Mystery of Self-Consciousness?

[786]

Self-Consciousness is a mysterious subject- science says very little about what it really is, perhaps because we still don't understand the brain as well as some other systems.

But anyways..... what do you think self-consciousness is? Can there be proof of self-consciousness except the very experience of having it.

Does self-consciousness allude to an 'inner world' that is immaterial- although it is connected with the material (i.e brain)... Is consciousness proof for the immaterial? or perhaps the soul?

Anyone has any interesting thoughts on the issue..?

Peace be unto you

 

[Jan Ardena]

Self-Consciousness is a mysterious subject- science says very little about what it really is, perhaps because we still don't understand the brain as well as some other systems.

But anyways..... what do you think self-consciousness is? Can there be proof of self-consciousness except the very experience of having it.

Does self-consciousness allude to an 'inner world' that is immaterial- although it is connected with the material (i.e brain)... Is consciousness proof for the immaterial? or perhaps the soul?

Anyone has any interesting thoughts on the issue..?

Peace be unto you

Bhagavad Gita 2; 13

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

I see this as a practical definition of consciousness.
So I guess my thoughts on this issue is that consciousness is proof for
the soul.

jan.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

I see this as a practical definition of consciousness.
So I guess my thoughts on this issue is that consciousness is proof for
the soul.[/QUOTE]

Consciousness is proof of a soul?

If a soul passes into another body at death then I must assume the body it passes into is soulless prior to that moment. On average, how many of us are soulless at any given time? Is there a limit to how many souls one can possess? Is it possible to go through life without a soul?

Let's say I have a soul. That would mean I got it from some dead life form. Since this thread pertains to self consciousness, I have to assume that at some moment in time that soul arrived in my body in order for me to achieve this awareness. At all other times I was soulless and not aware of myself, is this how you see it?

The question is this...at what age does the soul usually arrive? I take it that no soul actually is developed in a life form since they just arrive. I also take it that a soul isn't necessarily concerned from which body it leaves or enters, as in a variety of life forms. If so then my soul could have come from a deceased dung beetle or a dearly departed cancer cell, it doesn't matter.

So what came first, a life form or a soul? This is important because it puts a whole new meaning on what some consider the purpose of life. In order for the soul to occupy the first life forms means souls had to be constructed first. Or did we have to wait 15 billion years for souls to make it to the production line?

The fact that I am a human body housing a quadrillion living cells means that all I am is a walking repository for souls. So without life the soul exists, somewhere. Without souls there is no reason for life. Therefore a soul does not need life in order to exist. But wait, since a soul moves around then it must be possible for a life form to exist without a soul, at least temporarily.

Self consciousness then is only the life form being aware it is alive. The life form, being inconsequential, is never aware that it may be soulless and also never aware that it possesses a soul.

I see where LG is coming from when he states that one soul amongst the quadrillion that inhabit the colony of life forms that is your body, is the top soul. I can see how ancient philosophers' logic worked, although I'm not sure if they were aware of individual living cells at the time. IOW they attempted to find some justification for life without ever garnering any real proof. A soul is just as dependent on faith as is God.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

[/QUOTE]As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

I see this as a practical definition of consciousness.
So I guess my thoughts on this issue is that consciousness is proof for
the soul.[/QUOTE]

Consciousness is proof of a soul?

If a soul passes into another body at death then I must assume the body it passes into is soulless prior to that moment. On average, how many of us are soulless at any given time? Is there a limit to how many souls one can possess? Is it possible to go through life without a soul?

Let's say I have a soul. That would mean I got it from some dead life form. Since this thread pertains to self consciousness, I have to assume that at some moment in time that soul arrived in my body in order for me to achieve this awareness. At all other times I was soulless and not aware of myself, is this how you see it?

The question is this...at what age does the soul usually arrive? I take it that no soul actually is developed in a life form since they just arrive. I also take it that a soul isn't necessarily concerned from which body it leaves or enters, as in a variety of life forms. If so then my soul could have come from a deceased dung beetle or a dearly departed cancer cell, it doesn't matter.

