Talk:Consciousness/Archive 2

message: Here is an analogy:      Consciousness:Cells as Culture:Population  
So consciousness is a culture formed by the interaction of all the cells in a human. 72.209.71.249 03:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I finally figured out what consciousness is

message: This section is about the description and location of phenomenal consciousness, not the "nature" of consciousness. Another section is needed for the latter.
The assertion about Descartes' description of conscious experience in this article has been challenged, references for this assertion are given  below and an extended discussion can be found in the archive.
References for Descartes' description of phenomenal consciousness as things laid out in space and time and viewed from a point:
* 1. The soul/mind is unextended (a point): "... And although I may, or rather, as I will shortly say, although I certainly do possess a body with which I am very closely conjoined; nevertheless, because, on the one hand, I have a clear and distinct idea of myself, in as far as I am only a thinking and unextended thing, and as, on the other hand, I possess a distinct idea of body, in as far as it is only an extended and unthinking thing, it is certain that I, [that is, my mind, by which I am what I am], is entirely and truly distinct from my body, and may exist without it." (Meditations VI, 9)
:Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation6.html 
* 2. He considers that the soul/mind is looking at the pineal gland: "By this means the two images which are in the brain form but one upon the gland, which, acting immediately upon the soul, causes it to see the form of the animal."(passions of the soul 356). 
* 3. Descartes defines ideas as extended things (this is not the common usage of the term and causes confusion for students): "Now among these figures, it is not those imprinted on the external sense organs, or on the internal surface of the brain, which should be taken to be ideas - but only those which are traced in the spirits on the surface of gland H (where the seat of the imagination and the 'common sense' is located). That is to say, it is only the latter figures which should be taken to be the forms or images which the rational soul united to this machine will consider directly when it imagines some object or perceives it by the senses. And note that I say 'imagines or perceives by the senses'. For I wish to apply the term 'idea' generally to all impressions which the spirits can receive as they leave gland H. These are to be attributed to the 'common' sense when they depend on the presence of objects; but they may also proceed from many other causes (as I shall explain later), and they should then be attributed to the imagination. (Treatise of Man)"
* 4. Cartesian Ideas are clearly described as phenomenally extended: "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. (3) In the first place, I distinctly imagine that quantity which the philosophers commonly call continuous, or the extension in length, breadth, and depth that is in this quantity, or rather in the object to which it is attributed. Further, I can enumerate in it many diverse parts, and attribute to each of these all sorts of sizes, figures, situations, and local motions; and, in fine, I can assign to each of these motions all degrees of duration."(Meditation V). Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/descartes/meditations/Meditation5.html 
* 5. This description of Descartes' concept of conscious experience is found in other encyclopedias: "Descartes is offering a broadly representational picture of how ideas might relate to reality. Ideas of particular objects 'represent' the world. This in turn has several consequences. (a) Ideas are different from things in the world. (This already moves Descartes towards a broadly realist epistemology, and thus can be interestingly contrasted with the idealism of Berkeley.) (b) Ideas (at least of secondary qualities) do not resemble the world: my idea or feeling of hunger (to take one of Descartes' favorite examples) has no resemblance to whatever may be happening in my stomach, if I have a stomach." [http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/descarte.htm#SH7d Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy 
Reid has a similar concept of a point, unextended soul/mind looking at things:
".. I take it for granted, upon the testimony of common sense, that my mind is a substance-that is, a permanent subject of thought; and my reason convinces me that it is an unextended and invisible substance; and hence I infer that there cannot be in it anything that resembles extension" Reid, T. (1764). An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense. Edited by Brookes, Derek. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1997. 
"It is therefore acknowledged by this philosopher to be a natural instinct or prepossession, a universal and primary opinion of all men, a primary instinct of nature, that the objects which we immediately perceive by our senses are not images in our minds, but external objects, and that their existence is independent of us and our perception." (Thomas Reid Essays, 14)"
Plato has a similar concept:
"And do you not know also that although they make use of the visible forms and reason about them, they are thinking not of these, but of the ideals which they resemble; not of the figures which they draw, but of the absolute square and the absolute diameter, and so on -- the forms which they draw or make, and which have shadows and reflections in water of their own, are converted by them into images, but they are really seeking to behold the things themselves, which can only be seen with the eye of the mind?"(The Republic)
As have many other philosophers... loxley 09:27, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The description and location of consciousness 

message: <Commenting on the phrase in Turing Test--Alan Turing proposed what is now known as the Turing test to determine if a computer could simulate human conversation undetectably. This test is commonly cited in discussion of artificial intelligence. See Chinese room.> 
From Joseph E. LeDoux The Emotional Brain: the Mysterious Underpinnings of Emotional Life; 1996; ISBN: 0684836599; p.281. 
           
