Pure Consciousness?

[Gee]

I concede your point, "Why we have experiences is the hard problem."

But I have a question. If we are exposed to knowledge, information, or even emotion, but we are not aware of it; if it is absorbed into the sub/unconscious mind, did we "experience" it?

Gee

From my point of view I would say that it depends on the type of information, but generally speaking the answer would be, yes.

For this question, "generally speaking" is not an answer that I can accept for my theories.

We experience many things but most of the things we experience we don't attend to, but we still experience them. Tomorrow, I will try and find you a link to studies in attentional blindness.

I have seen some of these studies, and they are quite interesting, but they are information that is gained through the senses, and processed through the conscious mind--I believe. These studies draw attention to the matter of "focus", which is very interesting, but I know little about how it works. There are many posters on other forums that are studying focus.

I was considering information that is not received from the senses, such as instinctual knowledge. I have only found one person, who has made a good study of the sub/unconscious mind, and that is Ignacio Matte Blanco. He was a psychiatrist, who actually worked with or under Anna Freud, and a one page article on his work can be found it Wiki. It is very interesting, and I especially liked the part where he explains that the unconscious mind has absolutely no knowledge of time. The unconscious mind sees past, present, and future as the same thing. It made me wonder if it has any understanding of space.

Gee

[chaz wyman]

As there are no zombies, look at what you can. Single celled organisms are 'aware' of food sources, light and temperature changes. Leaves can move to orient themselves to sunlight, close up to avoid loosing water. As evolution has brought forth increasingly complex organisms we find that the response level to environmental stimuli becomes more complex, the complexity leads to higher animals such as Whales, Dolphins and humans with sophisticated communication.
Surely this is where you look to understand consciousness, as these living examples are the only evidence and the only examples we have.

The argument seems to be: because consciousness has only been "observed" in things with brains, we must infer that only brains are conscious.

But consider:

We have a bag of matchboxes, half of them red and half of them white. We notice that we can only open the red boxes and inside we find a beetle, but we are unable to see inside the white boxes. We cannot conclude from this that only the red boxes contain beetles.

I'm not in any way convinced by this.


By your argument you can image that the content of matches is anything you want??

But the analogy is worse that than. In the realm of consciousness we are already inside the box. We are its contents.
Another problem with your analogy is that there is no connection between a beetle and the box.
This is not the case with consciousness, where the box is intimately connected with its contents so much that a similar box has a similar beetle, and can tell us that the content is the same as ours. Or in other words people who appear to also have consciousness can express the fact, and we can show they have a brain. Dolphins with brains demonstrate conscious behaviour.

So , what exactly is wrong with my view, and what are you going to infer without any evidence?

[MGL]

Chaz: As there are no zombies, look at what you can. Single celled organisms are 'aware' of food sources, light and temperature changes. Leaves can move to orient themselves to sunlight, close up to avoid loosing water. As evolution has brought forth increasingly complex organisms we find that the response level to environmental stimuli becomes more complex, the complexity leads to higher animals such as Whales, Dolphins and humans with sophisticated communication.
Surely this is where you look to understand consciousness, as these living examples are the only evidence and the only examples we have.


MGL:

The argument seems to be: because consciousness has only been "observed" in things with brains, we must infer that only brains are conscious.

But consider:

We have a bag of matchboxes, half of them red and half of them white. We notice that we can only open the red boxes and inside we find a beetle, but we are unable to see inside the white boxes. We cannot conclude from this that only the red boxes contain beetles.
I'm not in any way convinced by this.


Chaz:

By your argument you can image that the content of matches is anything you want??

But the analogy is worse that than. In the realm of consciousness we are already inside the box. We are its contents.
Another problem with your analogy is that there is no connection between a beetle and the box.
This is not the case with consciousness, where the box is intimately connected with its contents so much that a similar box has a similar beetle, and can tell us that the content is the same as ours. Or in other words people who appear to also have consciousness can express the fact, and we can show they have a brain. Dolphins with brains demonstrate conscious behaviour.

So , what exactly is wrong with my view, and what are you going to infer without any evidence?

MGL: What seems to be wrong with your view is that it appears to be making a poor inference and my analogy is an attempt to understand the structure of your argument to demonstrate this. I am not infering anything, but suggesting there is no good evidence that the brain produces\generates consciousness, only that its activity can be equated with that of a conscious mind.


============

Chaz: In the realm of consciousness we are already inside the box. We are its contents.

MGL: I'm not sure I understand why this is an objection. Being the contents of a red box does not justify you to conclude that white boxes do not contain something like yourself just because you can't peak inside them.

==========

Chaz: Another problem with your analogy is that there is no connection between a beetle and the box.
This is not the case with consciousness, where the box is intimately connected with its contents so much that a similar box has a similar beetle, and can tell us that the content is the same as ours.Or in other words people who appear to also have consciousness can express the fact, and we can show they have a brain. Dolphins with brains demonstrate conscious behaviour.

MGL: Certainly, if you equate consciousness ( a beetle ) merely with conscious BEHAVIOUR ( a red box) , then of course you are entitled to infer that only boxes with the appropriate behaviour ( red boxes ) have consciousness ( beetles ). But consciousness is not purely the behaviour we associate with it. It includes the phenomenal properties ( redness, pain etc ) that make up the medium through which that behaviour is experienced first hand. There is no necessary/logical relation between these phenomenal properties and our behaviour. The point of imagining zombies is to demonstrate that the association between our behaviour and consciousness is only contingent and not a necessary one.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz: As there are no zombies, look at what you can. Single celled organisms are 'aware' of food sources, light and temperature changes. Leaves can move to orient themselves to sunlight, close up to avoid loosing water. As evolution has brought forth increasingly complex organisms we find that the response level to environmental stimuli becomes more complex, the complexity leads to higher animals such as Whales, Dolphins and humans with sophisticated communication.
Surely this is where you look to understand consciousness, as these living examples are the only evidence and the only examples we have.


MGL:

The argument seems to be: because consciousness has only been "observed" in things with brains, we must infer that only brains are conscious.

But consider:

We have a bag of matchboxes, half of them red and half of them white. We notice that we can only open the red boxes and inside we find a beetle, but we are unable to see inside the white boxes. We cannot conclude from this that only the red boxes contain beetles.
I'm not in any way convinced by this.


Chaz:

By your argument you can image that the content of matches is anything you want??

But the analogy is worse that than. In the realm of consciousness we are already inside the box. We are its contents.
Another problem with your analogy is that there is no connection between a beetle and the box.
This is not the case with consciousness, where the box is intimately connected with its contents so much that a similar box has a similar beetle, and can tell us that the content is the same as ours. Or in other words people who appear to also have consciousness can express the fact, and we can show they have a brain. Dolphins with brains demonstrate conscious behaviour.

So , what exactly is wrong with my view, and what are you going to infer without any evidence?

MGL: What seems to be wrong with your view is that it appears to be making a poor inference and my analogy is an attempt to understand the structure of your argument to demonstrate this. I am not infering anything, but suggesting there is no good evidence that the brain produces\generates consciousness, only that its activity can be equated with that of a conscious mind.

There is nothing wrong with my argument, and every thing wrong with your analogy - that's the point.
You can never talk about a thing for which you have no evidence; it is absurd.
============

Chaz: In the realm of consciousness we are already inside the box. We are its contents.

MGL: I'm not sure I understand why this is an objection. Being the contents of a red box does not justify you to conclude that white boxes do not contain something like yourself just because you can't peak inside them.

==========

Chaz: Another problem with your analogy is that there is no connection between a beetle and the box.
This is not the case with consciousness, where the box is intimately connected with its contents so much that a similar box has a similar beetle, and can tell us that the content is the same as ours.Or in other words people who appear to also have consciousness can express the fact, and we can show they have a brain. Dolphins with brains demonstrate conscious behaviour.

MGL: Certainly, if you equate consciousness ( a beetle ) merely with conscious BEHAVIOUR ( a red box) , then of course you are entitled to infer that only boxes with the appropriate behaviour ( red boxes ) have consciousness ( beetles ). But consciousness is not purely the behaviour we associate with it. It includes the phenomenal properties ( redness, pain etc ) that make up the medium through which that behaviour is experienced first hand. There is no necessary/logical relation between these phenomenal properties and our behaviour. The point of imagining zombies is to demonstrate that the association between our behaviour and consciousness is only contingent and not a necessary one.

What happens if you light a match?

We are conscious. All our evidence is a thing we are conscious of. Consciousness is primary. QED we are the contents of the box.

[Gee]

You can never talk about a thing for which you have no evidence; it is absurd.

Here is what is wrong with your argument; Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. This is a philosophy forum, not a science forum--we get to speculate.

To assume that something is, or is not, what we believe it to be, is assumption. Assumption is not philosophy. Assumption leads to ignorance. So we must doubt our assumptions, and speculate on possible reasonable alternatives, and look for other evidence.

We are conscious. All our evidence is a thing we are conscious of. Consciousness is primary. QED we are the contents of the box.

This is a rather narcissistic perspective. It very much reminds me of the concepts that were argued many centuries ago between a church and a man named Galileo. There was a mountain of evidence that supported the idea that we were the center of the universe, and probably the stability of the universe. This evidence was incontestable as it was supported by observation, the greatest minds of the time, and God. But it was wrong.

QED there are windows in my box.

Gee

[Gee]

Perhaps we could say that the easy problem of consciousness is the imitation of consciousness, by the zombie or the machine. Now or in the future we can get a computer to display emotions and demand its own personal space, but it would only ever be an ACT on the part of the computer or the zombie. For the moment we can look at this as the easy problem of consciousness.

Perhaps, on the other hand, we could say that the hard problem is when we examine the claim that people are NOT ACTING when it comes to these types of emotions. These experiences are very much a subject thing that machine can never obtain. Why can machines never obtain this level? Because they cannot have experiences. Why we have experiences is the hard problem.

Ginkgo

I concede your point, "Why we have experiences is the hard problem."

But I have a question. If we are exposed to knowledge, information, or even emotion, but we are not aware of it; if it is absorbed into the sub/unconscious mind, did we "experience" it?

Gee

From my point of view I would say that it depends on the type of information, but generally speaking the answer would be, yes.

We experience many things but most of the things we experience we don't attend to, but we still experience them.

So if we don't attend to the experience, we still experience the thing because it happened to us? I'm not sure about this, as it looks like awareness is not even considered in experience.

That would mean that stepping on my toe, or stepping on grass, or stepping on an egg that you just took from the nest, or stepping on a plastic toy on the ground, would be the same thing. Each thing is damaged by the "experience".

But each does not possess, or have, the experience, as awareness is the difference between life and non-life. To exclude "awareness" is to say that panpsychism and Dennett are both correct.

But back to my original topic, if you stepped on my toe, I would feel it because of my nerve endings; if you stepped on grass, grass does not have nerves, so would it be felt? experienced?; if you stepped on an egg, would the egg feel it? My toe, grass, and an egg are all alive, so all have some form of consciousness/awareness, but they do not seem to be the same.

So I still think there are varying degrees and combinations of consciousness in life.

Gee

[chaz wyman]

You can never talk about a thing for which you have no evidence; it is absurd.

Here is what is wrong with your argument; Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. This is a philosophy forum, not a science forum--we get to speculate.

To assume that something is, or is not, what we believe it to be, is assumption. Assumption is not philosophy. Assumption leads to ignorance. So we must doubt our assumptions, and speculate on possible reasonable alternatives, and look for other evidence.

We are conscious. All our evidence is a thing we are conscious of. Consciousness is primary. QED we are the contents of the box.

This is a rather narcissistic perspective. It very much reminds me of the concepts that were argued many centuries ago between a church and a man named Galileo. There was a mountain of evidence that supported the idea that we were the center of the universe, and probably the stability of the universe. This evidence was incontestable as it was supported by observation, the greatest minds of the time, and God. But it was wrong.

QED there are windows in my box.

Gee

The evidence from astronomy pointed to either interpretation; geocentric or heliocentric. Copernicus and Aristarchus both preceded Galileo in their heliocentric hypothesis. Your analogy is false. They were not looking to understand a phenomenon where it did not exist. They were not trying to decide if the sun existed at the bottom of the ocean.

Now we have a question about consciousness. We question is; what is it about the higher animals that make them demonstrate more conscious behaviour than the lower animals.
We also have another question; what is it about the universe that makes it the way it is?
You seem to want to confuse the questions.


So lets play your game and see if it makes any sense. You want to pretend that consciousness is present where it cannot be observed.
Off you go and tell me what use or value your argument is.
I'll be patient.

[chaz wyman]

So if we don't attend to the experience, we still experience the thing because it happened to us? I'm not sure about this, as it looks like awareness is not even considered in experience.

This is a no brainer. A falling bomb is said to experience the pull of gravity, yet the bomb is not aware of it's own motion, just like when you are asleep you experience changes in temperature, but are not aware of it.


That would mean that stepping on my toe, or stepping on grass, or stepping on an egg that you just took from the nest, or stepping on a plastic toy on the ground, would be the same thing. Each thing is damaged by the "experience".

But each does not possess, or have, the experience, as awareness is the difference between life and non-life. To exclude "awareness" is to say that panpsychism and Dennett are both correct.

You are making a confusion of definition into a confusion of concept. A conscious experience is not the same any experience. A leaf can be 'aware' of a change in light, and respond by turning toward it. But that is NOT the same as the leaf being conscious of the light.

But back to my original topic, if you stepped on my toe, I would feel it because of my nerve endings; if you stepped on grass, grass does not have nerves, so would it be felt? experienced?; if you stepped on an egg, would the egg feel it? My toe, grass, and an egg are all alive, so all have some form of consciousness/awareness, but they do not seem to be the same.

QED: a confusion of definition.

So I still think there are varying degrees and combinations of consciousness in life.

No, a confusion of concept is not the same as a degree of difference.

Gee

[Ginkgo]

But back to my original topic, if you stepped on my toe, I would feel it because of my nerve endings; if you stepped on grass, grass does not have nerves, so would it be felt? experienced?; if you stepped on an egg, would the egg feel it? My toe, grass, and an egg are all alive, so all have some form of consciousness/awareness, but they do not seem to be the same.

So I still think there are varying degrees and combinations of consciousness in life.

Gee

Hello Gee,

This is a very long story, but basically awareness does actually lead to consciousness according to the research. But what the research is actually addressing is the role of the senses when it comes to consciousness. Obviously you are looking for an explanation beyond this.

The science does not actually address the possibility that eggs have a consciousness, or that grass has a consciousness. Science assumes that they do not have consciousness to any degree because it cannot be demonstrated that such things are in any way aware. Awareness, or more specifically attention is reserved for the perceiving human. The science is probably not where you want to go.

I think you are trying to say there are different levels of consciousness depending of the complexity of the organism. The science won't help you with this. In fact it will argue against this possibility.

I think your best bet is to go with what might be loosely called, "negative science" Can't really think of a good terms for this but there are a lot of studies at the moment which try point out the inadequacy of a scientific theory, rather than trying to justify the science. But again, this is where Chalmers hard and easy problem come into play. Obviously his theory is not scientific, but it tries to show the science is inadequate. It is nearly impossible to prove a metaphysical theory true to the satisfaction of an empiricist. Good luck with Chaz.

Ginkgo

[MGL]

There is nothing wrong with my argument, and every thing wrong with your analogy - that's the point.
You can never talk about a thing for which you have no evidence; it is absurd.

Precisely. You can never claim something lacks a form of consciousness when you have no evidence. That is absurd and it is precisely what I am pointing out is wrong in your inference.

What happens if you light a match?
We are conscious. All our evidence is a thing we are conscious of. Consciousness is primary. QED we are the contents of the box.