So what came first, a life form or a soul? This is important because it puts a whole new meaning on what some consider the purpose of life. In order for the soul to occupy the first life forms means souls had to be constructed first. Or did we have to wait 15 billion years for souls to make it to the production line?

The fact that I am a human body housing a quadrillion living cells means that all I am is a walking repository for souls. So without life the soul exists, somewhere. Without souls there is no reason for life. Therefore a soul does not need life in order to exist. But wait, since a soul moves around then it must be possible for a life form to exist without a soul, at least temporarily.

Self consciousness then is only the life form being aware it is alive. The life form, being inconsequential, is never aware that it may be soulless and also never aware that it possesses a soul.

I see where LG is coming from when he states that one soul amongst the quadrillion that inhabit the colony of life forms that is your body, is the top soul. I can see how ancient philosophers' logic worked, although I'm not sure if they were aware of individual living cells at the time. IOW they attempted to find some justification for life without ever garnering any real proof. A soul is just as dependent on faith as is God.

 

[Sarkus]

Self-Consciousness is a mysterious subject- science says very little about what it really is, perhaps because we still don't understand the brain as well as some other systems.

But we are slowly learning about what consciousness is.

But anyways..... what do you think self-consciousness is? Can there be proof of self-consciousness except the very experience of having it.

Proof? We can only ever have proof of our own consciousness. Other people's consciousness is at best an "appears to be conscious and will treat as such until demonstrated otherwise". Sort of "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck..." but not sure they could ever prove they are conscious unless you define consciousness as the ability to perform certain actions, rather than as a subjective experience.

Does self-consciousness allude to an 'inner world' that is immaterial- although it is connected with the material (i.e brain)... Is consciousness proof for the immaterial? or perhaps the soul?

Not in my opinion, no.
If anything, the tests you can do on consciousness allude to nothing more than it being an emergent property of the complex inter-connectivity of the brain.

Anyone has any interesting thoughts on the issue..?

Probably


Okay - some interesting things to consider:
The brain of a conscious person was stimulated while under observation, and it was shown that areas across the brain reacted - clearly indicating a connectedness between the modules of the brain.
They did the same to a person while they were asleep (i.e. not conscious) and only the stimulated module, and perhaps those very close to the stimulated area, reacted. I.e. when not conscious there is not the same connectivity across the modules, which implies that consciousness is strongly related to that interconnectedness.

Children generally do not become self-aware until around 20 months, I think. There are simple mirror tests that have demonstrated this.

What you think of as your conscious self - and thus things like your ability to choose - are just illusion.
A subject was put in a brain-scanner and given a button in each hand. He was told to choose to press either the button in his left hand or his right hand, and as soon as he made the choice he had to press that button - so as to minimise the time between making the choice and action, which should be no more than 0.5 seconds or so.
The brain activity was analysed after the exercise and it was noted that a part of the brain had made the choice of which button was going to be pressed up to 6 seconds before the subject became consciously aware of making the choice.
It was not that the choice was made consciously and it took 6 seconds to act upon it, but that the consciousness was only let in on the decision of the rest of the body at the very last moment. Consciousness then dresses this decision as a "choice" that it alone makes, when in fact it had already been made by us - just not consciously.

The implications of the many such experiments that are done should put to rest the idea that consciousness is an immaterial "thing" - but rather it is a state of our brains, much like "working" is a state of a car engine.
The car engine when not working is not the same one that is working - in that the working engine has a flow about it - has bits moving around etc. There is no immaterial "thing" that enters the engine to grant it the state of "working".
Likewise consciousness is demonstrated to be caused by the interconnectedness of the various modules of our brain, and is an emergent property that does not make our decisions but merely provides awareness of our already-made choices moments before we act them out. It is a window onto the cause-effect chain that is in motion that provides the illusion that we are in control of it.

Imagine you're at the controls of a train. Your "consciousness" determines which direction the next piece of track is laid in front of you for you to follow.
This seems like you are making a choice at a conscious level. Free-will?
But what if your body has actually already (subconsciously) determined which way, and has already laid the track ahead? Your consciousness is then only giving you the illusion of free-will, right at the last moment. But is it really free-will at the point of being conscious of it, given that your body has already determined it for you?


