|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Consciousness, thoughts anyone? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Dimebag,
First of all, love the name.
1. How is consciousness produced by the various parts of the brain.
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: They suggest that this non-computational processing takes place in microtubules found in cells. To summerize:
quote: But you can read more about it in the link I provided.
2. What consciousness is, its nature, how it can be defined.
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: 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.
3. Why is consciousness required by our brain, when similar outcomes could be achieved (apparently) through a non conscious process. 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.
Thanks all, and enjoy.
I hope this helped some. I'm interested in getting your answers to the same questions you asked. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
The best description I can offer at the moment is that consciousness is the mental conceptualization of the self. This probably means most things with a brain are somewhat conscious. Our consciousness is given another layer of abstraction courtesy of language and an additional hardware acceleration courtesy of our PFC. 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?
The idea being that the parts eventually come together in unison, all working towards a largely agreed upon set of goals and purpose. That collection of goals and purposes is constructed in a serial narrative in the context of memory and prediction, and that narrative is consciousness. So I'm kind of on Dennet's side of the argument, but I'm rather rusty on the topic.
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: 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"...?
are you a Pantera fan?
That was my second thought. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Aren't there medical conditions that leave people as 'floating consciousnesses', with nothing coming in from the outside world? I guess that would require a sense of passing time - which might be argued to be a sense.
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?
If memory serves when he talks in details about them he suggests that zombies are no different than us in his theory and that the problem with the concept is that it assumes there is a difference to conclude there must be a difference! 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.
I have not seen Dennett suggest that 'subjective experience' is not a coherent concept 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.
The term, for obvious reasons, is not common in the UK 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Now I'm impressed! Been an In Flames fan for a long time. Lamb of God is hit or miss. I either really like the song or don't like it at all. Gojira is a little too avant garde for me, maybe it's because their French. They're talented nonetheless. I haven't heard any of this shit before, sounds sick. Post videos in the Great Gigs thread.
As far as the new Metallica, I'm not a huge fan of it but it beats the last 4 previous albums of theirs but a country mile. Agreed a thousand times! Last good show I saw from them was Binge and Purge in 93 or 94, can't remember.
I'm going to Mayhemfest in August in Atlanta. The anticipation is killing me. My lady friend is dragging me to see Dave Matthews. But, we're also going to see the Drop Kick Murphys in March! - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hey Apothecus,
Aw, c'mon dude. Don't be a Dave-hater. 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.
But c'mon. Be open. At least go for the bass and acoustic guitar work, horns, and bare-bones musicianship. Sometimes I can hate a genre but still be moved to tears by the sheer musical talent of a performer. But hey, if you're tortured and you really need something to focus on, watch what his hands do on the neck of his guitar. It's really amazing. He's all OVER that thing, just differently than someone like Hetfield or Mustaine. 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.
What do you listen to, mostly? 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024