Consciousness

[Nordic Superman]

I think many evolutionary biologists would be outraged to hear you call starfish primitive!!!!!!!

An evolutionary biologist can't possibly argue with me

A starfish is "as evolved" as any other organism on Earth, but the fact remains that it's body layout is primitive and has existed for millions of years with little change.

What exactly do you think consciousness is? 

You've proven nothing. You haven't defined what you mean by consciousness yet you criticize my fundamental description of it as awareness as wrong.

You argue nothing yet you criticize me and in a rather snotty manner I might add.

Awareness is one of the highest levels of conciousness. Me and you are aware of our surroundings and our own place in the system. We are aware of the universe and other such complex things.

Trees and primitive animals are not. Fact.

[wavelength]

A plant or primitive animal isn't aware of anything, it just has a nervous system that reactions to stimulants like touch, vibrations or chemicals.

That's one scientific aspect of a plant or "primitive" animal. There is no scientific prove that this should be all to it. Rather, there is logical prove that it isn't.

Philosophy has no ground to compete with scientific knowledge. It's simply scientific fact that the underdeveloped nervous system (or complete lack of one i.e. plants) cannot possibly provide the animal with a consciousness.

Science has no ground to compete with philosophy on the philosophic level, which is of course above the scientific level - alone by definition. Your "simple scientific fact" can only be a scientific theory about certain scientific aspects of consciousness.

Don't apply your human thought process with that of the behaviour of animals, especially primitive ones like starfish .

I completely agree to this one. It's actually scientists who constantly make the mistake of believing that a human being is nothing more than an evolved animal.

[Butterbean]

My brief answer: consciousness is a progressive development in the evolution of the brain, which expanded both in terms of size and computing capacity over the eons.

That's the best I can do for you right now, Stella

Thanks for the answer coldude! 

In your opinion, was the "stuff" needed for consciousness always present in the matter from which is "developed?"

Ro,

I think this quote speaks volumes to the mindset that you and I hold:

"The torments of an aroused conscience are symptoms of spiritual vitality for which a wise man will give thanks on bended knees; but they are useless and worse than useless unless they drive him, in his desperation, to the fountain open for all sin and for all uncleanness."
      -- F.W. Boreham

I agree Ro 

Or aren't ants aware of the crumbs they pick up off the ground? 

Decker I agree w/you that ants/starfish etc. have consciousness.  I guess I've never thought thoroughly regarding the consciousness of plants/trees but I do find it interesting to consider.

An evolutionary biologist can't possibly argue with me

A starfish is "as evolved" as any other organism on Earth, but the fact remains that it's body layout is primitive and has existed for millions of years with little change.

Awareness is one of the highest levels of conciousness. Me and you are aware of our surroundings and our own place in the system. We are aware of the universe and other such complex things.

Trees and primitive animals are not. Fact.

Nordic, if Starfish and other creatures you may consider primitive are unaware of themselves and their surroundings, how do you explain that they know they must eat and pursue things to eat and also try to escape predators?

[Decker]

...Awareness is one of the highest levels of conciousness. Me and you are aware of our surroundings and our own place in the system. We are aware of the universe and other such complex things.

Trees and primitive animals are not. Fact.

What are the levels of consciousness?

I pretty much break it down the lines of phenomenological and perspective.  PHenomenological consciousness is what all living things have.  You use terms of art like instinct or reflex, I say it's a type of consciousness or awareness.  Then I look at perspective consciousness where the subject experiencing awareness of phenomena is aware that he/she is experiencing phenomenon (aware of) and higher evaluative mentation takes place.

That's a fancy way of saying "I think about thinking" and that's what separates me from awareness belonging to other creatures.

[Decker]

...

Decker I agree w/you that ants/starfish etc. have consciousness.  I guess I've never thought thoroughly regarding the consciousness of plants/trees but I do find it interesting to consider.


...

Did you ever watch plants?  Overtime they will bend towards sunlight.  The will shape their bodies around objects.  Why?  B/c they have some sort of awareness of their surroundings and they adapt.

[Nordic Superman]

That's one scientific aspect of a plant or "primitive" animal. There is no scientific prove that this should be all to it. Rather, there is logical prove that it isn't.

Science has no ground to compete with philosophy on the philosophic level, which is of course above the scientific level - alone by definition. Your "simple scientific fact" can only be a scientific theory about certain scientific aspects of consciousness.

