small perculations, distributed across small, strongly habituated tasks and so grounded, vs for control, high energy focus on a SINGLE task (context) that demands everything to be in the ‘correct’ space/time.
Thus fully/partially habituated tasks enable the distribution of consciousness, or more so the ‘borrowing’ of the flow of consciousness as we borrow revolutions from the flow of an engine to drive other devices (or for consciousness, multiple mediation dynamics). IOW the habit can be unconscious but also come with a degree of consciousness on top just supervising as such.
The moment a stimulus is in need of attention so the focus concentrates the perculations, the flux, into a control hierarchy and so puts everything in the ‘right’ place to deal with some issue. This SAME dynamic at the level of internal support mechanisms also applies at the level of social interactions BUT the level of social awareness LACKS the precision of full blown consciousness – we see the issues of symmetric thinking (flux etc) and anti-symmetric/asymmetric thinking (a direction, syntax etc)
We see here the dynamics of another dichotomy that is synonymous with differentiating/integrating- that of positive vs negative feedback. The latter is focused on ‘getting closer to’, on integrating and a focus on relational space, the former OTOH is into discretisation and amplification and so differentiating. IOW a CONTROL focus pushes all else away to discretise and amplify some PARTICULAR into a universal in that it takes over the context, all that matters is focus upon that particular – this reflects the dynamics of syntax in that all that matters is location, the precision of such.
it is NATURAL for a developed consciousness to be asymmetric and AVOIDING of contacts, to PUSH away rather than PULL together. This translates into another specialist dichotomy synonymous to differentiating/integrating, that of competitive/cooperative; the more differentiating the more borders are created the more competitive one becomes. That said, recurse the competitive/cooperative dichotomy and we have a range of classes of meanings mixing the elements of the dichotomy to cover classes of meanings applicable to classes of consciousness.
Thus ‘social consciousness’ is more so a FLUX emphasis than a CONTROL emphasis. As such there is weakness in being susceptable to crowd behaviour and reflecting the symmetric thinking involved in such (stereotyping, dumbing-down and so lack in precision etc)
The development of a singular nature allows for use of discipline, more control, by the individual on their behaviours and so we enter the dimension of classes of consciousness from flux to control, from integrated/social to differented/personal. IOW the dimension of classes that develops horizontally as we recurse the dichotomy brings out the orthogonal development of individuals from those classes.
The multi-tasking capabilities of the brain, the 7+/-2 dynamic brings out a level of consciousness that is just above the sensation of being oceanic, the flux are like little waves in that ocean where the ocean is our species nature and unconscious/determined and the waves develop into control mechanisms that can be pulled together and distributed. Thus instincts/habits can elicit LOCAL context ‘awareness’ that can refine/regulate the general nature of a habit but this awareness is easily shifted to deal with more complex things, leaving the instinct/habit to cope as best it can.
-
“Outer reasoning processes work largely by deduction, and they must constantly check their own results against the seemingly concrete experience of physical events. That is Chris’s mediation. The reasoning of the inner ego is involved with the creative invention of those experiences. It is involved with events in a context of a different kind, for it deals intimately with probabilities. This is not Chris’s mediation.”
IMHO you are wrong. Deductive thinking comes from instincts/habits and so an existing hypothesis about reality. The emphasis is on negative feedback and so issues of error correcting as we deduce some particular from a general. That is instinctive/habitual ground and need not require mediation as intensly as a control focus requires such.
OTOH it is the realm of differentiating that is probabilistic in thought,partials focused over wholes, risk taking, Baysian probabilities, inductive/abductive rather than deductive. The differentiating realm as such is more mediating than deductive and more positive feedback, focus on discretisation and amplification (and so attracted to establishing universals through breaking ties to context – a tie to the development of consciousness and a focus of asserting one’s own context over any pre-existing context)
The realm of probabilities thinking is across the anti-symmetric/asymmetric and covers fast processing of local data, a focus on DIFFERENCES to sameness rather than the deductive focus on degrees of sameness. The deductive realm is holistic and covers network/web forms of hierarchies that develop small-world networks whereas the inductive/abductive is partials and covers pyramid/tree network dynamics (it is also creative in that the mix of local context and positive feedback introduces open-system dynamics where all degrees of freedom are expressed as potentials to be actualised and ‘transcendences’ can occur – in the realm of deductive there is only transformation, getting a tighter level of integration with the existing hypothesis. – recurse these dichotomies to give you the full spectrum of classes of possible meanings)
The probabilities/deductive forms of thinking are hard-coded and cover differentiating/integrating dynanmics:
New Evidence for Distinct Right and Left Brain Systems for Deductive versus Probabilistic Reasoning
Lawrence M. Parsons and Daniel Osherson1
University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX and
1 Rice University, Houston, TX, USALawrence M. Parsons, Director, Cognitive Neuroscience Program, Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, USA.