Anyhoo - enough rambling.

 

[Doreen]

Proof? We can only ever have proof of our own consciousness. Other people's consciousness is at best an "appears to be conscious and will treat as such until demonstrated otherwise". Sort of "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck..." but not sure they could ever prove they are conscious unless you define consciousness as the ability to perform certain actions, rather than as a subjective experience.

The interesting thing about this is
here we have perhaps the most profound experience and piece of knowledge: we are conscious. We are aware and we are also aware of ourselves.

Yet we cannot prove this to others. As it happens they are open to this possibility since they figure it is likely they are like us. But notice, here we have a phenomenon which most people, even the most fussy empiricists, consider correctly interpreted by each of us: we are in fact conscious and self-conscious. Yet this phenomenon cannot be proven to others.

I hope the importance of this in relation to other issues is clear.

Not in my opinion, no.
If anything, the tests you can do on consciousness allude to nothing more than it being an emergent property of the complex inter-connectivity of the brain.

But the word 'emergent' really carries not content. I do understand that it means that qualities not present at lower levels of complexity, which, therefore reductionistic approaches might tend to rule out as possible in all cases, manifest at higher levels of complexity. But this is not an explanation. It supplies absolutely no information about why this particular phenomenon occurs.

What you think of as your conscious self - and thus things like your ability to choose - are just illusion.
A subject was put in a brain-scanner and given a button in each hand. He was told to choose to press either the button in his left hand or his right hand, and as soon as he made the choice he had to press that button - so as to minimise the time between making the choice and action, which should be no more than 0.5 seconds or so.
The brain activity was analysed after the exercise and it was noted that a part of the brain had made the choice of which button was going to be pressed up to 6 seconds before the subject became consciously aware of making the choice.
It was not that the choice was made consciously and it took 6 seconds to act upon it, but that the consciousness was only let in on the decision of the rest of the body at the very last moment. Consciousness then dresses this decision as a "choice" that it alone makes, when in fact it had already been made by us - just not consciously.

This is hardly a neutral test. It is a very artificial scenario. A running back cutting through a hole in the defensive line absolutely does not have a 6 second delay between unconscious choosing and physical direction change. That kind of player would not make any team anywhere. I also do not think this is simply a matter of degree. The tested persons were likely members of a Western civilization. Here we have a long history of people being trained to disconnect from large portions of themselves. To not live as a unit, but rather as a split person who monitors, even incarcerates, portions of him or herself. First in the religious name of containing the beast, the sinner within. Then in the name of being rational - if this later trend is something that has affected them - and controlling emotions and urges that distort objectivity, etc.

My client can not be tried without prejudice pretty much anywhere, your honor.

The implications of the many such experiments that are done should put to rest the idea that consciousness is an immaterial "thing" - but rather it is a state of our brains, much like "working" is a state of a car engine.
The car engine when not working is not the same one that is working - in that the working engine has a flow about it - has bits moving around etc. There is no immaterial "thing" that enters the engine to grant it the state of "working".

I think it is much more likely to be a field phenomenon.

Likewise consciousness is demonstrated to be caused by the interconnectedness of the various modules of our brain, and is an emergent property that does not make our decisions but merely provides awareness of our already-made choices moments before we act them out. It is a window onto the cause-effect chain that is in motion that provides the illusion that we are in control of it.

This identifies the 'I' as not the highly organized liquid crystal, that I believe we are, but as the observer. I think this identification is a symptom of culture and can be unlearned.

Edit: Sarkus please go to the Plant Intelligence thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2430549#post2430549

I realized that the issues here and there are connected. If consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon and, in a sense, 'we' do not participate in our choices, then we are not very different from plants who exhibit intelligence in their choices. IOW I think you must disagree with Dywyddyr's position on plants, OR at the very least suggest he must extend this to humans.

