Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 12:40pm PT
|
Consciousness is the greatest mystery it seems. I've never heard a good explanation but many great questions.
My own questioning has never yielded satisfying results.
Observations.
I seem to only be me. A consciousness very closely associated with with a physical counterpart my body.
I seem to be located in a area best described as most concentrated a couple inches behind my eyes with definite but varying degrees of direct awareness throughout my body.
I only experience the universe NOW. All memories are simply records they don't seem to truly exist as anything other than imperfect records. They are no more tangible than my imaginations.
Based on observation it seems that other people have a basically similar experience and are other "Mes"
-----------
I can fiddle around with my mental state via thinking about it or physically manipulating it. Intentionally or unintentionally. But only to a very limited degree that does not escape the bounds described above.
Except one notable experience with a spinal block...really really fascinating experience with temporary paraplegia.
--------
Beyond this i know nothing really. But have to ask why these limits are in my experience unbreakable?
Are they? if so why? How am I in existence.. conscious that is..
no answer that i have ever heard and i have never heard any honest person who really claims to know.
----------
Castenada and various other mystics claim to have broken the limits I have described but never seem able to explain how in a way I have been able to duplicate and even they don't seem to know what it is either.
---
Rambling thoughts
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 12:44pm PT
|
It would be interesting were there a thread entitled, as Ed suggests, ""The Science of Mind". We have professionals expert in this area. I am not one but spurred by John's philosophical leanings quite some time ago I posed an observational definition/description of conscious processes. No one has so far proposed something better, I think.
Early on in school when I first encountered philosophical texts, especially those of the last 2000 years, my impressions jibed very closely with what Ed had the courage to describe. John's efforts did get me to thinking about these processes in real terms, for which I would like to thank him.
Indeed, proceeding under the assumption that ADHD is a malfunction associated with difficulty keeping a line of processing from slipping into subconscious levels I wonder if there might be a line of useful research. The interface between conscious and subconscious has to be something of great interest, neurologically. MRI papers imply that you can get data, albeit poorly averaged, out on 50ms centers. (Possibly even the probe frequency itself could be better selected to sense the processes of interest.) If that is true one could get noise data on local neural processes. That would be interesting because when a process is on the verge of substantial change,i.e. slipping into chaos, you get high levels of what is called "one over f noise." There the spectral power density varies as the inverse of the frequency. A friend is convinced Navier Stokes solutions are required for a better understanding of this phenomenon, so if anyone likes to work this problem, they might take a look at it. Far too nasty for me.
At any rate were all this to be doable, patients suffering from this disorder might benefit from a probe locating the onset in both space and time within the brain. Just being able to quantify the defect would be a huge step forward, I think in its study.
|
|
cintune
climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 01:11pm PT
|
|
|
hooblie
climber
from where the anecdotes roam
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 01:19pm PT
|
absurd leap of an audacious presumption that i know anything about this:
mind is a constantly churning mechanism that drives a little needle, a needle which swings within the realm of approach/avoid in an effort to achieve the ever elusive satisfied ... "mind"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59EImIpI3YI
|
|
Eric Beck
Sport climber
Bishop, California
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 02:00pm PT
|
When we ask "What is" something, we are looking for an answer in terms of more fundamental properties. Some examples from different fields:
Inflation is too much money chasing too few goods.
Gravity is a force between all bits of matter. There is an equation for the strength of the force.
Heat is vibration of molecules. The complete absence of heat at absolute zero is matter with no vibration.
Here is an interesting conjecture on the question of "What is Mind (or consciousness)". I would like to say that I thought this up, but it is from Teilhard de Chardin. Chardin was a Jesuit and a Paleontologist.
Consciousness is a fundamental property of matter, like mass or charge. It only manifests itself in structures of considerable complexity, i.e. brains. Evolution is development of more elaborate brains and concomitant higher consciousness.
