Talk:Consciousness/Archive 1

message: Made reference to the technical philosophical term among philsophers of mind. icut4u 21:08, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrigibility 

message: The comment "Cohen has been working since 1986 toward a single goal: the transformation of human consciousness on a global scale" is somewhat PoV. I rewrote it as 
Cohen has been working since 1986 towards what he calls "the transformation of human consciousness on a global scale".  
Perhaps this comment should be removed altogether?
--MatthewJ 21:09, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andrew Cohen POV 

message: Aroma of consciousness
“I know no more encouraging act of a man than to lift his life by conscious endeavor”  (Socrates)
In my view, states of consciousness represent unique configuration of physiological functions such as thought, memory, emotion, body image, visual & auditory perception etc. e.g. dream and meditative states and the ordinary state of reality. Structures of consciousness are broad  noetic modes of experience by which we do understand our life’s world which have evidently evolved across human history that include archaic, magic, mythic, mental and emerging integral structures.
Planes of consciousness represent broad perceptual/emotional horizons which in certain religions and traditions are said to define the quality of ones life’s world, both during and between incarnations. They are commonly called as the transitional states. I articulate them separately from noetic states of consciousness because there is a reason to believe that they present a different and more or less independent vector of  life’s experience, one that is not determined by noetic structures. Their resilience across traditions however seems to lend an interdependence of ordinary physiological process that is not characteristic of states of consciousness.
When I compare the humans body to its environment, I recognize the cosmos as the large infinite, and the atomic particles as the small infinite. The human brain reaches such a degree of complexity that it may be considered as a third infinite in the universe, a complex  infinite. It follows that any force capable of moving such an infinite deserves a place among the forces of the universe. Physicists have recognized Four forces-The Gravitational force, The Electromagnetic, The Electrostatic & The Nuclear force. Forces are defined in four dimensions ( reversible or not in time) and it is postulated that these forces are applicable everywhere. Pleasure and displeasure, the affective axis of consciousness, can move the infinity complex axiomatically, that the affective capability of consciousness operates in a way similar to the way the four forces of physics: i.e. influences the behavior of conscious agents in a way similar to the way the four forces influence masses and particles. however, since a natural phenomenon is dimensionless, I suppose to call the affective capability of consciousness as the  fifth influence rather than fifth force.   
Does life emerge spontaneously from a predetermined in animate back ground, or is it a basic characteristic  of all of our environment? Living entities may respond to the external threatening stimuli in order to survive in a hostile climate . if we set aside the pre-supposition that inanimate and animate structures and agents are fundamentally different, then this criterion applies to all recognizable entities. An entity depends for its continuance not only on awareness of its surroundings, but also on self, referencing as a means of stabilizations. It must not only reflect external consciousness but also a degree  of self consciousness. Uniquely external consciousness can engender incongruous or self destructive internal development; self consciousness can engender and leave the entity wide open to incomprehensible attack by external agents. the duel between these two facets constitutes the process we refer to as life. We can describe the natural living world as, and by, a non linearly scaled hierarchy of concepts, each of which maintains its autonomy by relying on its precursor as a tool. Life uses biology, biology uses chemistry and chemistry in turn uses quantum mechanics. I think that at the head of this hierarchy - The universe, background of casually chaotic communication, makes use of consciousness, which uses LIFE as a tool in its auto-propagation.
Irfan
----
"What are the inheritable characterisitics of intelligence? What are the correlations between intelligence and sex? Is intelligence affected by the geomagnetic field?"
It seems to me this part of the caption distracts from the article.  These questions seem to have little to do with what is discussed here.  Also, why is there a picture of a black hole?  I think the picture and caption should be removed.  Thoughts?  Floorsheim 06:54, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aroma of consciousness 

message: Although these terms may need to be defined the definitions placed in the introduction were incorrect. Absence of consciousness/non-consciousness are not types of consciousness. Loxley 10:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-consciousness, absence of consciousness, subconscious 

message: Any support for a School of Consciousness Studies over at the Wikiversity project? Or for expanding this thread into an Introduction to Consciousness Studies Textbook over at wikiBooks? I would be willing to devote some time towards writing introductory articles. Alistaircochrane 16:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know about Wikiversity until you mentioned it.  Unfortunately the article has been listed for deletion.  I see that the project itself is a part of Wikibooks accessed from its lefthand page menu. Sounds like an interesting idea.  --Blainster 19:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Wikiversity School of Consciousness Studies? 

message: There is an article called quantum mind that covers QM approaches to consciousness. Surely the main article 'consciousness' should point to this subsidiary article. I think we should delete the whole QM section from the consciousness article. loxley 22:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That article is not very good, so we should probably merge. Rbarreira 23:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should QM approaches be included at this level?