I completely agree to this one. It's actually scientists who constantly make the mistake of believing that a human being is nothing more than an evolved animal.

Philosophical musings cannot be applied to the consciousness of a starfish or plant, not matter how much LSD is consumed by the philosopher.

Decker I agree w/you that ants/starfish etc. have consciousness.  I guess I've never thought thoroughly regarding the consciousness of plants/trees but I do find it interesting to consider.

Nordic, if Starfish and other creatures you may consider primitive are unaware of themselves and their surroundings, how do you explain that they know they must eat and pursue things to eat and also try to escape predators?

So you believe something that absolutely isn't true? Somewhat explains you belief in God I suppose.

Ants find crumbs through chemical pathways similar to us smelling a flower. The ant is pre-programmed via its DNA to be attracted to smells within a specific spectrum. Depending on the species of ant it may be "sugary" smells or maybe the distinct smell of insects for carnivorous ants.

They must eat because their body tells them so on a chemical level, they don't for one second think to themselves "golly gosh I AM hungry". This once again demonstrates you can't detach yourself from apply your human thought process to that of an animal.

Honestly, believing plants or starfish are self aware is one of the least intelligent statements I have EVER come across.

What are the levels of consciousness?

I pretty much break it down the lines of phenomenological and perspective.  PHenomenological consciousness is what all living things have.  You use terms of art like instinct or reflex, I say it's a type of consciousness or awareness.  Then I look at perspective consciousness where the subject experiencing awareness of phenomena is aware that he/she is experiencing phenomenon (aware of) and higher evaluative mentation takes place.

That's a fancy way of saying "I think about thinking" and that's what separates me from awareness belonging to other creatures.

Organisms with a primitive or totally lacking nervous system are not self aware in ANY shape or form, they simple react to stimulus's, be it touch, heat or chemical.

Did you ever watch plants?  Overtime they will bend towards sunlight.  The will shape their bodies around objects.  Why?  B/c they have some sort of awareness of their surroundings and they adapt.

False, they are genetically programmed to follow the sun light. They don't for one second "know" where the sun is.

[Butterbean]

What is your evidence for mind/body dualism? What is the evidence that leads you to believe that consciousness is a lump of magical wonder stuff?

You may be interested in the findings of Wilder Penfield (a Neurosurgeon) interesting:

“Through my own scientific career, I, like other scientists, have struggled to prove that the brain accounts for the mind,” he writes, but he has had to change his mind after performing surgery on more than a thousand epileptic patients. In the course of this, he encountered concrete evidence that the brain and mind are actually distinct from each other, though they clearly interact. - Penfield


To quote another neuroscientist, Lee Edward Travis: “Penfield would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortex of conscious patients and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the electric current and the other hand under the control of the patient’s mind fought against each other. Penfield risked the explanation that the patient had not only a physical brain that was stimulated to action but also a non-physical reality that interacted with the brain.” To quote Penfield’s own summary of his findings: “To expect the highest brain mechanism or any set of reflexes, however complicated, to carry out what the mind does, and thus perform all the functions of the mind, is quite absurd...What a thrill it is, then, to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit.” (The Mystery of the Mind, Princeton University Press, 1975, pp.79 & 85).

[Decker]

...They must eat because their body tells them so on a chemical level, they don't for one second think to themselves "golly gosh I AM hungry". This once again demonstrates you can't detach yourself from apply your human thought process to that of an animal.

Honestly, believing plants or starfish are self aware is one of the least intelligent statements I have EVER come across.

Organisms with a primitive or totally lacking nervous system are not self aware in ANY shape or form, they simple react to stimulus's, be it touch, heat or chemical.

False, they are genetically programmed to follow the sun light. They don't for one second "know" where the sun is.

You are confusing thinking with consciousness.  As I pointed out, there's awareness and then there is informed awareness.  Both types of awareness are kinds of consciousness.

You are completely missing the not-so-subtle distinction I'm making and you still have not answered the question of "what do you think consciousness is?

[wavelength]

Philosophical musings cannot be applied to the consciousness of a starfish or plant, not matter how much LSD is consumed by the philosopher.

I'm sorry but I think you do not have a clear concept of neither science nor philosophy. Can you tell me what you think the difference between science and philosophy is?

[Nordic Superman]

You are confusing thinking with consciousness.  As I pointed out, there's awareness and then there is informed awareness.  Both types of awareness are kinds of consciousness.

