The Origin of Consciousness & Conscience

Shame Darwin can't help me there

I have been wondering this for a long long time...

*what is consciousness
*how would you define it
*what makes YOU conscious
*without memory/intelligence, would you be conscious?

My understanding of consciousness is (possibly)
* I became increasingly more *conscious* with age (I am not really that old, I am just observing the level of consciousness during childhood, puberty, and early to mid twenties), which is a very nice process, and I put this down to better memory, better analytical facilities and a better ability to see yourself as being part of the whole world truly (which is in part explained by the evolution of better analytical facilities), one insignicant individual amongst many many who think (or do not) just the same
*I do have the belief, tho no data to back it up with, that intelligence is related to the level of consciousness... does that sound arrogant?
*Consciousness is not a black or white thing, its not on or off. There are many levels of it. I would dare to say that a dog got some sort of consciousnes, even a cat. The former more so. A mentally handicapped person (I worked with them for 2 years) has consciousness, tho very limited. They can't grasp the overall scale of things, yet they mostly are *seeminlgy* aware of themselves, altough it's hard to judge. Thus, I would think consciousness is linked to intelligence. So.... is consciousness determined by your intelligence, your creativity, your overall grasp, understanding, and memory, and most imporantly, self-criticism (which is part of the whole 'I am aware of my effect on others thing'??? Big question that is.
*A dog that steels food displays certain body language signals that show guilt, trained or not. To feel guilty, dont you think that requires a certain level of consciousness? Is guilt linked to awareness of oneself, else how could you perceive guilt? A bird wont show it, neither a reptile, but a dog does!
*What makes me myself, when did *myself* arise? What if I was someone else, in a differnt century? I woldnt be myself of course...
*Am I only aware of the world because I am? (circular argument I know lol) If I never lived (say abortion at the embryonic stage), my perception of the world would be non-existent, nothing would exist because I wouldnt be aware of it. Hence, does the universe exist without awareness???????
In other words, there is no universe unless I am aware? If I am unaware (such as death, coma, unconsciousness), nothign exists? How can people believe in life after death then (please cut the religious stuff, I want rational arguments)
If I was never born, then there wouldnt be anyone to observe to ask these questions. So, if I wasnt born, is the universe an illusion of the 'aware'? I would never know I was aware until I lived... the universe is nonexistent for anyone but for the *aware* then?
Most interesting is this one: are you ALWAYS aware because you don't know of the times when you were unaware (i.e at/after death)? Thus, do we always live, cus the times we dont live we are not aware of them?
And most scary and rational is this one: We are aware only because evolution/nature bred as to be be so, it is an individual thing that rises and declines with death.
You, as your own reference of awareness, only ever exists once, to witness the universe and once dead everything is gone from that individual.... for there is noone to even perceive that loss (as you are dead)... without awareness, no perception of loss!!!
Hence, once dead, the universe is nonexistant for that individual. Thus, did the universe ever exist... to the dead??

Do I make sense at all? It's kinda hard to express all this properly, I still didnt manage to say what I really wanted to express

Strange I started this thread to hear what people thought about the definition of consciousness, and their perceptions thereof; and now I end up asking for explanations that can be nothign but religious... how the hell did i get there?

[Edited on 3-12-2003 by chemoleo]

self awareness

self awareness

Just spent ages typing out a reply only to lose it because my $%&^*ng machine didn't log me in automatically.



OK.

I have tried to define consciousness before, if only to myself, but have not met with much success.

Some believe it's the soul (we'll come to that in a minute). Others belive it could be a result of quantum mechanical processes in the brain stem and that sounds plausible to me. The other big theory is that we are just 'greater than the sum of our parts' and that it's our senses that, when combined, give the sense or illusion of beng conscious.