A match ignites.
Yes we are conscious,Yes consciousness is primary, yes we are the contents of a box.
Not sure what you intended to mean by "All our evidence is a thing we are conscious of".

You may have to spell out why these points are relevant, especially if they answer my responses to your objections.

[Ginkgo]

There is nothing wrong with my argument, and every thing wrong with your analogy - that's the point.
You can never talk about a thing for which you have no evidence; it is absurd.

Precisely. You can never claim something lacks a form of consciousness when you have no evidence. That is absurd and it is precisely what I am pointing out is wrong in your inference.

What happens if you light a match?
We are conscious. All our evidence is a thing we are conscious of. Consciousness is primary. QED we are the contents of the box.

A match ignites.
Yes we are conscious,Yes consciousness is primary, yes we are the contents of a box.
Not sure what you intended to mean by "All our evidence is a thing we are conscious of".

You may have to spell out why these points are relevant, especially if they answer my responses to your objections.

I get it.

You and Gee want to use 'awareness' in an Aristotelian way.

Matter behaves in a way in accordance with its telos.

[Gee]

The evidence from astronomy pointed to either interpretation; geocentric or heliocentric. Copernicus and Aristarchus both preceded Galileo in their heliocentric hypothesis.

Did the church condemn them as heretics also? Or are you trying to say that I am the first person to suggest that consciousness is part of our reality instead of all in your head?

Your analogy is false. They were not looking to understand a phenomenon where it did not exist. They were not trying to decide if the sun existed at the bottom of the ocean.

Good, because I don't think that the sun is there. I don't think that consciousness is there either, but I do think that consciousness has a relationship with, or maybe a dependency for its start or continuance, on water.

Now we have a question about consciousness. We question is; what is it about the higher animals that make them demonstrate more conscious behaviour than the lower animals.
We also have another question; what is it about the universe that makes it the way it is?
You seem to want to confuse the questions.

If you want to answer those questions, maybe you should start a thread on those questions. Look up to the top of the screen. This thread asks if consciousness is pure, which is an entirely different question.

So lets play your game and see if it makes any sense.

This is not a game to me Chaz. If it is a game to you, then please back out of this thread. If you are bored, then find someone else to entertain you, as we have been here before, and I am not interested in debating issues that you think are important.

You want to pretend that consciousness is present where it cannot be observed.

The only thing that I am pretending is civility while addressing rude and sarcastic comments like the one above.

Off you go and tell me what use or value your argument is.

OK If you can refrain from being rude, sarcastic, and abusive; if you can post in this thread for a week without insulting anyone or calling anyone names, then I will tell you why I think this idea has value.

I'll be patient.

I suspect that you are lieing through your teeth, and that you can not be patient. But you could prove me wrong.

Gee

[Gee]

Back to the topic.

Following is, hopefully, a link to a Microbiology site. I got this site information from Wiki, and it deals with endospores. For those who don't know, endospore is bacteria that has put itself into a hibernating dormant state. Endospore are impervious to most things that would kill any other life form, and when in this state, it can continue for millions of years. It is dormant in this state and does not eat, or reproduce, or do anything--it could almost appear to be a fossil.

[Endospores http://www.microbiologytext ... &art_id=69

What I found most fascinating about this, is not that it can hibernate this way, but how it comes back to life. Apparently, after centuries or even millions of years, when it finds itself in a situation that is conducive to life, it simply turns back into bacteria, eats, reproduces, and continues. So how does it know that it is in a situation that is conducive to life? What causes it to turn back on? Wiki did not say, so are we saying that this endospore is aware?

Most people do not believe that bacteria are aware, so this is why I brought this up. I will grant that bacteria may well not have thought, memory, or emotion, but if they are aware, do they have feeling? Do they sense that the environment is suitable?

Any ideas?

Gee

[chaz wyman]

The evidence from astronomy pointed to either interpretation; geocentric or heliocentric. Copernicus and Aristarchus both preceded Galileo in their heliocentric hypothesis.

Did the church condemn them as heretics also? Or are you trying to say that I am the first person to suggest that consciousness is part of our reality instead of all in your head?