I will be very open that I am trying to get you and Dywyddyr to argue. I respect both your minds, and frankly I think the disagreement would be interesting.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't think it's any more mysterious than anything else. There is mystery in most fields of study, meaning just that we do not know everything. Self-consciousness is a mechanism for avoiding predation, by analyzing incoming data and evaluating it in the context of what's best for the continuation of that organism.

 

[786]

I don't think it's any more mysterious than anything else. There is mystery in most fields of study, meaning just that we do not know everything. Self-consciousness is a mechanism for avoiding predation, by analyzing incoming data and evaluating it in the context of what's best for the continuation of that organism.

I think its much more complex than that. but oh well.

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

Is consciousness proof for the immaterial? or perhaps the soul?

None whatsoever.

 

[decons]

I guess the thread is not about this Wiki definition:

"Self-consciousness is an acute sense of self-awareness. It is a preoccupation with oneself, as opposed to the philosophical state of self-awareness, which is the awareness that one exists as an individual being; although some writers use both terms interchangeably or synonymously. An unpleasant feeling of self-consciousness may occur when one realizes that one is being watched or observed, the feeling that "everyone is looking" at oneself"(1).

​

If it is closer to "self-awareness which in a philosophical context is being conscious of oneself as an individual"(2), then,

"Humans are not the only creatures who are self-aware. Thus far, there is evidence that bottlenose dolphins, some apes, and elephants have the capacity to be self-aware. Recent studies from the Goethe University Frankfurt show that magpies may also possess self-awareness.Common speculation suggests that some other animals are self-aware".(3)
​

One of these days I should make a donation to Wikipedia.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-consciousness
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-consciousness#Psychology
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-awareness#In_animals

 

[lightgigantic]

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

I see this as a practical definition of consciousness.
So I guess my thoughts on this issue is that consciousness is proof for
the soul.

Consciousness is proof of a soul?

If a soul passes into another body at death then I must assume the body it passes into is soulless prior to that moment. On average, how many of us are soulless at any given time? Is there a limit to how many souls one can possess? Is it possible to go through life without a soul?

Actually they're making the point that the soul is singular. Just like the same "you" has been present through the myriad of changes of your body, from infancy to the upcoming golden years, similarly the soul (under the duress of illusion) accepts (and rejects) numerous bodies according to their (material) desire.

Let's say I have a soul. That would mean I got it from some dead life form. Since this thread pertains to self consciousness, I have to assume that at some moment in time that soul arrived in my body in order for me to achieve this awareness. At all other times I was soulless and not aware of myself, is this how you see it?

The question is this...at what age does the soul usually arrive?

at the point of conception or when an entity can be said to be living - big differences between a living zygote and a dead one (just wait 9 months to see the difference)

I take it that no soul actually is developed in a life form since they just arrive. I also take it that a soul isn't necessarily concerned from which body it leaves or enters, as in a variety of life forms. If so then my soul could have come from a deceased dung beetle or a dearly departed cancer cell, it doesn't matter.

In one sense it doesn't matter what one used to be. Previously an old person might have had a full head of hair and a handsome complexion. That doesn't really matter now.

So what came first, a life form or a soul? This is important because it puts a whole new meaning on what some consider the purpose of life. In order for the soul to occupy the first life forms means souls had to be constructed first. Or did we have to wait 15 billion years for souls to make it to the production line?

the soul is eternal and the time factor is also eternal (and cyclic) ... and furthermore so is spiritual existence (ie the actual medium of eternality and consciousness which is the constitutional medium of the soul).

According to the desire of the soul, it either makes an appearance in the material or spiritual energy. In one type of existence, a form is engineered to give existence and opportunity to facilitate illusory desires. In the other, one is simply reinstated in one's actual form. Its kind of like material existence operates like a dream and spiritual existence is one's waking experience. One can dream all sorts of existences but all such experiences are thoroughly contextualized the moment one is awake ... kind of like the matrix, except the nature of being in illusion isn't facilitated by some nefarious computer. (They must have got inspired by vedic philosophy when making the movie since the credits end with a music score and recitation from the upanisads about the nature of illusion and reality)

The fact that I am a human body housing a quadrillion living cells means that all I am is a walking repository for souls.

yet one exercises a centralized control (or loss of control, as the case may be) over the whole show - YOU

So without life the soul exists, somewhere.