I think it was Einstein that said, when asked 'What is time?' - 'Time is that which is measured by a clock.' Well, you can't argue against the logic there, but it's a bit of a cop out answer. But maybe that's all it is? Time only exists because we experience it, or our consciousness 'processes' it, and we therefore develop machines to structure and organise it. Or maybe it's just 'shit happens' and we call it time.

I would argue the same for the theory of the soul. I would say that we invented the concept of the soul, and the belief in a higher power, because we would all go insane (or descend into global anarchy) if we all genuinely thought that what we see is all there is...and all there will ever be.

Consciousness is that which gives us people like Mozart, Einstein or Picasso. It also, sadly, gives us monsters like Hitler or Stalin. It is that which allows us to realise of, and discuss, the very concept of conciousness in the first place.

In thruth, though, it's probably quantum or chemical processes within the brain that create 'us'. But I have trouble accepting that because I want there to be more, I want there to be something extra. It seems implausible in the extreme that it's just us on just this planet with just one life.

Excellent choice of topic for discussion, btw

Futility

It seems to me that when you lump together memory, intelligence and cociousness you may in fact be comparing apples, dumptrucks and nuclear fission.

Psychologists have been studying the mind for a long time, and the effects of comparing conciousness to memory have been startling

Anterograde amnesia (Korsakoff's syndrome) results in a total loss of the abilty to form memories. The people effected are still concious but unable to encode memories......

Conversely, comatose patients, and patients under anaesthesia, are sometimes able to encode memories even though they are completely unaware of ever being conscious.....for instance sometimes formerly comatose patients can tell you about a book that was read to them while they were out of it, despite being totally unable to explain how/when they read the book (they often assume they read it themselves before the accident)


Intelligence, (textbook definition) is constantly changing in its definition.

The goal has always been to be able to define animals as UN-intelligent.

and Homo Sapiens Sapiens as IN-telligent

Problem is that more and more animals keep breaking all the rules...

Seals that count and spell and then decide of thier own accord what a new symbol should be---a # or a letter!

horses that can do simple math.

elephants that like to paint!


Intelligence is now most often described as the ability to think in the abstract.....

That has seemed to be the ideal solution, being as that "abstract thinking" is, in itself, a pretty hard term to nail down.


A latest school of thought is that "INTELLIGENCE" is like mental illness, or light, or sound.....there is NO hard and fast definition of where one begins and the other ends, the borders are blurry and getting blurrier by the minute


ps. medically speaking, as we age we seem to rely more and more on "crystallized intelligence", and less & less upon "creative intelligence"


Good luck with your questioning,

I have a question about it though

Isn't it impossible to define a definition that really has no starting point???

to put it more understandably

Is it not futile to apply scientific reasoning to the ART of psychology.......?

reply

actually nobody knows what this "consciousness" thingie really is - mostly it consists of a bundle of more or less useful definitions - imagination.

actually it is proofen that "consciousness" doesnt work electric nor chemical - as if it would depend on this ways of datatransport and storing our consciousness would be about one half to one second late - not very good in a world of carnivores.
Newer theories suppose that consciousness works by quantummechanics. I believe that my consciousness works by magic, the consciousness of MOST humans by three toothwheels of different size. (this refers not to the bunch of lost ASPERGERS and other genetical outsiders which populates this board mostly....so no offense may be taken). So I cannot proof the magic I CAN proof the mechanical setup for most cases....

ORG

how many angel can dance on the top of a needle?

And what if you take the needle away?

So is the needle the essential part or the angels?
I hope this answers this question also being lil´ cryptic.....

AHA!

AHHHHH!!!

Finally a subject I can hold my own in!!!

(Being raised strict baptist, I practically learned to read by reading The Holy Bible)
------------
If you are an athiest or belong to a different religion, please just accept the following as what it is......an example of contemporary christian thought.
-----------
Your statement is indicitive of a common misunderstanding among the "Heathen"

Its common because most Judeo-Christian faiths don't stress the reading and comprehension of the Bible.

and dissemination of minutiae is considered bad form among most evangelical faiths.