Our reality is all in our head. You are not making any sense at all.

Your analogy is false. They were not looking to understand a phenomenon where it did not exist. They were not trying to decide if the sun existed at the bottom of the ocean.

Good, because I don't think that the sun is there.
Exactly. Why? because it is not evident, just like consciousness in Space. You are shooting yourself in the foot here.
I don't think that consciousness is there either, but I do think that consciousness has a relationship with, or maybe a dependency for its start or continuance, on water.
Indeed. All the evidence suggests that consciousness comes from neural matter.

Now we have a question about consciousness. We question is; what is it about the higher animals that make them demonstrate more conscious behaviour than the lower animals.
We also have another question; what is it about the universe that makes it the way it is?
You seem to want to confuse the questions.

If you want to answer those questions, maybe you should start a thread on those questions. Look up to the top of the screen. This thread asks if consciousness is pure, which is an entirely different question.
A question which you have long abandoned.

So lets play your game and see if it makes any sense.

This is not a game to me Chaz. If it is a game to you, then please back out of this thread. If you are bored, then find someone else to entertain you, as we have been here before, and I am not interested in debating issues that you think are important.
Ohhhhh, I think I have hit a sore point here. The point is that you have nothing to say in response to my points so you want me to leave the thread. Maybe you should try to think harder, and not keep shooting yourself in the foot?

You want to pretend that consciousness is present where it cannot be observed.

The only thing that I am pretending is civility while addressing rude and sarcastic comments like the one above.
This is 'civility':" back out of this thread. If you are bored, then find someone else to entertain you, as we have been here before, and I am not interested in debating issues that you think are important."
My comment is perfectly civil! You are feeling under attack because your assertions have run their course and are not supportable my reason or evidence.

Off you go and tell me what use or value your argument is.

OK If you can refrain from being rude, sarcastic, and abusive; if you can post in this thread for a week without insulting anyone or calling anyone names, then I will tell you why I think this idea has value.

This is not rude, sarcastic or abusive. It is an invitation to examine your idea. You can back out if you want.
You feel under attack, not because I am rude, but because you have been confronted by questions you seem unwilling to answer.
Try to calm down and read my questions again.

I'll be patient.

I suspect that you are lieing through your teeth, and that you can not be patient. But you could prove me wrong.

Like I said, I'm not being rude or sarcastic. You have some sort of idea about consciousness. I have called you on evidence. You are reacting badly to that. It's not my problem. I am just asking you straight questions? You are being sensitive. I think it is because you have reflected on a weakness of your thinking - prove me wrong.
So give it a try, if you think you can!
Gee

[chaz wyman]

Back to the topic.

Following is, hopefully, a link to a Microbiology site. I got this site information from Wiki, and it deals with endospores. For those who don't know, endospore is bacteria that has put itself into a hibernating dormant state. Endospore are impervious to most things that would kill any other life form, and when in this state, it can continue for millions of years. It is dormant in this state and does not eat, or reproduce, or do anything--it could almost appear to be a fossil.

[Endospores http://www.microbiologytext ... &art_id=69

What I found most fascinating about this, is not that it can hibernate this way, but how it comes back to life. Apparently, after centuries or even millions of years, when it finds itself in a situation that is conducive to life, it simply turns back into bacteria, eats, reproduces, and continues. So how does it know that it is in a situation that is conducive to life? What causes it to turn back on? Wiki did not say, so are we saying that this endospore is aware?

Most people do not believe that bacteria are aware, so this is why I brought this up. I will grant that bacteria may well not have thought, memory, or emotion, but if they are aware, do they have feeling? Do they sense that the environment is suitable?

Any ideas?

Gee

Yes, I have an idea.
I have an idea that this has gone nothing whatever to do with 'consciousness'. Nor 'Pure Consciousness'.

I think it might be worthwhile to draw a distinction between 'aware' and 'conscious'. We have different words for these ideas for good reason.
A leaf is not conscious of the sun, and yet it can be said to be aware of it, as it can respond by turning towards the sun.