Consciousness, thoughts anyone?

Hi Dimebag,First of all, love the name. This particular question is what baffles all of neuroscience at the moment. There are theories, many of them good, most of them making an attempt to quantify consciousness.One of the theories I have currently been reading on is Orch OR developed by theoretical physicist Roger Penrose and anesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff.The basic jist of their theory, well, let me start by saying that the jist of most other theories are that consciousness emerges from the brain as a series of computational connections (synapses) that allow communication between brain cells.What makes the Penrose/Hameroff theory exclusive is that they believe the brain works with both computational funtions, but more importantly, at the most fundamental level, with non-computational functions - like in quantum mechanics.

quote:

---

Penrose went on to consider what it was in the human brain that might not be driven by algorithms. The physical law is described by algorithms, so it was not easy for Penrose to come up with physical properties or processes that are not described by them. He was forced to look to quantum theory for a plausible candidate.

---

They suggest that this non-computational processing takes place in microtubules found in cells.To summerize:

quote:

---

The Orch OR theory combines Penrose's hypothesis with respect to the Gdel theorem with Hameroff's hypothesis with respect to microtubules. Together, Penrose and Hameroff have proposed that when condensates in the brain undergo an objective reduction of their wave function, that collapse connects to non-computational decision taking/experience embedded in the geometry of fundamental spacetime.

​

The theory further proposes that the microtubules both influence and are influenced by the conventional activity at the synapses between neurons. The Orch in Orch OR stands for orchestrated to give the full name of the theory Orchestrated Objective Reduction. Orchestration refers to the hypothetical process by which connective proteins, known as microtubule associated proteins (MAPs) influence or orchestrate the quantum processing of the microtubules.

---

But you can read more about it in the link I provided. I would hesitate to simply refer to it as "awareness" of ones self and ones enviroment. In my opinion, there are deeper levels of consciousness that require no environment (REM sleep, hallucinations, etc.) that are specific, assumingly, to humans.Here again there are theories. One of my favorites is by Max Velmans called Reflexive Monism.

quote:

---

In its evolution from some primal undifferentiated state, the universe differentiates into distinguishable physical entities, at least some of which have the potential for conscious experience, such as human beings. While remaining embedded within and dependent on the surrounding universe and composed of the same fundamental stuff, each human, equipped with perceptual and cognitive systems has an individual perspective on, or view of, both the rest of the universe and him or her self. In this sense, each human participates in a process whereby the universe differentiates into parts and becomes conscious in manifold ways of itself, making the entire process reflexive.

---

I like this theory because it's simple. It states that the universe is consciousness at its most fundamental level, and has the ability to differentiate into parts that can have conscious experiences, like human beings.Our individual percetion of the universe is basically consciousness, as a physical entity, reflecting back on itself. I have never heard that consciousness was required by anything. It just so happens that a physcial entity equipped with perceptual and cognitive systems experiences consciousness. I hope this helped some. I'm interested in getting your answers to the same questions you asked.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Would you agree however that what we call "consciousness" would not and could not be acheived without a sensory system?My point is only that its not so much "something with a brain" that can experience consciousness. It has more to do with having a sensory system, and, a central nervous system.Would you agree? My only issue with Dennett is that, well, he simply does away with the problem of subjectivity, making the hard problem of consciousness go away. He claims that the idea of qualia and related phenomenal notions of the mind are not coherent concepts.If it was only parts coming together in unison, then it gives rise to the possibility of the philosophical zombie. Even though Dennett disagrees with the zombie scenario.Many of his critics, like David Chalmers, argue that "Dennett's argument misses the point of the inquiry by merely re-defining consciousness as an external property and ignoring the subjective aspect completely."Dennett however, responds that "the aforementioned "subjective aspect" as commonly used is non-existent and unscientific, and that his "re-definition" is the only coherent description of consciousness."A counter argument to this position is put forth by philosopher, John Searle who says:

quote:

---

...on Dennett's view, there is no consciousness in addition to the computational features, because that is all that consciousness amounts to for him: meme effects of a von Neumann(esque) virtual machine implemented in a parallel architecture and therefore implies that conscious states are illusory, but Searle points out: "where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality."

---

So I wonder if you also take the position that subjective experiences and qualia are not coherent concepts because it presupposes objectivity?Or do you agree with Searle's position that, as he said, "the existence of the appearance is the reality"...? That was my second thought. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Also, it would take place after the person had experiences and stored memory.I would be reluctant to agree that a person being born and not experiencing reality with their senses would be considered "conscious." Because really, what would they be conscious of? We are both working off memory, but I recall he specifically suggesting that the premise fails to be established. Like you suggest, that there is an assumtion on there being a difference, but that is because he believes the subjective aspect of consciousness is not coherent concepts.Thus any subjective quality you place on experiences, such as "ouch, that hurt," isn't really accurate. It's just reactionary and due to neurons and nerves, etc....The problem I have with that, which is where I agree with Searle, is the fact that we can and do talk about experiencing things subjectively, is the reason we should consider that there is a difference between us and a zombie. That is what consciousness is, as you suggested to Dimebag, it is awareness of ones place in reality.A zombie would lack that. That is the difference. To be more clear, he states that the subjective aspect of consciousness, or qualia - I believe he means the same thing here - is what should be consider non-existent and unscientific.This is how he makes a case for the premise of the "zombie" being wrong. By suggesting that the subjective aspect of consciousness is a real thing then one can differentiate between a zombie and a human. But, if it is non-existent (not a real thing) then there is no way to differentiate between the two.But again, this is where I disagree. I think, personally, but based off of a few theories on consciousness, that the subjective aspect of consciousness is what consciousness is. Ah yeah, I forget the monetary difference. What's the equivalent to the street name "dimebag" in the UK?Maybe we could let Straggler field this question. - Oni

I haven't heard any of this shit before, sounds sick. Post videos in the Great Gigs thread. Agreed a thousand times! Last good show I saw from them was Binge and Purge in 93 or 94, can't remember. My lady friend is dragging me to see Dave Matthews. But, we're also going to see the Drop Kick Murphys in March! - Oni

Hey Apothecus, I'm actually not a Dave hater, but this chic I'm with is a Dave LOVERRRRR. They're doing 2 shows in Palm Beach, FL in June, and, we're going to BOTH cuz she's insane that way. Gotta love that kinda passion though. He's definitely his own character on the guitar. None were better than Hendrix and Vaughn in my opinion, though.But yeah lately she's been showing me "Dave" so I can appreciate the talent in this dude, and the band. I like the old horn player who died, he was good.Dave is also a pothead, gotta love the dude for that. Mostly Yanni. Due I'm all over the place with music. Anything from Classic Rock, Metal, old school Hip Hop, to blues, spanish bolero, and classical.I can do country if I am drinking in a country bar. That's fun as shit.- Oni

Yo wud up Drone,Answered you in this thread: Who do you listen to?- Oni