Soooo.....

anyway, a soul is best understood by the difference between a soul and a spirit (A spirit, not THE SPIRIT)

anyway, a spirit is what most people would consider a soul, it is that thing that makes you uniquely you, it is your spirit that ascends up to heaven after Judgement Day (not after you die)

a soul is basically what you might consider "life force"

In the Bible, animals ARE souls and people HAVE souls. (and spirits with a small s)

when someone starves to death, it is their soul that dies, or when they eat food the soul flourishes.

However, the spirit (small s) can only be fed by the WORD of GOD.

so when a drug (physical plane of existence) affects your soul, it is just the physical affecting the physical.

but when...lets say a mental illness affects you....it is considered to be an attack on your spirit (small s) on the spiritual plane

OK.....are you following so far???

anyway the observation that some "drugs" seem to help with mental illness ( a sickness on the spiritual plane) it is considered to be your FAITH (spiritual power of spirit with small s) in the doctor that makes you better.

so...biochemistry and its observed effects does not prelude beleif in souls. (or spirits) Because Jews=>then Christians=>then Muslims... have always understood "SOUL" to mean the physical and spirit to mean the spiritual.

---------

***please note *****

that not all christians have a full understanding of how the Bible is interpereted, (like the General Public in any other sphere) 95% of Judeo-Christian beleivers use the Bible without understanding it.

Just like most Sheeple use a microwave without having a clue what is going on.

if you ask an average person how a microwave oven works they will tell you that you just open the door and press the buttons

most christians don't really understand Theological theory much at all.

Its frequently bemoaned that most heathens just ask the nearest "Christian" when they have a question about christian religion and take the answers they get as fact.

-------

it's as easy to confuse the average church-goer about his religion as it is to confuse the average guy about the Physics principles that his Television set operates upon.

-------

Semi-Random Thoughts

My thoughts on consciousness requires three steps to be 'conscious':
Step 1: Awareness of self.
Step 2: Awareness of environment (everything outside of one's self).
Step 3: Awareness of self's impact upon enviroment and environment's impact upon self.

Step 3 is the tricky part to define. It requires more than just interacting with one's environment. It requires awareness and understanding of the interactions not just the interactions themselves.

Being aware of one's impact upon environment and vice-versa lends to behavior of intentional long term improvements to one's environment because those improvements will benefit one's self. So basically I see Step 3 being proven when planning and forethought is involved in one's behavior. It is not however proven by immediate changes made to an environment simply because of reactions to stimuli.

So for example: A monkey is hungry and sees a banana on a table. It moves a chair to get to that banana. This is not fulfilling Step 3. However if a banana were delivered to that table on a daily basis and the monkey were to move the chair to the table BEFORE the banana was delivered in anticipation of that banana, then that would fulfill Step 3.

Does this mean that there are a lot of conscious animals? Sure. Does being conscious mean much? Not really. Why? That's the next set of terms:

Knowledge: Stored data, such as one's environment.

Intelligence: The ability to store and recall Knolwedge. The higher the intelligence the more rapidly/easily Knowledge is stored and retrieved.

Widsom: The ability to ability to utilize Intelligence in means applicable to situations.

So one can be Intelligent and learn things quickly without being Wise and knowing how and when to actually use their Knowledge efficiently. Common Sense is having Wisdom without requiring great Intelligence. Ideally the most advantageous combination is to be both Intelligent and Wise.

Why the definitions? Because we need them to build on the next part, which is how Consciousness fits into this picture.

As said, Consciousness is comprised of three parts: awareness of self, awareness of environment, and awareness of the impact that one has on the other. One form of Knowledge is awareness.

The more intelligent something is, the more quickly it will be able to refine and detail Knowledge of self, Knowledge of environment, and Knowledge of the interactions of the two. So as one's Knowledge increases, the depth and usefulness of one's Consciousness increases.