No
without a soul, life exists nowehere

Without souls there is no reason for life. Therefore a soul does not need life in order to exist. But wait, since a soul moves around then it must be possible for a life form to exist without a soul, at least temporarily.

This doesn't make sense.

Kind of like saying "without sunshine, the sun doesn't exist" (which is really just a backward way of saying "without sunshine, the sun doesn't exist", since we understand sunshine to be a contingent potency of the sun, and not vice versa)

Self consciousness then is only the life form being aware it is alive. The life form, being inconsequential, is never aware that it may be soulless and also never aware that it possesses a soul.

self realization is the unique (and more often than not, squandered) opportunity of the human form of life. The other side of the coin of having the opportunity to be free from karma is that one can also get more embroiled in it (which is an option not really available to any other form of life, including the quadrillion currently present in the cells of your body, since a low level of consciousness relegates one's action to the karma that has been allotted to one)

I see where LG is coming from when he states that one soul amongst the quadrillion that inhabit the colony of life forms that is your body, is the top soul. I can see how ancient philosophers' logic worked, although I'm not sure if they were aware of individual living cells at the time. IOW they attempted to find some justification for life without ever garnering any real proof. A soul is just as dependent on faith as is God.

On the contrary, the techniques for discerning life where quite remarkable (and arguably, currently unavailable to us in our current phase of social degradation). IOW our current infatuation with technology (or issues extrinsic to ourself) is understood to be quite primitive since the applications are widely simply for getting more embroiled in karma, and at the end of it, one hasn't a clue whether one will end up in the next life as a sea slug or king of the world.

 

[spidergoat]

I think its much more complex than that. but oh well.

Peace be unto you

Of course it is, but that is it's basic function, the reason it evolved in the first place.

 

[Michael]

Bhagavad Gita 2; 13

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

I see this as a practical definition of consciousness.
So I guess my thoughts on this issue is that consciousness is proof for
the soul.

jan.

Then Chimps and Dolphins have souls.

 

[lightgigantic]

Then Chimps and Dolphins have souls.

sure

IT explains why the dead ones in circuses don't perform tricks anywhere near as well as the living ones.

 

[Sarkus]

Yet this phenomenon cannot be proven to others.

I hope the importance of this in relation to other issues is clear.

The important thing, though, is that we do not need to have proof of other people's consciousness.
It is enough to know that they act and look as though they do, with ourselves as the only reference point of value in this regard.

If/when machines are capable of passing the Turin test etc, and outwardly display all the characteristics of a self-conscious entity, albeit artificially - how will we know if they are self-conscious or not? How can they prove it to us? They can't, and won't be able to.
But will we treat them any differently - especially if there is no physicality involved (e.g. internet communication).

We therefore merely assume that when people match certain outward signs of consciousness that they are, and that they are experiencing the same with regard to "I". This assumption suffices.

But the word 'emergent' really carries not content. I do understand that it means that qualities not present at lower levels of complexity, which, therefore reductionistic approaches might tend to rule out as possible in all cases, manifest at higher levels of complexity. But this is not an explanation. It supplies absolutely no information about why this particular phenomenon occurs.

Sure, it's not an explaination for consciousness - but then if I could explain it I wouldn't be sitting here typing up thoughts on a website but lapping up the plaudits for the most important scientific breakthrough ever.
I was at best trying to cut off the idea that it is somehow something non-material bestowed upon us by some deity, and that it is being demonstrated to rely entirely on the physical.

This is hardly a neutral test. It is a very artificial scenario. A running back cutting through a hole in the defensive line absolutely does not have a 6 second delay between unconscious choosing and physical direction change. That kind of player would not make any team anywhere.

Sure - but it is a start - a scenario where there are no/limited other interactions - thus limiting the interconnectedness activity.
In less artificial scenarios there is a vastness of complexity.
And yes, consciousness becomes aware of decisions far far sooner - up to the point where the actions are taken without conscious thought - i.e. instinct. A good running back will have much more instinct.
And in many cases the need for a quick reaction forces us to be aware far far sooner.