message: What are the standars for inclusion of links?  What makes a link "poor" as stated by Encephalon? --Janice Rowe
:Hello Janice,
:The WP guide for external links is here. In general the section containing external links should be accessible to a wide audience, contain links that are directly focused on the subject of the article or specific subsections, are to bodies or organizations considered authoritative in that field where possible, are "high-content" and contain accurate, factual material, and preferably non-commercial. Personal websites are frowned upon (unless it is that of a notable person who is the subject of the article or a prominent subsection. To consider a recent featured article, Asthma, there are just 5 external links in a 35kb article; the links are all to national agencies widely considered to sources of accurate, evidence-based medical information, and all are non-commercial. There are no links to personal websites. Each link is to a page which is highly focused on the subject of the article, and they are all "high content". The article itself is heavily referenced directly to important primary and secondary studies directly pertaining to asthma.
:I removed 5 links from this article's unnecessarily enormous links section. 
:* this contains a one line definition of the word consciousness. The parent website apparently belongs to an individual's religious school. There is nothing on the linked page that is not already more than adequately explained in the article, and other far more reputable sources.
:* A commercial forum, seemingly devoted to an understanding of kinesiology more than anything else, focused on an individual of little relevance to the article, and not particularly a reliable or reputable as a source of scholarly or authoritative information on consciousness.
:* The personal website of an individual who has written a book published by a vanity press. Claims to be scientific, but as it does not appear even to be referenced, I am unable to verify that claim beyond noting information that I seriously doubt underwent formal scientific peer-review. 
:* website on various religious beliefs loosely related to consciousness. Talks about "astral travel" and "energy bodies". Commercial. Unverified claims. I do not see how this contributes to a WP article on consciousness; perhaps an article on astral travel might be a better fit.
:* I couldn't get this site to load properly and I wonder if it's still live. Cache seems to show part of it is in a foreign language; a personal website which seems to be itself a collection of links pointing to dozens of other places.
:The links section of this article is already too large, and many of the links are unnecessary and/or poorly suited to WP; WP is not a "collection of external links," a  "repository of links, images, or media files," a propaganda or advocacy" machine of any kind, or a venue for self-promotion or advertising. The Stanford encyclopedia links are excellent, the link to the Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness is acceptable per WP guidelines, the links to the journals are strictly speaking not necessary, as papers of importance to the article should be directly referenced and placed in the references section (called Further reading here); however, if the editors felt they were useful to link to, I would not object, given their scholarly nature. The free journal might be particularly useful and in line with the WP policy of wide accesibility. The Koch lectures are an excellent multimedia resource. I am unsure if the Sobottka site adds much value. Do you feel I've removed a link that you would have preferred left in, Janice? Please let me know; if you feel strongly that I have erred, you may also place it back yourself, this being a wiki and all. 
:Kind regards—encephalonέγκέφαλος  21:52:12, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
:NB. Disclosure— I played a significant editing role in Asthma, but used it as an example above only because I am familiar with it.—encephalonέγκέφαλος 
::Thank you Encephalon for explaining  this, and for taking the time to do so. I am just learning. What about the question below? --Janice Rowe
:::Don't mention it, Janice, glad to be of help. By the way, when Wikipedians sign their posts, it is customary to use four tildes, like so ~~~~. This produces your username, as well as the time/date stamp. If you type three tildes, only your username appears (I believe this is what you're typing). If you type five tildes, only the date/time stamp appears. Also, when writing posts, we tend to indent our responses one step to the right of the post we're replying to. This is done using colons. Each colon pushes the text in one pixel. If you click on the edit link for this section to your right, you'll see how it looks, I've done yours for you. Just in case you didn't know! :) All the best,—encephalonέγκέφαλος  22:25:16, 2005-09-07 (UTC)
::::Thanks again. Here ya go with four tildes, and indented with colons. --Janice Rowe 22:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: Dennett is a philosopher (not cognitive scientist) at the extreme end of modern opinion on consciousness. He appeals to computer programmers. He is an eliminativist and his idea is that you do not actually experience this text see: Multiple Drafts Model. He has been accused of being a living zombie by some philosophers. The fact that software engineers are probably more likely to read Wikipedia than anyone else should not lead us to give Dennett undue prominence, such as mentioning his ideas in the introduction. He believes that narrative (heterophenomenology) is the key to studying consciousness. By identifying qualia with judgements he ignores the spatial nature of mind, the way that the mind has many things simultaneously at any instant, and hence can propose that the brain is like a digital computer. loxley 08:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dennettism

message: "2. But before considering whether such objects as I conceive exist without me, I must examine their ideas in so far as these are to be found in my consciousness, and discover which of them are distinct and which confused." Meditation V
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation5.html
Descartes was an empiricist and regarded dreams, perceptions etc as ideas that enter experience. Subsequent philosophers have used the same terminology.  The substitution of objects of is a misrepresentation of Descartes. The terms "Objects of" and "experience of" are a functionalist/eliminativist slant, the empiricists were generally aware of this and tried to describe experience as it is. Descartes drew heavily from Aristotle who said that: "In every case the mind which is actively thinking is the objects which it thinks." (ie: not a thought about what it is thinking with an endless recursion).
:Your account of Descartes makes it sound like ideas, thoughts, are extended things.  This is obviously false (or at the very least is a highly controversial reading that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry).  Ideas according to Descartes are "modes of thought," and thought is obviously the activity of the non-extended, nonmaterial mind.  Thus ideas are certainly not extended.  Of course, we do have ideas of extended objects, but these are no more extended than our idea of an elephant is an elephant. (Also, Descartes is usually considered an arch-rationalist, *not* an empiricist.)   PeterBokulich 03:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your account makes it seems as if Descartes regarded the contents of his consciousness as unextended. This is obviously false (or at the very least is a highly controversial reading that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry). The original quotations from Descartes are given in the section above, please direct your comments to that section. loxley 10:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Please read the section on the analysis of the article above where this is explained. Of course I am not saying that Descartes thought the mind was extended but he does indeed state that that his conscious experience is extended and the section of the article that we are discussing is about the description of conscious experience. Descartes defines "mind" and "soul" as defined by unextended experience, extended experience being in the body (senses communis) - obviously an unextended mind is going to have a problem containing conscious experience that is extended so his definitions of "mind" and conscious experience do not overlap fully. The section above also discusses how Descartes thought the imagination can give rise to extended things by action on the body (the part of the body called the brain) so that ideas have extension. loxley 20:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Descartes' ideas