But as said, just the ability to store Knowledge is not in and of itself useful. One must also be able to apply that Knowledge to their situations, and that is Wisdom.

So as one's Consciousness increases by adding more and more Knowledge of self and environment, one can benefit more and more from their Wisdom, their ability to use that Knowledge.

However the unwise will not benefit no matter how Intelligent they are because the gains in Knowledge cannot be used effectively. Yes, the Knowledge and depth of Consciousness can be increased, but it would just be a wasted resource.

One can hoard money all their life, but if you don't use it then how meaningful was it to collect it in the first place? Resources are not in and of themselves an end. They are just a means.

So does an animal's consciousness do it much good? Without both the ability to raise that consciousness (Intelligence) and to use the information gained from that raise (Wisdom) it will always be limited in its capabilities.

We humans are lucky enough to be Intelligent and Conscious creatures. As such we raise our level of Consciousness to much greater heights than most animals.

However as a species a Wisdom that matches our Intelligence remains to be displayed.

Quote:

Originally posted by slvr_phoenix My thoughts on consciousness requires three steps to be 'conscious': Step 1: Awareness of self. Step 2: Awareness of environment (everything outside of one's self). Step 3: Awareness of self's impact upon enviroment and environment's impact upon self.

Phoenix: your definitions are elegant, and your wordplay bonny.

All that remains to proving your wisdom is this....

Devise Phoenixs' Razor

an experimental approach to separating the wheat from the chaff.


any test/s that would distinguish between the intelligent, knowlegeble and wise.....and sheeple/beasts

If you do, I can honestly say that I would consider paying you the sincerest form of flattery.......Plagarism.

But don't let that discourage you, as Martin Luther King said.....".....a man who wishes to be remembered must first forget himself."

P.S.

ps

your monkey razor was dull (although a step in the right direction)

the monkey could beleive that the act of moving the chair precipitated the appearence of the bananna

thus proving (in the negative) supposition number three.

*** interpretation is how this test must be judged

anthropomorphism in ascribing motivation cannot enter into the judgment bias



as for the other.,....

the hoarder showed the finest and most noble characteristic of all


providing for future generations/offspring

OR

proof of total unawareness of his own impending death.



In one way the hoarder would pass the test with flying colours

and the other would result in utter failure.

bigger picture

I readily admit that the the monkey example was not the best. It was short and quickly written. Heh heh.

Part of the problem however is also that Step 3 is difficult to define exactly. Words are inefficient. Use too many and you lose the feeling for the context. Use too few and you lack the detail to stand up well to testing, whether that be to a scientist or lawyer.

I think the real proof would have to be in understanding WHY the subject performed its action, and the only one who really understands why is the subject itself. We can assemble a panel of experts to observe all day and at the end of the day they could all disagree on their interpretations of why. So unless the subject can actually communicate its reasoning (or unless we can read the subject's mind) it is a complicated endeavor.

I suppose one major positive step in the proof would be in determining if the subject can actually reason through a given situation or if the subject merely responds to stimuli with previously learned answers.

Does the monkey use the tool because it was taught that using this tool for that reason will solve this problem? Or does the monkey actually invent the tool because it saw a need and desired a solution?

Man invents tools, not just uses them. Man changes man's environment to improve man's future. Man most definately is conscious.

Animals ... well, other than instinctual behavior to store foods or modify their environment to meet their needs, or even learned behavior to use tools to meet certain needs, animals don't do much to prove their consciousness.

So really an animal that stores food or dams a river isn't necessarily proving consciousness just because they changed their environment or planned for the future. They do so because of an instinctual or learned stimulation to do so. They lack the proof that their behavior was based on a thoughtful choice or any understanding of their situation.

And so a monkey who moves the chair because they were taught to move the chair isn't proving consciousness. They are just proving the ability to use a learned response for a given situation.