You are completely missing the not-so-subtle distinction I'm making and you still have not answered the question of "what do you think consciousness is?

This is from Wikipedia and basically how I'd define consciousness:

Consciousness is a state that defies definition, but which may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams, and an awareness of self, although not necessarily all of these.[1] Consciousness is a point of view, an I, or what Thomas Nagel called the existence of "something that it is like" to be something.[2] Julian Jaynes has emphasized that "Consciousness is not the same as cognition and should be sharply distinguished from it. ... The most common error ... is to confuse consciousness with perception." [3]

Ned Block divides consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective experience itself (being something), and access consciousness, which refers to the availability of information to processing systems in the brain (being conscious of something).[4]

More on consciousness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Thinking and consciousness go hand in hand.

Your own definition of awareness is too unambiguous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awareness

I'm sorry but I think you do not have a clear concept of neither science nor philosophy. Can you tell me what you think the difference between science and philosophy is?

Science is a subset of philosophy (previously known as natural philosophy). Science deals with the natural world, whilst philosophy deals with everything BUT the natural world.

Considering the understanding of the nervous system and body plan of a starfish by the scientists of today, it can be said with great probability that the discussion of a starfishes "consciousness" can be undertaken by science.

[Butterbean]

This once again demonstrates you can't detach yourself from apply your human thought process to that of an animal.

It's actually scientists who constantly make the mistake of believing that a human being is nothing more than an evolved animal.

!!

They must eat because their body tells them so on a chemical level, they don't for one second think to themselves "golly gosh I AM hungry".

I find it interesting that you can presume to know if an ant or starfish etc feels hunger or not. 

[Nordic Superman]

It's actually scientists who constantly make the mistake of believing that a human being is nothing more than an evolved animal.

This is a fallacy, homo sapiens ARE nothing more than evolved animals.

My point was: you don't try to understand a whale by looking at it via the perspective of a gorilla and you don't understand a fly by looking at it via the perspective of a starfish.

[wavelength]

Science is a subset of philosophy (previously known as natural philosophy). Science deals with the natural world, whilst philosophy deals with everything BUT the natural world.

That's not true. Science deals with the scientific aspects of the world, while philosophy deals with all aspects of the world, mostly leaving out specialized aspects (like the scientific aspects) for obvious reasons. But of course philosophy deals with the natural world - just in a holistic way.

Considering the understanding of the nervous system and body plan of a starfish by the scientists of today, it can be said with great probability that the discussion of a starfishes "consciousness" can be undertaken by science.

The question of consciousness can only be undertaken by science as far as the scientific aspects of it are concerned. In this regard, there is no difference at all between investigating at a starfish or a human being. The "understanding of the nervous system and body plan" you are talking about is just a different expression for the current scientific theories in this field. No scientific theory can ever add to the understanding of consciousness more than what it is allowed by its self-imposed restrictions.

I think you just have to decide if you want to make statements about the scientific aspects of things or you want to make philosophic (holistic) statements. Mixing the two leads to confusion and simply untruths.

[Decker]

This is from Wikipedia and basically how I'd define consciousness:

Consciousness is a state that defies definition, but which may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, dreams, and an awareness of self, although not necessarily all of these.[1] Consciousness is a point of view, an I, or what Thomas Nagel called the existence of "something that it is like" to be something.[2] Julian Jaynes has emphasized that "Consciousness is not the same as cognition and should be sharply distinguished from it. ... The most common error ... is to confuse consciousness with perception." [3]

Ned Block divides consciousness into phenomenal consciousness, which is subjective experience itself (being something), and access consciousness, which refers to the availability of information to processing systems in the brain (being conscious of something).[4]

....

Does that bold faced material look familiar?  Thinking is a subset of consciousness.

[wavelength]

Homo sapiens ARE nothing more than evolved animals.

And you come to this conclusion, how? Evolution theory only talks about biological aspects, by definition. To state the above, you must actually come to the conclusion that there is nothing more to a human beeing than his biological aspects. Science cannot provide you with such a conclusion, so you must have gotten it from somewhere else.

[Nordic Superman]

That's not true. Science deals with the scientific aspects of the world, while philosophy deals with all aspects of the world, mostly leaving out specialized aspects (like the scientific aspects) for obvious reasons. But of course philosophy deals with the natural world - just in a holistic way.

The question of consciousness can only be undertaken by science as far as the scientific aspects of it are concerned. In this regard, there is no difference at all between investigating at a starfish or a human being. The "understanding of the nervous system and body plan" you are talking about is just a different expression for the current scientific theories in this field. No scientific theory can ever add to the understanding of consciousness more than what it is allowed by its self-imposed restrictions.

I think you just have to decide if you want to make statements about the scientific aspects of things or you want to make philosophic (holistic) statements. Mixing the two leads to confusion and simply untruths.

An "untruth" would be a definitive definition of philosophy. My definition isn't any less correct that yours. You can continue the pseudo intellectual criticism of my separation of philosophy and science if you like but it will be ignored from here on out.

Who's terms are we to debate this on? You seem to believe I should be debating on your terms which you are making clear you believe homo sapiens isn't a result of evolution.

Here's my statement: science provides a framework that can explain whether a primitive organism such as a starfish is capable of being self aware.

You're free to pursue the philosophical pathway of the same questions if you like.

I find it interesting that you can presume to know if an ant or starfish etc feels hunger or not. 

I can assume this with a very high probability thanks to scientific knowledge.

I also think your post about the mind and brain being 2 different things to be false.

And you come to this conclusion, how? Evolution theory only talks about biological aspects, by definition. To state the above, you must actually come to the conclusion that there is nothing more to a human beeing than his biological aspects. Science cannot provide you with such a conclusion, so you must have gotten it from somewhere else.

I'm not here to protect my belief in evolutionary science.

There is simply an overwhelming selection of evidence showing humans are nothing more than a product of evolution.

[Deicide]

You may be interested in the findings of Wilder Penfield (a Neurosurgeon) interesting:

“Through my own scientific career, I, like other scientists, have struggled to prove that the brain accounts for the mind,” he writes, but he has had to change his mind after performing surgery on more than a thousand epileptic patients. In the course of this, he encountered concrete evidence that the brain and mind are actually distinct from each other, though they clearly interact. - Penfield


To quote another neuroscientist, Lee Edward Travis: “Penfield would stimulate electrically the proper motor cortex of conscious patients and challenge them to keep one hand from moving when the current was applied. The patient would seize this hand with the other hand and struggle to hold it still. Thus one hand under the control of the electric current and the other hand under the control of the patient’s mind fought against each other. Penfield risked the explanation that the patient had not only a physical brain that was stimulated to action but also a non-physical reality that interacted with the brain.” To quote Penfield’s own summary of his findings: “To expect the highest brain mechanism or any set of reflexes, however complicated, to carry out what the mind does, and thus perform all the functions of the mind, is quite absurd...What a thrill it is, then, to discover that the scientist, too, can legitimately believe in the existence of the spirit.” (The Mystery of the Mind, Princeton University Press, 1975, pp.79 & 85).

Findings from 30+ years ago? The field of neuroscience has marched on since then.

Tell me, what does a Soul look like? Is it intangible? Can it grasp objects? How does it speak if language is dependent on the brain?

[wavelength]

An "untruth" would be a definitive definition of philosophy. My definition isn't any less correct that yours. You can continue the pseudo intellectual criticism of my separation of philosophy and science if you like but it will be ignored from here on out.

The most substantial philosophic books deal with the natural world. Name me one philosophic work that completely excludes the "natural world". Define for me in scientific terms, what the "natural world" is, and what the opposite would be.

I hope I haven't offended you in any way, that was not my intention. I just think that your statements about science and philosophy are based on a misunderstanding.

Who's terms are we to debate this on? You seem to believe I should be debating on your terms which you are making clear you believe homo sapiens isn't a result of evolution. Here's my statement: science provides a framework that can explain whether a primitive organism such as a starfish is capable of being self aware. I can assume this with a very high probability thanks to scientific knowledge.

My point is this: a scientific definition of awareness must automatically reduce it to its scientific aspects in the first place. So what you are allowed to talk about as a scientist is always only the scientific aspects of things. Of course science provides a framework to analyze this scientific model of awareness, that's the purpose of the model. What you can assume "with a very high propability thanks to scientific knowledge" is always restricted to statements about this model.

I also think your post about the mind and brain being 2 different things to be false.
I'm not here to protect my belief in evolutionary science.
There is simply an overwhelming selection of evidence showing humans are nothing more than a product of evolution.

You don't have to protect anything, there is nothing to protect in science. It's just a misconception that the explanatory power of scientific theories goes beyond the scientific models of the world. The "overwhelming selection of evidence" you are talking about is only "evidence" in the realm of these models.

[Deicide]

The most substantial philosophic books deal with the natural world. Name me one philosophic work that completely excludes the "natural world". Define for me in scientific terms, what the "natural world" is, and what the opposite would be.

I hope I haven't offended you in any way, that was not my intention. I just think that your statements about science and philosophy are based on a misunderstanding.

My point is this: a scientific definition of awareness must automatically reduce it to its scientific aspects in the first place. So what you are allowed to talk about as a scientist is always only the scientific aspects of things. Of course science provides a framework to analyze this scientific model of awareness, that's the purpose of the model. What you can assume "with a very high propability thanks to scientific knowledge" is always restricted to statements about this model.

You don't have to protect anything, there is nothing to protect in science. It's just a misconception that the explanatory power of scientific theories goes beyond the scientific models of the world. The "overwhelming selection of evidence" you are talking about is only "evidence" in the realm of these models.

Offensichtlich glaubst Du, dass 'Warum' Fragen durch Philosophie beantwortbar sind. Inwiefern sind solche Fragen nicht vom Menschen erfunden?

[wavelength]

Offensichtlich glaubst Du, dass 'Warum' Fragen durch Philosophie beantwortbar sind. Inwiefern sind solche Fragen nicht vom Menschen erfunden?

Every question is "made up" by man. I never made a distinction between "how" and "why". As I have pointed out before, that's just one of the catch phrases of a pseudo philosophic scientist. Science can neither explain "why" nor "how" anything happened beyond the scientific realm.

[Deicide]

Every question is "made up" by man. I never made a distinction between "how" and "why". As I have pointed out before, that's just one of the catch phrases of a pseudo philosophic scientist. Science can neither explain "why" nor "how" anything happened beyond the scientific realm.

Aber reine Philosophie kann die groessten Fragen der Menschheit beantworten...uhuh....

[wavelength]

Aber reine Philosophie kann die groessten Fragen der Menschheit beantworten...uhuh....

That's a different issue.

Science can't answer the substantial questions of mankind, by definition. IMO, in the end, philosophy can't either. But at least it's a step in the right direction, into a system with less restrictions.

[Deicide]

That's a different issue.

Science can't answer the substantial questions of mankind, by definition. IMO, in the end, philosophy can't either. But at least it's a step in the right direction, into a system with less restrictions.

Und wo bleibt denn Theologie?

[Nordic Superman]

The most substantial philosophic books deal with the natural world. Name me one philosophic work that completely excludes the "natural world". Define for me in scientific terms, what the "natural world" is, and what the opposite would be.

I hope I haven't offended you in any way, that was not my intention. I just think that your statements about science and philosophy are based on a misunderstanding.

My point is this: a scientific definition of awareness must automatically reduce it to its scientific aspects in the first place. So what you are allowed to talk about as a scientist is always only the scientific aspects of things. Of course science provides a framework to analyze this scientific model of awareness, that's the purpose of the model. What you can assume "with a very high propability thanks to scientific knowledge" is always restricted to statements about this model.

You don't have to protect anything, there is nothing to protect in science. It's just a misconception that the explanatory power of scientific theories goes beyond the scientific models of the world. The "overwhelming selection of evidence" you are talking about is only "evidence" in the realm of these models.

Like I said, I'm not here to provide you with my definitions, which quite clearly collide with your own on topics which can't possibly be definitively defined.

From your perspective and understanding of philosophy my statements might very well be seen as misunderstood, this is because we're different wavelengths.

For example, I'm very well aware of what science is and sets out to do. But, for me, my belief in science provides factual answers. Evolution for example to me isn't just a theory, I believe it as fact. I don't believe in a soul, any human representation of a soul is just the conscious mind at work, giving the human a place in its environment.

Are you a deist?

[Butterbean]

Findings from 30+ years ago? The field of neuroscience has marched on since then.

I wasn't aware those findings had been refuted.  Have they?

Tell me, what does a Soul look like? Is it intangible? Can it grasp objects? How does it speak if language is dependent on the brain?

Not sure but I would think the soul would be invisible and not able to grasp objects or speak with sound that we would normally need to hear without a body.