:However, it is not clear that consciousness is computable. Philip Johnson-Laird reminds us that a computer simulation of the weather is not the same thing as rain or sunshine. Working memory theories, in dealing with consciousness in terms of processes rather than as content, try to explain what kinds of computational functions might be responsible for and underlie conscious experiences but they do not explain what it is like to have those experiences? These theories provide an account of the way human minds work, in a general sense, rather than an account of what a particular experience is like in a particular mind. They can suggest how a representation might be created in working memory but not what it is like to be aware of that representation. They suggest how decision processes in working memory might lead to movement but not what it is like to actually decide to move. In other words, working memory is likely to be an important, and possibly an essential, aspect of consciousness. It is in fact likely to be the platform on which a conscious experience stands. But consciousness, especially its phenomenal or subjective nature, is not completely explained by the computational processes that underlie working memory, at least not in a way that anyone presently comprehends. 
Yesselman 22:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a fly conscious of the presence of your hand as you try to swat it? This level of consciousness is already attainable by computers. If you describe conciousness as the kind of infinately extended cognition that we see in humans, then this will become available to computers once we have developed sufficiently capable neural net machines, since the physical mechanisms of the human brain are actually not very hard to simulate. In terms of the article in general, someone should point out that some level of consciousness is clearly exhibited by most higher mammals, but it seems only humans have infinately extended cognition. By this I mean that a dog may anticipate a beating from a bad owner, but it cannot anticipate that beating may come in 2 months time. Only humans posess the kind of cognition that allows them to take decisions now, based on rational extrapolation of distant consequences. I think while the article is an accurate compilation of philosophical aspects of conciousness, it doesn't really touch upon recent (last few decades) discoveries about the mechanisms of the brain leading to conciousness, or recent developments in AI.
--Furrypig 01:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Consciousness Computable? 

message: Alienus has just reverted again without any discussion. Just the comment that the quote about phenomenal consciousness by Dennett was "worthless". This quote is from a philosopher who is difficult to label and explains his idea of phenomenal consciousness in his own words. It is essential for clarifying the debate. loxley 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as you keep vandalizing, I will revert.  Alienus 17:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alienus reversion of changes

message: In my opinion, in an article, there should be a balance between the complexity of an article and the simplicity of an article. Please admit with me that in order to comprehend this article, one would have to be a material expert of the philosophy of the mind and it's consciousness, or at least possess a great ammount of intelligence, in addition to knowledge. This article is not balanced in this virtual scale. It is deeply tipped toward complexity, and while it might offer more information than if it were simpler, it is very hard to comprehend. I believe this is a problem, and while I cannot quote any wikipedia policy, I believe something should be changed, or perhaps a summary be given. Granted it would be very hard to summarize the article into something that would be easier to understand...
Opinions?  GofG |||  Contribs 01:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplicity vs. Complexity 

message: I recently reverted some text by 209.135.109.15, which came uncited and looked like it was a rehash of popularizations of QM consciousness.  Unfortunately, 209.135.109.15 seems to be new to Wikipedia and doesn't know how to deal with disagreement, so they've edit-warred to get their text kept.  I am instead asking that they come here and discuss what I object to about it so that we can come to some consensus. Alienus 07:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  QM text by 209.135.109.15  

message: Yet another artical on an infinitely vast and endlessly controversial topic which I will have to rescue from edit wars and other nonsense (if I ever have the time and health/energy)? Ok...I can't look it over just now. First criticism: there are a lot of refernces but the article is badly referenced. For some clue on the meaning of this enigmatic assertion, please see my FA philosophy of mind  or Katyn Forest by Pronconcsul Piotr (17 FAs!!!). Second problem: does not confrom to WP:LEAD. Third: get rid of the navigation thingie on the bottom (this is just a question of personal taste, but I think it's clutering. No offense to anyone intended.--Lacatosias 07:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, first of all there is certainly no justification for adding it to the lead section (which is already extremely overdone). The lead of ANY article is supposed to  4 paragraphs Maximum. Secondly, the grammar is bad and the style of expression make the paragaphs almost unintelligible to me (what would the lay reader think??). But these problems could be dealt with. The main problem is that there seem to be no references. For example, it starts out thus: "Accordinf to some recent theorists...." Who? and where were these theories published? There are many other such factual assertions throughout which nedd to be verifiable (see WP:Verifiability) or they are considered  violation of WP:NOR (no Original Research). --Lacatosias 09:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, then, the problem now,as I see it, is to fidn a way of including this information which does NOT misrepresent it as being scientifically verified or in any way part of the mainstream of view of the vast majority of scientists and of the fiedl of consciousness studies in general. Parapsyhcology is, of course, interesting and might deserve a mention, but only as a rather marginal view. I will see if I can deal with the matter in one of the sub-sections or create a separate section to deal with the majoroity view (againts parapsi) and the minority view, so that they are balanced.--Lacatosias 10:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's not that Sheldrake has ONLY done parapsyhcology but that he has been involved in work (telepathy and such matters are CERTAINLY categorized as paraphyschology even by their proponents) in parapsyhcology. Life-after death is, strictly speaking, part of [[thanatology], I suppose. The whole thing might be summarized perhaps as "alternative science", for lack of something better. Anybody else have some suggestions.--Lacatosias 11:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh Lord... 