But a monkey who was never shown the use of a chair at all, whom figures out that they should move the chair on their own, that's at least a step in the right direction towards proving consciousness because it required a step in understanding their environment and themself in that environment in order to determine on their own a solution. It required a level of thought beyond instinct or learned behavior.

Really though the proof couldn't (or shouldn't) be in any one particular act, but in a behavioral study over time. Can the subject break the boundries of instinctual and learned behavior? Can the subject learn to do something that wasn't taught to them and that isn't part of their instrinsic nature? Only then can an actual awareness and understanding of the relationship between one's self and one's environment be proven because only then would their behavior be unexplainable by instinctual or learned behavior.

I suppose we could entirely ditch the three step system of proof of consciousness and instead prove it in one simple test: proof of imagination and creativity. If a subject can produce art (be it poem, song, painting, whatever) that does NOT reflect anything observed, but in fact is based on something which has never existed, then that shows a deeper thought process than just reproducing that which is instinctual or learned. Of course how THAT would be judged would ultimately be just as difficult. I mean would a violet sky with a green sun in a painting count? What level of abstraction from reality would be required as proof? Talk about defining a line in a huge grey area! Heh heh.

Well, beats me. These are mostly caffeinated ramblings. I've never really given it this much thought before. I mean generally consciousness is something that we take for granted anyway, you know? I'd imagine people who have studied psychology more than I have would be able to better define consciousness and define tests to prove it.

1) I believe that if DNA can be proven to be the storage medium for instinctual knowledge and behavior then DNA has a part in it all, but even then not likely to be a part that you desire. Personally I do not believe that such is the case with DNA, but time and research will hopefully tell.

2) I believe that sooner or later science will prove the existence to an entire level of reality based upon interactions of energy to which humanity in general has not fully appreciated before because we have always concerned our beliefs of existence to be that which is defined as having matter or having influence upon matter. As such notions like 'gods' may end up being proven as beings which do exist, but exist in states that are intrinsicly non-material. At such a point in time whether or not such beings are truly 'gods' will then of course become the point of debate instead of merely debating their existence. And as such the world will continue to turn without missing a beat.

why is the page width greater on this particular thread? software bug? somewhat unrelated to the topic, admittedly

because

Maybe the Admins would like to change this.... Or Angeleyes himself

a raving lunatic bangs on the keyboard, results below

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

most christians don't really understand Theological theory much at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It seems like many christians say this. Isn't that why seperate denominations were created within christianity, because they disagreed about how to interpret it?

end quote

Actually gritty cyst....I sorta meant that most "christians" were ignorant on a more basic level.

For an example, let me take my little brothers girlfriend, while driving to school one day (we all go to the same university)I asked her if she was religious, she replied YES! I am a Lutheran.

I says"Well that's a respectable religion", "Western Civilization has never been the same since Martin Luther nailed his theses to the door of the church at Wittenburg"

she says..."Martin Who?"

I says, "Y'know...Martin Luther...the guy your religion was named after....?"

she says...."oh...ah...oh ya....."

I say ignorant because I know she isn't stupid, she's got a poli-sci degree, a year in Law school and is now working on her degree in Kinesiology.

This is just one example, but it illustrates a point. Most churchgoers (even some of the faithful) go because it's simply something they have been doing since childhood.

They spend church looking at the ceiling, singing songs and dropping a few dimes in the collection plate. They leave feeling a little better, so it's time well spent I guess.

and its amazing to see the paralels between most of humanities different faiths.

Having been raised strict baptist, and then reading about/discussing and participating in many different faiths, Judaism, Islam, a couple of the Hindu sects, Zoroastrianism, Bhuddism etc.etc...

I have learned a fair bit about different world religions, and how little most adherents actually know about their various faiths. Force of habit is a powerful motivating force for a lot of people.

p.s. lately I have been exploring Nihilist thought....disturbing, but neat!!!

[Edited on 10-12-2003 by Hermes_Trismegistus]