Is this a scientific assertion? Can it be tested? I am not sure, but one corrollary is that if true, life should be common in the uniferse. Perhaps it is possible to have a measure of the complexity of different brains, amoebae, Ed's ants, dogs, humans etc, measures of their consciousness and check the correlation. Maybe we could look for some very elementary tropisms in material we think to be inanimate and see if we can measure possibly very tiny responses to stimuli.
|
|
Fish Finder
Social climber
THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 02:20pm PT
|
Mind Matters ?
|
|
cintune
climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 02:41pm PT
|
There’s a part of your brain devoted entirely to recognizing animals
Biologically speaking, humans are pretty much just another animal, and it's actually hard to come up with any clear explanation for what sets us apart. But we have a hard time accepting this ... and the reason we're in denial about our animal status may be hardwired into our brains.
It seems as though we humans really should be exceptional somehow, but so many of the things that make us unique — complex societies, tool use, even language and self-awareness — can be found to one degree or another in other species as well. But it's hard to shake the notion that we're special somehow, and that's not exactly surprising. Partially that's because so much of the history of human philosophy has been spent conceptualizing ourselves as fundamentally different from all other life — for a quick example of that, check out the Great Chain of Being.
The roots of human exceptionalism might go even deeper than that, right down to some of the deepest functions of our brains. That's the finding of researchers from Caltech, who asked 41 epilepsy patients to look at 100 different images of animals, people, objects, and landmarks. Because the patients were about to undergo surgery, they'd had electrodes implanted in their brains, allowing the researchers to monitor the neural responses to the different images precisely.
The researchers studied the activity of nearly 1,500 different neurons, and one area of the brain in particular stuck out: the right amygdala. Some of the neurons in that section of the amygdala — the part of the brain that process emotional reaction — responded specifically to pictures of animals, and nothing else. Crucially, these neurons did not fire when photos of humans were shown, regardless of whether the photo was of a famous celebrity or a random stranger. It also didn't matter from what angle or distance the photos were taken.
Even more intriguingly, the neurons showed no preference for which animals were displayed. They didn't fire more strongly in response to, say, a potential predator or a cute lolcat. That suggests this neural response isn't a specific evolutionary response to possible threats - it's more basic than that. If anything, it suggests that we're hard-wired to respond to the presence of animals, any animals...as long as they're not humans.
So then, if you're still looking for a way to distinguish humans from all other animals, we now have a straightforward definition: humans are the only species that doesn't register a response in certain neurons of the right amygdala of the human brain. It doesn't have quite the same ring to it as "we're the only truly intelligent species" or something like that, but it does have the added value of actually meaning something concrete.
http://io9.com/5835391/our-brains-dont-consider-us-to-be-animals
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 02:54pm PT
|
Consciousness is a fundamental property of matter, like mass or charge. It only manifests itself in structures of considerable complexity, i.e. brains. Evolution is development of more elaborate brains and concomitant higher consciousness.
This is the 'ghost-in-the-machine' argument of a universal consciousness 'inhabiting' organisms, each to whatever limits it can sustain. In turn, I suppose it could be extrapolated to accommodate issues around debilitation, disease, and other forms of brain and cognitive dysfunction. Some of the questions raised by this approach, though, revolve around exactly how consciousness 'finds' and 'inhabits' or brains and how a universal consciousness differentiates into individual consciousness.
I would also think if one ascribed to this line of reasoning it would be relatively difficult to support any notions of the survival of a uniquely identifiable 'mind' after death - arrives with the wind, departs with the wind.
|
|
FredC
Boulder climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 03:22pm PT
|
I have been thinking about this lately, very interesting thread. I am not a trained philosopher so my stuff will be pretty personal, or at least from "my" perspective.
For me this boils down to the simple question about does consciousness or awareness arise from a certain number of neurons or connections or is it something separate. Are we just meat computers or is there more?
In a related thought lately it occurs to me that this world we pop into when we are born seems like a big ongoing river of progress and development and so on, a linear timeline. The problem is that the “I” that has popped into this apparently pre-existing stream is absolutely required to experience anything at all, including this stream itself.