But given that we do know so little, we surely have to start by minimising interactions and analyse / interpret those results - see where they lead.

I also do not think this is simply a matter of degree. The tested persons were likely members of a Western civilization. Here we have a long history of people being trained to disconnect from large portions of themselves. To not live as a unit, but rather as a split person who monitors, even incarcerates, portions of him or herself. First in the religious name of containing the beast, the sinner within. Then in the name of being rational - if this later trend is something that has affected them - and controlling emotions and urges that distort objectivity, etc.

Not sure how this matters, to be honest. Maybe I'm missing something?
Whether we live as a unit, or can disconnect parts of our personality is ultimately irrelevant - as this is surely a matter of personality, rather than consciousness?

I think it is much more likely to be a field phenomenon.

By which you mean...?

This identifies the 'I' as not the highly organized liquid crystal, that I believe we are, but as the observer. I think this identification is a symptom of culture and can be unlearned.

Possibly to your last point. I don't see the "I" as the observer, however. I think that divorces "I" where it can not be divorced. Like separating "house" from the structured bricks etc, or separating "running" from the motion of the legs.
While the conscious "I" certainly is not privy to everything that goes on in the decision making, I see it more as the outward representation but inclusive part of the decision making.
I think.

Edit: Sarkus please go to the Plant Intelligence thread.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2430549#post2430549

I realized that the issues here and there are connected. If consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon and, in a sense, 'we' do not participate in our choices, then we are not very different from plants who exhibit intelligence in their choices. IOW I think you must disagree with Dywyddyr's position on plants, OR at the very least suggest he must extend this to humans.

But "we" do participate in our choices.
In effect "we" ARE our choices.
And consciousness is just the awareness of those choices, but an awareness that is (usually) also an inherent part of the making of those choices, especially due to the vast and incessant number of interferences / interactions - and thus the feedback loop that develops as we "mull over the options" etc.
When the choices do not include consciousness then they become instinctive, and we become aware of them only after the event of action/choice, not at the point of making the action/choice.

I think my head hurts now.

I will be very open that I am trying to get you and Dywyddyr to argue. I respect both your minds, and frankly I think the disagreement would be interesting.

I'll check out the thread, but can't promise a pulic disagreement.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

and at the end of it, one hasn't a clue whether one will end up in the next life as a sea slug or king of the world.

What I really mean LG is that I understand why you & your ilk assert the existence of a soul. I see how you had to incorporate logic or else souls are left to wither on the vine. All of that is nice, but entirely fabricated. At best it is a good guess for someone who thinks souls exist. For the rest of us it plays out as an interesting example of human want.

 

[thinking]

Self-Consciousness is a mysterious subject- science says very little about what it really is, perhaps because we still don't understand the brain as well as some other systems.

But anyways..... what do you think self-consciousness is?

awareness of the difference between the within and the without

it is the without which fundamentally galvanizes the difference

 

[Dywyddyr]

IOW I think you must disagree with Dywyddyr's position on plants, OR at the very least suggest he must extend this to humans.

I freely admit that my understanding was heinously out of date. (On the other hand I don't need to believe a position just to argue it ).

I will be very open that I am trying to get you and Dywyddyr to argue. I respect both your minds, and frankly I think the disagreement would be interesting.

I'll re-read this thread and see if I can contribute.

 

[Dywyddyr]

it is the without which fundamentally galvanizes the difference

Nonsense.
It's the recognition that there's a without. I.e. there has to be consciousness to even realise that there's a within/ without split.

 

[lightgigantic]

What I really mean LG is that I understand why you & your ilk assert the existence of a soul. I see how you had to incorporate logic or else souls are left to wither on the vine. All of that is nice, but entirely fabricated. At best it is a good guess for someone who thinks souls exist. For the rest of us it plays out as an interesting example of human want.

on the contrary, constantly pining for the excuse that is a fabrication is a fine example of human want
:shrug: