The mystery of consciousness

[Venusian Broon]

I enjoyed this article quite a lot, hence I'm posting the it for perusal for those who may also be interested in the subject matter...

http://www.theguardian.com/science/...ds-greatest-minds-solve-mystery-consciousness

...but am really none the wiser (along with everything else thankfully, as the article basically says) so will have to do a bit closer research and think long and hard about it, with a cold wet towel strapped around my head, just to get the basics clear in my head.

 

[HareBrain]

I love this stuff. I read that this morning, and even commented!

 

[Venusian Broon]

Yes I find it all utterly fascinating HB.

I mean it's something we all intimately experience every waking moment (and some sleeping moments too) and yet we're almost speechless at trying to understand it.

I loved the line: " If we struggle to understand what it could possibly mean for the mind to be physical, maybe that’s because we are, to quote the American philosopher Josh Weisberg, in the position of “squirrels trying to understand quantum mechanics”. In other words: “It’s just not going to happen.” "

 

[mosaix]

Although the article says "the mystery of conscious awareness goes deeper than a purely material science can explain" that doesn't mean to say that there isn't an explanation. Consciousness only exists within the realms of an electro-biological-mechanical construct and ceases to exist when that construct is interrupted by, for example, a general anaesthetic and maybe, according to one's personal beliefs, death.

The article also says 'non-conscious humanoids don’t exist, of course', but we don't know that's true.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Consciousness only exists within the realms of an electro-biological-mechanical construct

Maybe...

interrupted by, for example, a general anaesthetic

Perhaps...

 

[HareBrain]

Can we even define consciousness in terms other than itself?

If I look at a flower and clear my mind of all thought, in what way is that different from a CCTV camera aimed at a street and receiving the image? Gut feel tells us there is a difference, but can we define it in terms other than "one is conscious and the other not"?

 

[mosaix]

Can we even define consciousness in terms other than itself?

If I look at a flower and clear my mind of all thought

Can you do that HB? Totally clear your mind of all thought? Doesn't the view of the flower itself bring about thoughts of flowers, colours etc? As soon as I try and clear my mind of all thought I tend to fall asleep anyway.

For me, the great mystery of consciousness is: Why am I me? Why aren't I the man across the street? Why aren't I the guy on the TV? At the moment I became concious the I bit of me suddenly became resident in the head that happens to be on my shoulders and not someone else's? Why?

 

[HareBrain]

Can you do that HB? Totally clear your mind of all thought?

Yes, I have done, though it's not easy, and I have to spend a while first gently guiding away thoughts that arise. What you're left with is pure sensory awareness, with no conscious interpretation. It's actually a very intense experience (whilst also being very calm).

One of the times I managed it was during a meal, a dish I'd cooked for myself many times before. This time, I became much more aware of the flavours: they were so intense and fresh, it was as though i were discovering the sense of taste for the first time. I spent so long savouring each mouthful that I felt full by the time I'd eaten only half the amount I'd normally have wolfed down.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Are you who you were yesterday, or you just have some memories of yesterday,
or 5min ago.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Ok HB, I might come back to the flower and CCTV camera later...

But this state of pure sensory awareness - I'm guessing is some sort of meditative state* - something niggles at me, maybe it's just the choice of words. From what your saying, I'm interpreting 'clearing your mind of all thoughts' as equivalent to 'aware but not being conscious' i.e. just like a CCTV camera. But is it? The paradox for me is if that were the case how would you know you were experiencing an intense experience, compared to normal circumstances? There seems to me to be still some sort of subliminal consciousness at work making that judgement.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* that sounds quite cool BTW, I've never tried meditation so might be something to look into

 

[HareBrain]

The paradox for me is if that were the case how would you know you were experiencing an intense experience, compared to normal circumstances? There seems to me to be still some sort of subliminal consciousness at work making that judgement.

Good point. (And yes, it is meditation.) But I have answers. The judgement that it is a more intense state is of course a thought, not really subliminal at all. And thoughts do arise from time to time during that state (unless you're very well practised) and some of those thoughts might be about the nature of that experience. So you could go ten seconds, say, without a thought, and then you'd find yourself thinking how cool it is, and then you find yourself thinking, oh crap, I'm thinking!, and you gently have to re-establish the state of non-thought.

But mostly, though, the judgement comes from reflecting on the experience afterwards.

I'd still say that even a state of complete non-thought awareness is not the same as a CCTV camera being aware of its video feed. But then again, how would we know?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

CCTV "sees" purely the light from the object.
We do not see like that at all, that much is known. Even though our experience starts with light focused on the retina, we see a little more than is really there. Sometimes we don't see things that are there. Also the eyes, the focus, the head all make slight movements. Even without two eyes (cover one) for stereoscopic perception we perceive 3D and distance (though not as well).

We know it's a flower. Even the most advanced programs (written and depending on humans!) have difficulty with that. The CCTV is an inanimate two dimensional array of numbers. Even viewing a stereo CCTV image isn't the same as direct viewing either. The image is compressed to a single plane.

 

[J-Sun]

I actually didn't care for the squirrel line because it implies a "small creature before the vast mysteries" viewpoint when it might be better expressed (as I believe I've read somewhere - not a coining of my own) that it's like a scalpel trying to dissect itself or, perhaps more appropriately, the eye trying to see itself. (Even in a mirror, the eye does not see itself but sees its reflection. "This is not a pipe.")

Random thoughts: Nietzsche's discussion of consciousness as an "epiphenomenon" kept, um, recurring as I read. Kind of a non-determining byproduct or exhaust of the machinery - ex post facto rationalizations of everything. One of the points (along with the "eternal recurrence") that I don't care for from a fascinating thinker, but who knows?