Deductive and probabilistic reasoning are central to cognition but the functional neuroanatomy underlying them is poorly understood. The present study contrasted these two kinds of reasoning via positron emission tomography. Relying on changes in instruction and psychological ‘set’, deductive versus probabilistic reasoning was induced using identical stimuli. The stimuli were arguments in propositional calculus not readily solved via mental diagrams. Probabilistic reasoning activated mostly left brain areas whereas deductive activated mostly right. Deduction activated areas near right brain homologues of left language areas in middle temporal lobe, inferior frontal cortex and basal ganglia, as well as right amygdala, but not spatial–visual areas. Right hemisphere activations in the deduction task cannot be explained by spill-over from overtaxed, left language areas. Probabilistic reasoning was mostly associated with left hemispheric areas in inferior frontal, posterior cingulate, parahippocampal, medial temporal, and superior and medial prefrontal cortices. The foregoing regions are implicated in recalling and evaluating a range of world knowledge, operations required during probabilistic thought. The findings confirm that deduction and induction are distinct processes, consistent with psychological theories enforcing their partial separation. The results also suggest that, except for statement decoding, deduction is largely independent of language, and that some forms of logical thinking are non-diagrammatic.
ALSO SEE:Oaksford, M., and Chater, N., (2001) “The probabilistic approach to human reasoning” IN Trends in Cognitive Sciences Vol 5. No8 August 2001: 349-357
(published PRIOR to the above) From the intro:“In a standard reasoning task, performance is compared with the inferences people should make according to logic, so a judgement can be made on the rationality of people’s reasoning. It has been found that people make large and systematic (i.e. non-random) errors, which suggests that humans might be irrational. However, the probabilistic approach argues against this interpretation” (p349)
-
“The focus of my interest is on creating a balanced perspective. We are individuals but part of a larger interconnected environment. That says it.
You have not mounted a good defense of Jung."
Firstly, a balanced perspective is a symmetric perspective and so reduction of highs and lows, the dynamics. There is also a tendency to focus on ‘essentials’ of an experience where such serves to create habits that are generals to enable the life form to deal with particular, like, experiences later. This is all very energy-conserving but is also a example of ‘dumbing down’ – useful for your basic life form lacking consciousness but an issue for us as singular beings (as compared to our particular beings of our species).
Secondly, I dont defend Jung – I am not a follower just aware of useful insights he made. I am not a follower of Freud, his interpretations differ from the usefulness of some of his observations. I am not a follower of Skinner etc etc just focusing on these different specialisations, languages, and their contribution to understanding the underlying sameness in all of them.
Our connectedness is through our species nature where it is a strongly social species as we see in our primate cousins and on ‘down’ to monkeys and mammal etc but also has an added element in the form of high level neural mass and connectivity enabling the emergence of a well-define sense of self, given education.
The differences between us and our primate cousins include the ability to imagine and come up with the concept of the infinite etc where such concepts are limited in less developed neurology since they lack the resolution power that can lead to the development of the concept.
(the issues with imagination come out in mirror neuron studies and issues in the capability in dealing with mime – we can, they cant)
Our brains develop an asymmetry extending beyond the generic hemisphere ‘differences’ at birth – there is already a bias in development with the right dominating the left. Over time, as differentiation is required, so dominance shift left (in most). Hemispherectomies allow for one hemisphere to develop both skill sets but with a subtle lack in precision – a bit liking trying to live on one lung as compared to the comfort of two.
This movement right-to-left appears to also cover back-to-front and core-to-surface but it also occurs WITHIN the right, WITHIN the left etc etc etc and if we go deep enough we hit the axon/dendrite dynamic of the neuron with increased connectivities from axon branching to other neuron dendrite areas etc etc. With that comes refined habits/memories and so a developing universal nature, we can ‘fit in’ anywhere since we have the instincts/habits to do so with a precision far exceeding our nearest neuron-dependent cousins.
So – ‘balance’ covers an integrating, cooperative, deductive, anti-symmetric/symmetric mindset and so limiting of consciousness in its full asymmetric form (where consciousness reflects the position of possible trascendence by breaking symmetry as it can make symmetry)
-
“I agree. But do we agree upon what underlies those habits and hypothesis of thinking? The habit is to use simple logical deduction and assume a certain range of probabilities. If someone says something outside that range, you are likely to say, ‘WHAT?’”
The development of a symmetric nature comes as a natural consequence of exposure to an asymmetric, thermodynamic, universe. (given the dark matter/energy issues there is the implication that what we see is the symmetric content of that asymmetry)
ANY focus on conservation of a particular will introduce the totality of conservations in the form of symmetry and the associated determinism (genetics etc).
Thus the notions of extreme concepts, such as ‘infinity’ and ‘god’ etc reflects extremes in differentiating power to a level of introducing imagination and with that the emergence of consciousness from speciesness; the development of proactive mediation skills etc of very high precision, as compared to other neuron-dependent life forms.
The emphasis is on the emergence of symbol making and communicating format from a balanced, single context, immediate experience, realm and so a realm of ‘as is’ compared to ‘as interpreted’.
The issue here is that ‘as interpreted’ can be more interesting than ‘as is’! we can get addicted to our models and try to impose them as reality ‘as is’!
So – you present a focus on balance that is ideal and not in accord with the development of consciousness where we cannot escape the completion of such, if possible! (completion being in no longer needing to mediate, we have all of the instincts/habits needed to survive well! That said, the addiction to consciousness in the form of imagination will keep the dynamic alive!)
-
“I donn’t think so. We deduce a particular conclusion, from particular premises, and then judge the conclusion against a particular event. The ‘controlled focus’ is on a particular correlation. A comparisson and then a judgement is made.”
The identified left/right dynamic covering styles of reasoning is firstly recursed and so cover all variations of expressions as styles of mediating with reality. This natural recursion imposes a precision issue due to the differences in differentating (the point) vs integrating (no less than two points). This our reasoning of inductive-abductive/deductive contains this precision issue across all scales.
If, OTOH you are focused on the anti-symmetric then the focus is on local context and part-part, difference, analysis WITHIN a symmetric, sameness, context.
Thus favouring a symmetric mindset will present alternatives not from an asymmetric perspective but from an anti-symmetric perspective – which is what you cover above and so demonstrate your overall symmetry bias.
The reseach work identified covered probabilistic/deductive thought but the generality level left-out the distinctions between inductive thinking and abductive thinking where the latter introduces asymmetry in the form of imaginating a fit to some hypothesiss of a lcoal pattern ‘somehow’ – inductive just builds and so it is easy to re-invent things using that style of thought. Abduction is more sophisticated and makes some assumptions that reflect a strong mediating focus over the simplistic inductive approach akin to ‘add one’.
-
Hans,
thanks for an invitation to take part in the discussion. The formulated Law of Conservation of Consciousness (namely, Assertion 2) states that all living organisms possess the exemplars of consciousness which are equal in their potentiality and functionality. All exemplars of consciousness are equally potent, and the all living organisms are equally alive. Therefore, the statement that we do not improve our exemplar of consciousness is a logical consequence of the formulated Law.Respectfully,
Serge PatlavskiyNOTE
Assertion 1 states that one organism possesses only one exemplar of consciousness.
Assertion 2 states that the number of all exemplars of consciousness in the Universe is limited and concerves. -
Correction to my previous post. In NOTE in should be Assertion 3 instead of Assertion 2
-
Any assertion of a conservation law immediately brings out a focus on symmetry – covered in statements about ‘equalities/equivalences’. Consciousness is NOT symmetric, it is asymmetric. EMOTIONAL energy can be conserved but consciousness is associated with open system dynamics, local context, high differentiating, autopeiotic capabilities and so capabilities for transcendence and getting more out of something that put in (an insight elicits a whole new level of understanding and as such transcends previous perspectives).
The integrating dynamic of our being as species members is grounded in symmetry and the play of part/whole, anti-symmetry/symmetry dynamics. But MEDIATION across that dichotomy brings out a TRIADIC perspective (which is what an asymmetric dichotomy expresses with the ‘third’ arm of stimulus/response, differentiating/integrating etc being mediation)
The triadic perspective is dynamic in that it is fundamentally energy conserving (and so symmetric) but allows for mediation to emerge when necessary and then is withdrawn once the mediation is completed. This the focus more on an asymmetric dichotomy rather than a formal, rigid, trichotomy model.
Charles Peirce et al tried to present the triadic perspective as FIXED with a grounding in ‘god’ etc that he considered manifest as mediator etc. The neuroscientific/biological perspectives negate this in that consciousness is emergent and when not required we fall back on autopilot but with refined habits as compared to what we started with.
Consciousness as such allows for the breaking and making of symmetry and in doing so allows for mutations etc and the development of the unique.
-
I am conscious that abilities is spelt incorrectly in “Consciousness,what are its abilties, how can we improve?”.
I tried to engage with an earlier subject for discussion – Defining Consciousness but just could not keep up with the others who were way beyond my league.
Hope to make a more meaningful contribution to this topic for discussion.
Consciousness,what are its abilities, how can we improve?
What are we trying to improve here consciousness or abilities? Does consciousness have abilities? Or should we be asking does consciousness influence human abilities?
Have we agreed on a definition of consciousness to address the link between consciousness and abilities?
Results
-