When I die this stream will be lost to “me” forever as if both I and it never were. If I am the only one’s perception I care about do I and reality just vanish all at once? Did this very solid stream of time actually exist, did “I“exist?
Hmmm
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 29, 2011 - 03:34pm PT
|
searle et al. want "consciousness" the be something that's more than special-- they want a qualitative rather than a merely quantitative line between other animals and humans called "consciousness."
"language" isn't good enough for john and the others.
at that point, you might start to suspect, as folks from foucault to dennett have argued, that "consciousness" is just a 21st century word for "soul."
-
I don’t think Searle and others were hoping for anything “special,” rather they were looking at their own minds and asking: What is going on? Is mathematics and data processing answering the questions I have about consciousness? Can I probe these waters with more than a ruler and avoid the terrible cries of those saying I am perforce engaging in wu wu bullsh#t?
I think Craig (Dr. F) was wondering where human consciousness fit into the evolutionary ladder. Maybe he can ask a giraffe or stink bug what it thinks about this thread, phyicalism, reeductionism, and so forth. This thread doesn't make us "better," in my view. And that's not the question, anyhow.
Ascribing consciousness to the effect of language is simplistic, as is expecting measuring to answer the “hard” questions. Dismissing the questions themselves is rapping off because of a little loose rock. Measure one of Ed's Yosemite photos if you please and tell me about language. BTW, the reason I "bullied" Ed was because he was basically saying all along that philosophy, from the Greeks on down, had given us "nil," when in fact western civilization is the fruit of these "mere talkers." But that's another drift . . .
The interesting and tricky things here include:
A third-person description of consciousness is totally different than consciousness itself. While consciousness can to varying degrees be found in other species (who can say to what degree), the important thing here is that WE are conscious, and we know this as a simple and empirical fact.
Consciousness is subjective, known through first-person experience – it IS first-person experience - so it is difficult to objectify in the normal (measuring) ways. This, I believe, is the principal beef that science has with consciousness itself, and why it struggles to reframe consciousness into something by which it can wrangle it down by known methods. But it has to be something like classical physics not explaining the quantum world, and people at first simply dismissing the quantum world as (fill in the blank).
For instance, Ed wrote: “First and foremost, an education in science teaches us how to ask a scientific question. The point being that if you cannot frame a curiosity in a way which is accessible to the scientific method the chances you will obtain a scientific answer vanishes.”
So far, so good. If you can’t measure it, it ain’t “science.
“My realization with discussing this subject with Largo is that he is not asking a scientific question. And so another thread would be more appropriate with the title "The Science of Mind" which would be quite different than Largo's "What Is Mind?" Though I hesitate to suggest such a thing... (although I guess I just did).”
I’m fine with measurements describing what consciousness IS, but so long as people are chasing after data processing and not human experience, we’re talking about different things.
Going on with Ed: “I have hypothesized on other threads that we actually know what each other is thinking only through our ability to communicate. I can expand on this, but one objection to the scientific study of "mind" is that it does not consider the "subjective experience.”
This would be a valuable point if the object of inquiry was a nutrino or a hub cap but in fact consciousness, as we live and breath it, IS a subjective experience. It can be nothing less since we, as subjects, are its keepers (perhaps not exclusively) through direct experience. IOWs, consciousness is not a third-person thing, so treating it as such will give us mixed results.
Perhaps what Ed and others want is for consciousness to be something other than what it really is in our actual lives. He wants consciousness to exist “as it is in itself” (as a mechanism, not an experience), “independent of perspective” (when consciousness is and always be beholden to the perspective of the person having the experience), “ with a concomitant elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience,” which is like saying: “While consciousness is known only through our direct experience, our investigation of consciousness should first and foremost eliminate experience.”
But there is still room for natural science to probe the relationship between matter and mind, but that too has formidable challenges, like how does matter become experience, and where, exactly, in the causal chain, does this happen, and how. Of course the claim that experience is “what the meat brain does,” will never do owing to the vast qualitative differences between subjective experience (beyond neural “output”) and atomic activity.
Hell if I know how to wrestle this down . . .
JL
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 03:44pm PT
|
FC:
I think you need to decide what you mean by "exist". Here is a candidate:
Something, anything "exists" if that object can be shown, on interaction with another object, to have been affected in any way.
You will know you exist if you do the following. Take a hammer in your right hand and smash your left thumb. A confirming experiment should also be done to show that a different action produces a different effect. Put the hammer in your left hand and smash your right thumb.
All very easily done. You will have an answer to this thousand year old question, in no time at all.
The point?
We get unanswerable philosophical questions simply through poor use of language.
If we assume philosophers are bright, they have to realize what it is they are doing. It is a very simple realization. So which of the two possibilities do you think is operable?
1. Philosophers are not suited for discussion of questions?
2. Philosophers are insincere.
Proposals for the meaning of "existence" that are apriori not testable do not merit discussion.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:08pm PT
|
Largo: ...like how does matter become experience, and where, exactly, in the causal chain, does this happen, and how. Of course the claim that experience is “what the meat brain does,” will never do owing to the vast qualitative differences between subjective experience (beyond neural “output”) and atomic activity.
You (and I suspect this is endemic to many philosophers) keep looking for some secret alchemy that will transmute one noun (meat) into another noun (experience) when in all likelihood both are simply attributes of the same verb.
The neural substrates of conscious color perception demonstrated using fMRI
It is well established that seeing color activates the ventral occipital cortex, including the fusiform and lingual gyri, but less is known about whether the region directly relates to conscious color perception. We investigated the neural correlates of conscious color perception in the ventral occipital cortex. To vary conscious color perception with the stimuli-remaining constant, we took advantage of the McCollough effect, an illusory color effect that is contingent on the orientation of grating stimuli. Subjects were exposed to a specific combination of chromatic grating patterns for 10 min to induce the McCollough effect. We compared brain activities measured while the subjects viewed achromatic grating stimuli before (PRE) and after the induction of the McCollough effect (POST) using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). There were two groups: one group was informed that they would perceive illusory color during the session (INFORMED group), whereas the other group was not informed (UNINFORMED group). The successful induction of the McCollough effect was confirmed in all subjects after the fMRI experiment; nevertheless, only approximately half of the UNINFORMED subjects had been aware of the color during the POST session, while the other half had not. The left anterior portion of the color-selective area in the ventral occipital cortex, presumably V4α, was significantly active in subjects who had consciously perceived the color during MR scan. This study demonstrates the activity in a subregion of the color-selective area in the ventral occipital cortex directly related to conscious color perception.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:10pm PT
|
Dingus:
You give voice to a conclusion I reached freshman year. Courage greater than my own is possessed by both yourself and Ed Hartouni.
The horrible truth is now out.
Joe:
Very good! I will have to research the McCullough Effect. Your paper indicates work in the field regarding the conscious/subconscious dichotomy is ongoing. Something I thought to be quite probable. I would also guess NIMH is funding it to deal with increasingly important afflictions such as the one I mentioned.
Edit: Joe
I did not go through the training period required to demonstrate the McCollough Effect. Entirely reasonable that this happens. Our visual systems are quite adaptable; they even fill in the scene we can't see because of the blind spot associated with the central nerve. The effect here is probably simply related to the training effect associated with synapses being strengthened due to repeated excitation. The effect lasting months, however, is a little scary. Enough reason right there not to do a full test of the effect.
T Chief:
"The main function of virtuous concentration is to make the mind peaceful."
When my car is sliding toward the guardrail on slick ice I am definitely concentrating but my mind is not "peaceful".
If I am trying to avoid an accident, why is my concentration not considered "virtuous"?
Or is it that "virtuous concentration" only works part of the time?
Any guidance as to when I can expect it to work and when not?
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:31pm PT
|
FT:
Altogether possible. Got an example?
|
|
malabarista
Trad climber
Portland, OR
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:51pm PT
|
Since a strict computational model can be summarily ruled out, and a “brain is consciousness” model is insisting that an apple is an orange, and religious explanations are equally unsatisfactory, one wonders what direction is needed to wrestle this one down.
I disagree that a computational model can be ruled out. And I don't buy Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment which hinges on "understanding". I can solve math problems but do I "understand" them? Do I understand what math is? I don't know that I do so I don't see how I'm different than a machine in this regard. I can recognize patterns.
I recommend "Words Made Flesh" by Ramsey Dukes for your continued explorations...
http://www.amazon.com/Words-Made-Flesh-Ramsey-Dukes/dp/0904311112/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1314651064&sr=1-2
blurb from Amazon "this remains the most thorough and complete discussion of the virtual model of the universe"
The thing I love about this book is that the author also originally hated the idea that a machine could have consciousness. But he found that by accepting it fully and extending it to everything... that if everything is in fact just information, then it does not preclude the existence of all our beloved subjective phenomena. If the universe if virtual, then there can an infinite number of such universes and anything we can dream of could exist therein.
Re - the direct, first person experience of hanging 2,500 up the Shield on El Capitan, in boardshorts, in a lightning storm, is a different “thing” than a milk shake or a cockroach.
Maybe it's only different because it's not as commonplace. If you did this everyday it could be a milk shake?
|
|
cintune
climber
Midvale School for the Gifted
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 04:57pm PT
|
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:38pm PT
|
Do you or your gut bacteria control how you [(sub)consciously] feel today...?
Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve
There is increasing, but largely indirect, evidence pointing to an effect of commensal gut microbiota on the central nervous system (CNS). However, it is unknown whether lactic acid bacteria such as Lactobacillus rhamnosus could have a direct effect on neurotransmitter receptors in the CNS in normal, healthy animals. GABA is the main CNS inhibitory neurotransmitter and is significantly involved in regulating many physiological and psychological processes. Alterations in central GABA receptor expression are implicated in the pathogenesis of anxiety and depression, which are highly comorbid with functional bowel disorders. In this work, we show that chronic treatment with L. rhamnosus (JB-1) induced region-dependent alterations in GABAB1b mRNA in the brain with increases in cortical regions (cingulate and prelimbic) and concomitant reductions in expression in the hippocampus, amygdala, and locus coeruleus, in comparison with control-fed mice. In addition, L. rhamnosus (JB-1) reduced GABAAα2 mRNA expression in the prefrontal cortex and amygdala, but increased GABAAα2 in the hippocampus. Importantly, L. rhamnosus (JB-1) reduced stress-induced corticosterone and anxiety- and depression-related behavior. Moreover, the neurochemical and behavioral effects were not found in vagotomized mice, identifying the vagus as a major modulatory constitutive communication pathway between the bacteria exposed to the gut and the brain. Together, these findings highlight the important role of bacteria in the bidirectional communication of the gut–brain axis and suggest that certain organisms may prove to be useful therapeutic adjuncts in stress-related disorders such as anxiety and depression.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Aug 29, 2011 - 05:38pm PT
|
Largo writes: Perhaps what Ed and others want is for consciousness to be something other than what it really is in our actual lives. He wants consciousness to exist “as it is in itself” (as a mechanism, not an experience), “independent of perspective” (when consciousness is and always be beholden to the perspective of the person having the experience), “ with a concomitant elimination of the psychological dimensions of experience,” which is like saying: “While consciousness is known only through our direct experience, our investigation of consciousness should first and foremost eliminate experience.”
which is wrong by miles at least as far as I'm concerned... I don't "want" consciousness to be anything, I'd like to understand it... I hypothesize with the complete willingness to get it wrong, and then modify my assumptions leading to that hypothesis, to refine it... how do I know I'm wrong? by quantifying... and that can be rather soft quantification... like looking at all the replies on a SuperTopoForum thread where the OP might pose a question; do I agree or disagree? do the respondents have view point I haven't considered and is valid and "defeats" my hypothesis.
To do this I have to have a "hypothesis" and a method for arriving at it, and the hypothesis must be testable.
That is what I "want"...
...what do you "want", Largo?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|