There are lots of great SF stories about consciousness but probably the best most recent one was in the January/February Analog (alas, its only place of publication so far) by the Vanderbilt physicist Robert Scherrer called "Descartes's Stepchildren" (little paragraph in here about it) and I'm more eager than ever to get around to reading Peter Watts' Blindsight.

Speaking of, to wax silly - doesn't the discussion of "D.B." give us a readily graspable mechanism for ESP if we wanted it? He can "read" a card he can't "see" with nearly 90% (though why not 100%?) accuracy. Imagine a kingdom full of eye-damaged people and a few DBs - It'd seem just like a person amongst us who could "read" a Rhine card turned away from him that none of us but the tester can "see". It would seem "psychic". Perhaps there are sensible aspects to thoughts, timestreams, ways to move things, whatever, that we simply don't consciously perceive? I don't buy this but it gives an easy way to firm up your "psi fi".

And it's nice to know that the guy who edits my Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Ted Honderich) and his good buddy Colin McGinn are representing their field with dignity and with nothing but truth and goodness as their goals. (Everybody "are people, too.")

I can't remember the name of the argumentative fallacy (even if it has a name) but the comment by Massimo Pigliucci on the zombie thought-experiment is the kind of thing that drives me nuts. He attacks the analogy (which he doesn't like as a matter of taste) and acts like that somehow refutes the argument the zombie thing is meant to illustrate. That, and that it's the type of arrogant faux-mature sort of response that implies a straight-jacketed mind. It's hard to imagine "Let’s relegate zombies to B-movies and try to be a little more serious about our philosophy, shall we?" as being said in anything but an unctuous patronizing drawl. (Do - presumably - Italians drawl?) Nietzsche, again, had something to say about the "spirit of gravity".

Anyway, yes - a very interesting (albeit avowedly long) article. Thanks for posting!

 

[HareBrain]

We know it's a flower.

That's true. Even if you look at it without thinking at all, and so don't attach the word "flower" to it, there's no question of not being familiar with it.

 

[Venusian Broon]

And it's nice to know that the guy who edits my Oxford Companion to Philosophy (Ted Honderich) and his good buddy Colin McGinn are representing their field with dignity and with nothing but truth and goodness as their goals. (Everybody "are people, too.")

oh this thread really splinters easy - I will get back to that flower (I'm seeing a daffodil or something yellow) and the camera...

After my own limited experience in the rarefied ivory tower world of scientific research, this sort of cattiness and bitchiness seems the norm. In fact I'd argue for a number of reasons it can be much worse: fields of study tend to be (if you are lucky) 30-40 researchers looking at that specific field - usually many fewer - the same faces year-in year-out, pressure to obtain funding and attract students means that there is much pressure to be #1, leading and the best, and in established fields you tend to get a few very successful 'titans' who generally train the next few generations of researchers in this field - which does lead to the whole gamut of parent/offspring, sibling and 'you not one of the family' relationships. So such dynamics are ripe for a great deal of negativeness to come shining through .

Of course I am generalising and there are of course people fair and dignified 'with nothing but truth and goodness as their goals'. But only if they discovered something brilliant first

Regarding the squirrels. The second I read it I got the image of squirrel professor Nutkins in a tweed waistcoat smoking a pipe, in front the obligatory formula choked blackboard looking highly perplexed. Of course the blackboard is full of the usual mish-mash of half-broken formulae that every TV show puts on a blackboard to make the person look very 'scientific' and clever, so the silly little squirrel ain't going to solve quantum mechanics with them...

 

[Stephen Palmer]

This is something I've been thinking about for 30 years, and, rather than comment on things above, or on the article itself (which I'm about to read), I'm going to put out some pointers, since many commenters above said the subject is something that fascinates them. So, if you are interested, these are my authors of choice to go for:

Nicholas Humphrey
Daniel Dennett
Douglas Hofstadter
Antonio Damasio

of related interest: David Lewis-Williams, Steven Mithen, Erich Fromm.

Hope this helps all you self-searchers!

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Interesting article, but not much more than an overview, and of a limited number of viewpoints. I do echo the article author's recommendation on Robin Dunbar's books.

I've got David Chalmers' book The Conscious Mind at home, and read it, but I wasn't much taken with it. I think what the Guardian article and a lot of the debate in this area lacks is the evolutionary perspective, and that is what Nicholas Humphrey's work focusses on. Nicholas Humphrey imo has contributed more than anyone in recent years to our understanding of human consciousness.

My forthcoming novel Beautiful Intelligence focusses on the consciousness debate and also on AI. My personal feeling is that SF has dealt with AI in a very limited, arid and lazy way. I hoped when I wrote Beautiful Intelligence to present something a little different...

 

[Ray McCarthy]

My personal feeling is that SF has dealt with AI in a very limited, arid and lazy way.

yes. Certainly any written after 1970s is pure fantasy, and simply an extra magical character. Earlier it was ignorance about computers. Touring spoke of AI in a very limited sense and not the sense in SF. Even the Touring Test was never intended by him as a real test of AI. Just an idea. Eliza and later programs showed how gullible and easily fooled most people are.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

Ex Machina... interesting...

I wonder though if the question should not be, "What matters is whether Ava makes a conscious person feel that Ava is conscious, " but, "What matters is whether a conscious person makes Ava feel that a conscious person is conscious."

 

[BAYLOR]

Perhaps this body that we live in is merely an avatar?