Hello all...

I have been pondering this great dilemma of science and philosophy for a small while now, and have been unable to come to any kind of conclusion.

I am interested in consciousness, and I guess when you consider this topic, ultimately you must consider free will.

What are people's thoughts on consciousness? The consciousness I speak of is the more fundamental type, referring to the actual phenomenon of being conscious, aware (not necessarily self aware) and having agency or will. Is consciousness merely neural contents of the brain, or is it more mysterious, having certain requirements for events to become conscious? Even then if that is the case, that for a mental event to become conscious it must satisfy a minimum level of activity or something, how do all those conscious mental events combine into one flowing stream of consciousness? Is consciousness confined to one particular area of the brain, or is consciousness merely a state of the brain in its entirety? If it is not confined to one particular area, by what medium do all these conscious events interact and combine to produce a singular consciousness.

My thoughts are that consciousness arises from a combination of sufficient neural interconnection, the ability to recall information for use in processing current activities (i.e. working memory), and a sufficient level of neural activity (attention) to an appropriate subject or topic (i.e. more to do with experience rather than say, physical state; the sky is blue, rather than i am currently breathing) (not the end of the list of requirements for consciousness, but its a start).

The reason I am interested in what the requirements are for consciousness is that, there are many neural events which aren't conscious, so to identify the requirements for a neural event to become conscious, it may be possible to take a closer look at what causes consciousness, its nature, what it actually is, what purpose it serves etc.

This is where my reasoning hits a wall... if the contents of our consciousness is just certain neural events which have met certain requirements, how do these neural events then combine to form the singular consciousness?

Secondly, there is a distinct difference between ... for example... the neural network which represents the colour green, with the actual experienced colour green. How do neural representations become conscious qualia (a term used for all conscious experiences... e.g. colour, sound, touch, etc.)? No matter how complex a neural representation is that is the neural correlate of .... say.... the sound of a crow squawking... how can that representation ever amount to the actual distinctive sound. The thing is .... I know it must, I just can't imagine how.

Okay, I guess I have said enough, and I have not yet touched upon agency or 'free' will yet, so i'll open the floor...

Consciousness is available to all living things which posses a brain, or the equivalent. Ants are conscious, in a very limited fashion, just no where near on the level of, say, a dog.

It becomes a function of amount of brain matter at work, and then what that brain matter is at work on.

There is no magic to consciousness, or a thread-bound hovering soul which controls our bodies as if it were an avatar. Consciousness exists within our neural networks and ends when those networks fail.

Sentience i think is an extension of consciousness. The point at which a being can think self-referentially. There are other qualifying factors i think must be present to qualify as sentience, like problem solving, building abstract representative models in the mind, or a concept of time "if, then" thoughts... but i never chased that line of reasoning to its conclusion.

This is certainly one of the all time deep questions about our existence. I think I see what you are getting at Vagabond, when you ask how our knowledge of brain chemistry actually relates to a color, the blueprint of a ship, or speculation about existence.

When asked about time, and equally deep but elusive topic, someone once replied, if you ask me if I know what it is, I would reply of course, I know exactly. But if you then asked me to explain in detail, I would be at a complete loss. So too it seems with consciousness.

Thinking may well come from the jumping of neurotransmitters across the synaptic gap. The type of transmitter, the pattern and rate that they move vary in complex ways. Is this it? If so, it seems somehow unsatisfying. We can study and understand the chemistry, but it still seems a leap from there to what we take to be awareness. Complex chemical interactions occur in an oil refinery, but it is anything but conscious.

Our information about the world comes to us in an even simpler form, essentially just interactions of sodium and potassium along nerve pathways. Sight, sound, touch, smell; its all the same, until it reaches our brain anyway, then the subtle patterns are interpreted and integrated into our consciousness. That’s quite a leap- from a varying flow of a few chemicals up a nerve fiber, to a view of the ocean, Mozart on the stereo, or the feel of a concrete wall.

When considering these things, I sometimes think about point of view. For us humans of course, consciousness is big. But perhaps it is just an artifact that we have due to evolution. In other words, we have acquired a very limited ability to take in and manipulate information from the world in order to survive. How profound this is must depend on viewpoint. In pre-scientific times, for example, many thought the world was flat. This was a reasonable hypothesis actually. Looking about, things seemed more or less flat, and even if one traveled a great distance, it still looked flat. Why would it be round?

It could be that our consciousness today, although it seems vast and hard to quantify, may only be a tiny slice of “reality”. And that taken from a much wider viewpoint, our functioning may be fairly easy to describe and predict, in the same way that one might predict a bee’s search for honey, or ant’s organization of a nest. I think we get glimpses of this when we look at certain scientific topics. We have a sense of seeing whatever is out there in the world, but really we just see a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum. And when we look either very far outwards, or very far in, we are soon lost. Definitions soon become meaningless at the “edge” or the cosmos. And again, what we have taken to be the laws of physics break down at the quantum level. We understand our own turf, which seems important to us, but then things get hazy.

Ah well, just idyll speculation. I have no answers, but it is an interesting question.

johnson1010 wrote:Consciousness is available to all living things which posses a brain, or the equivalent. Ants are conscious, in a very limited fashion, just no where near on the level of, say, a dog.

It becomes a function of amount of brain matter at work, and then what that brain matter is at work on.

There is no magic to consciousness, or a thread-bound hovering soul which controls our bodies as if it were an avatar. Consciousness exists within our neural networks and ends when those networks fail.

Sentience i think is an extension of consciousness. The point at which a being can think self-referentially. There are other qualifying factors i think must be present to qualify as sentience, like problem solving, building abstract representative models in the mind, or a concept of time "if, then" thoughts... but i never chased that line of reasoning to its conclusion.

Hi johnson1010,

I once thought the same as you, that the mere action of a neural network firing might be enough to forge a conscious experience, but then I considered the unconscious and sub conscious. There are so many mental processes at work in our minds which are purely unconscious. When you speak a sentence, such as "I think, therefore I am." you don't consciously select the individual phonemes which make up the words, they are pre-selected, by an unconscious part of our neural network, it is only the end product, wholly integrated which occurs to us, such as the inner speech and the intent to speak which are conscious.

This is why I don't consider that any kind of organism can have consciousness, I believe it to be a highly evolved mechanism which is only activated under certain conditions.

There are many processes we perform every day to which we are partially or wholly unconscious to; driving the car to work, choosing to work the individual break, accelerator, clutch, steering wheel all at once in unison... this is a process which is too complex for the conscious mind to undertake, which is why so many learner drivers falter. Only once the knowledge of how to operate the motor vehicle has become fully integrated into muscle memory, as a procedural process, can the mind be freed from conscious intervention.

I don't think, given what we know about our own consciousness, that it is as simple as having a functioning neural network, there has to be alot more at play. I am not referring to the soul, or anything supernatural. I think that our understanding of how the physical laws of the universe apply to the mind have yet to be fully explored. I don't think it is something which is out of reach for us either, but at our current understanding of the mind, we are nowhere near uncovering the whole truth of consciousness.

etudiant wrote: When considering these things, I sometimes think about point of view. For us humans of course, consciousness is big. But perhaps it is just an artifact that we have due to evolution. In other words, we have acquired a very limited ability to take in and manipulate information from the world in order to survive. How profound this is must depend on viewpoint. In pre-scientific times, for example, many thought the world was flat. This was a reasonable hypothesis actually. Looking about, things seemed more or less flat, and even if one traveled a great distance, it still looked flat. Why would it be round?

I also think about consciousness along these lines, that it is a mechanism which can be useful for manipulating information, however when considering this point of view I am faced with the possibility that all our thoughts, actions and motivations are merely a result of an unconscious supporting neural network, and thus when these thoughts become conscious for our use it would seem that the mere act of them being conscious would prove to be useless, and might be performed by an unconscious process. This would then leave one with 2 conclusions, that, as you said, consciousness is merely an artifact produced from a high level of connection between neural networks, or that there is something special that consciousness imparts that an unconscious process can't achieve, or is more efficiently achieved by conscious intervention. I have been flip flopping between these 2 conclusions for a while, but I'm sure there is more to be said about it.

etudiant wrote: It could be that our consciousness today, although it seems vast and hard to quantify, may only be a tiny slice of “reality”. And that taken from a much wider viewpoint, our functioning may be fairly easy to describe and predict, in the same way that one might predict a bee’s search for honey, or ant’s organization of a nest. I think we get glimpses of this when we look at certain scientific topics. We have a sense of seeing whatever is out there in the world, but really we just see a narrow band of the electromagnetic spectrum. And when we look either very far outwards, or very far in, we are soon lost. Definitions soon become meaningless at the “edge” or the cosmos. And again, what we have taken to be the laws of physics break down at the quantum level. We understand our own turf, which seems important to us, but then things get hazy.

Ah well, just idyll speculation. I have no answers, but it is an interesting question.

Also a good point there at the end, there is obviously a whole lot we are not seeing or understanding about consciousness, and until we look at it from these other angles, it will remain obscure and abstract.

Doesn't one theory hold that simply by the growth in complexity, in numbers of neurons, consciousness resulted? This is the "more is different" idea, though it might not really explain much. One basic test of consciousness is supposed to be recognition of a mirror's image as "belonging to" the animal doing the looking. But maybe there is self-consciousness and a different type which also might be consciousness in a different sense.

A convenient way to explore consciousness is to look at abnormal states brought about by brain disease. In patients with advanced Alzheimers, it might be questioned whether by neuronal decay patients are still conscious. They may respond to stumuli such as the sound of someone calling their name, but if the phonetic content hs no meaning for them, are they still conscious?

There are many books out there on consciousness. Does anyone have one to recommend?

vAgabond,

You have hit on an idea that is currently plaguing psychologists. The mind/body question has now been updated to be the mind/body/consciousness question. No one, as yet, has come up with a definition of consciousness that the APA can agree on, so you are hardly alone in being perplexed.

weaver wrote:vAgabond,

You have hit on an idea that is currently plaguing psychologists. The mind/body question has now been updated to be the mind/body/consciousness question. No one, as yet, has come up with a definition of consciousness that the APA can agree on, so you are hardly alone in being perplexed.

I think alot of psychologists have simply tried to 'explain away' consciousness or ignored it completely, it is like noone knows what to do with it so noone chooses to discuss it. You are right there about not having a definition for consciousness, this is because the word itself is used for many different things, such as attention, self-consciousness. And even when you are clear on which kind of consciousness you are trying to describe, when you attempt to define it from a 3rd person perspective, it becomes virtually impossible. This is where self report or introspection is useful. How can you detect consciousness from a 3rd person perspective? Some experiments have attempted to use brain activity, but this is not an accurate measurement.

I think consciousness first needs to be accurately described and defined. It's causes, functions, different levels of consciousness and what contributes to these. The problem is there is so much to describe about consciousness, because it really is all there is to our existence.

I have read a few books on the subject, some have managed to broach the topic, making comparisons, attempting to describe it but running into endless loops in logic. None that I have read have really shed any light or added anything useful to my knowledge of the subject.

The S-F writer Arthur C Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology would seem like magic to the uninitiated. Maybe that is where we are at with consciousness. Given our state of knowledge, it is hard to refrain from thinking in terms of the incredible and even inconceivable when considering the functions of the brain. But maybe in the future these sorts of things will be better known.

etudiant wrote:The S-F writer Arthur C Clarke once said that any sufficiently advanced technology would seem like magic to the uninitiated. Maybe that is where we are at with consciousness. Given our state of knowledge, it is hard to refrain from thinking in terms of the incredible and even inconceivable when considering the functions of the brain. But maybe in the future these sorts of things will be better known.

Definitely true there, the brain is possibly the most complex piece of architecture in our known universe so currently the way it generates consciousness is too complex for us to comprehend. There are too many unknowns and not enough methods to explore the nature of consciousness. Hopefully some day some bright spark might be able to shed some light on this topic, as I know that it will redefine the way I conceive my reality, at least for me.

There is so much around us that we know, and what we don't know we are working to discover its truth. The truth of consciousness can't be unravelled until we set it as a goal to understand it. Most people don't even consider what their consciousness is, how it comes about, why they even have one, how it works, what its true nature is, what 'substance' a consciousness is. That last one, what consciousness is 'made' of plagues me a little, I mean, we know our consciousness exists physically; it must, because it is the only thing cementing our being to the reality we perceive. If consciousness were not 'real', then how would we be sure that anything exists. And if it isn't a real thing of substance, then how is it that we can perceive a seemingly full and 'real' world through an experience that is not 'real'?

I guess I'm just not happy to sit back and hope that someone solves that question, because its one of those 'meaning of life' questions. Its something I have to understand in my own lifetime, or else its meaning is meaningless, at least to me. I guess I'm on the right track, studying psychology, but the study of consciousness is limited even in this field. Oh well, I guess i'll have something to keep me up at night.