message: Whoever put the cleanup tag on this article has a good point. I think a lot of the article should be shifted to Awareness.  Especially the bits about:
* Philosophical criticisms
* Class consciousness
* Access consciousness
The way the article is going it will end up with "Political consciousness" and "fashion consciousness" as subheadings!  All these things are Awareness, not the phenomenon of consciousness.  Even Dennett's ideas are really about awareness and spoil the article as a feature about the phenomenon of consciousness itself ie: I am conscious and I am also conscious OF x - being conscious OF x is awareness. Machines can be aware.
See http://www.iep.utm.edu/c/consciou.htm#SSH4b.i 
Some of the confusion may be due to linguistic problems, for instance in Russian the word "consciousness" has overtones of social knowledge. See http://psycprints.ecs.soton.ac.uk/archive/00000239/
Robinhw 00:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a disambiguation page would be in order? Since the word here gets overloaded with so many different meanings. DanielDemaret 09:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As the entry explain, there is kind of a problem with the English word "consciousness", since it comes from the French "conscience". Shifting parts such as the philosophical criticisms (or concepts such as class consciousness) to awareness would be, IMO, wrong, as it would miss the important issue about this difficult translation. I don't know if I'm clear, but we are not talking here only about linguistic concerns, but also about the philosophical difficulties of translation. You may think that it would be far more relevant to having parts on "political consciousness" in the "awareness" title, and think it is in no way related to ordinary "consciousness". But this is discutable, if you understand the different senses at stake in this problematic translation. Lapaz 01:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: ...needs some cleanup. Techgnosticism gets 33 googlehits — non-notable. Infomysticism, 74 googlehits. Original research. — goethean ॐ 19:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why it has been removed. But we have an edit warrior on our hands who inists on having it in on pain of spamming my email adress to death.--Lacatosias 07:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Spamming is absolutely unacceptable. I think that's a bannable offense. — goethean ॐ 15:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Spam is unsolicited email. It has nothing to do with editing Wikipedia articles. — goethean ॐ 17:52, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Now, don't lie. You know perfectly well that you sent two or unsolicited emails. I'm glad that you have stopped, of course. But, anyway, this has nothing to do with your edit warring on this page. Stop doing that as well, please!!--Lacatosias 10:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Editing wikipedia articles, whether anonymously or with an account, will not result in email being sent to anyone. User:Lacatosias, I suggest that you either forward the offending emails to an administrator or drop the subject. — goethean ॐ 20:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternative science section 

message: The new intro is too long. It references itself. The bulleted list is ugly and gratuitous. — goethean ॐ 15:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. Changed intro accordingly. Geometer 16:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comments on new intro 

message: How many concepts of consciousness and cults are there out there? Having a section for each one in the consciousness article would be absurd. The section on Modern Gnosticism should be transferred out to Modern Gnosticism. Otherwise we will have to allow a section for every type of yogic practice, every religion, marxism, humanism, scientology, every new age practice and philosophy, all mystical pursuits from orphism through cabalism to rosicrucianism........ The consciousness article is an overview. Surely it should point to these other articles but not contain them. Can we have a vote below on whether or not the section should be included here. Robinhw 15:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transfer of Modern Gnosticism to a page of its own - please vote 

message: Is the number of conscious beings that can exist at one point in time infinit? If so there must be an infinit number of potential identities. Common wisdom tells us that nothing is infinit. This problem can therefore be solved if only one identity exists. If so we are all the same person living different lives.
:I'm not sure why "common wisdom" tells us that nothing is infinite — especially not when we are refering to potentialities and not realities (it may be hard to imagine that there are infinite conscious existences — though, in fact, Jainism asserts that there are — but there doesn't seem to be anything contradictory about asserting that there are infinitely possible ways to exist. But, in any case, there doesn't seem to be much of a way to figure out some sort of universal cap on the number of conscious beings. 
:Of course, the universe is held to be a finite size (but not a fixed size), so on the assumption that every conscious being takes up a fixed amount of space (Wb) and the universe is at any given moment a fixed size (Wu) the number of conscious beings that could exist at any given period of time is Wu / Wb. However, this formula is a little too simplistic, and a little bit silly. There is no reason to think that because there are potentially infinite conscious beings (if we are inclined to think that there are) that there are an infinite number of conscious beings. The latter simply does not follow from the former. Moreover, if we are "one person living different lives" we do not really do away with the problem you seem to raise. How is one identity in many "different" lives (each of which take up physical space) any different from multiple identities each living different lives? "Common wisdom" tells us that things cannot be infinite, including the number of lives of this putative "single identity".
:The problem with assuming only "one identity" (by which I assume you mean one conscious entity) is that it blatantly falsifies conscious existence (specifically being conscious of things that I am not). Of course, one might claim (in line with certain theories of child development) that this sort of consciousness is not our initial experience as living beings. Nevertheless, these same theories of child development rely on the recognition of things that genuinely are not oneself as a stage of development.
:Finally, one might point to a parallel problem: are there an infinite number of possible unconscious entities? Following the chain of reasoning above, this would seem to imply that all unconscious entities are one and the same thing or, in other words, that the universe was one whole thing. Then the problem to be raised is how do we account for the multiplicity of things? Do we refer to a concept such as maya (delusion), and thus imply that the universe as we experience it is nothing but a lack of understanding of our own true nature?
:In short, on what grounds could we possibly assert that "only one identity exists"? Ig0774 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reinstaured the deleted part on John Locke. It certainly gave you some start of an answer to that interesting question you brought on: "How is one identity in many "different" lives (each of which take up physical space) any different from multiple identities each living different lives?" This part, for example: according to Locke, "one may claim to be a reincarnation of Plato, therefore having the same soul. However, one would be the same person as Plato only if one had the same consciousness of Plato's thoughts and actions that he himself did. Therefore, self-identity is not based on the soul. One soul may have various personalities. Self-identity is not founded either on the body or the substance, argues Locke, as the substance may change while the person remains the same: "animal identity is preserved in identity of life, and not of substance", as the body of the animal grows and change during its life. Take for example a prince's soul which enters the body of a cobbler: to all exterior eyes, the cobbler would remain a cobbler. But to the prince himself, the cobbler would be himself, as he would be conscious of the prince's thoughts and acts, and not of the cobbler's life. A prince's consciousness in a cobbler body: thus the cobbler is, in fact, a prince."  Lapaz 01:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identical Identities 

message: There is some activity on thought that might interest people who contribute to this article. Alienus 04:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh no, not more of....well, you know what I mean.--Lacatosias 07:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thought 

message: I rv the deletion of the part on Locke. While it can certainly be discussed, I think that the talk subsection here entitled "Identical identities" clearly show that Locke has addressed this kind of problem. Lapaz 01:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locke and "identical identities" 

message: This practice is deprecated.  Font's should be sized either on personal preferences, or by using the .references-small { font-size: 90%;} class. See the extensive discussion --Blainster 21:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardcoded font sizing

message: I added two weasel tags because there are many parts of the article, especially those two sections, which contain phrases that are too vague to describe the sources. Some examples: 
*Some philosophers suggest that consciousness resists or even defies definition. Who?
*Some philosophers call our current experience phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness), as contrasted with access consciousness (A-consciousness)  Again, who? (Fixed by removal)
*Some philosophers have concentrated on reflexive processes to link one instant to the next, some on discriminations and differences between things in conscious experience and others on the overall behaviour of the organism Again, who? (Fixed by removal)
*Other philosophers, such as Nicolas Malebranche, John Locke, David Hume and Immanuel Kant, also agreed with much of this description, although some avoid mentioning the viewing point (see further reading below). What part of the reading further below desribes the people who avoid mentioning the view point? (Fixed ??? please check)
*From the eighteenth to twentieth centuries many philosophers concentrated on relations, processes and thought as the most important aspects of consciousness. These aspects would later become known as "access consciousness" and this focus on relations allowed some philosophers to claim that individual consciousness was dependent on such factors as social relations, politics and ideology. (Fixed by explicit mention of philosophers, this introductory para is expanded below)
*Some electroneurobiological interpretations of consciousness characterize this loss of consciousness as a loss of the ability to resolve time (similar to playing an old phonographic record at very slow or very rapid speed), along a continuum that starts with inattention, continues on sleep, and arrives to coma and death. What electroneurobiological interpretations?
*Some say that it is as if two separate minds now share the same skull, but both still represent themselves as a single "I" to the outside world. Who say that?
*Some have even argued that empirical tests of consciousness are intrinsically impossible. However, some researchers have devised tests to detect what they feel are certain aspects of consciousness. Again, who?
*The application to consciousness is that, according to some philosophers, anything capable of passing the Turing test as well as a person is necessarily conscious. Which philosophers?
*For these reasons, some consider this thought experiment to be misleading Who consider it misleading?
--Hcx0331 03:45, 26 Jul 2006
:Yep, you have a point. I have put comments next to your items. Please check the changes for sufficiency. Robinhw 09:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: I have ceased using the term "consciousness" because it no longer "stands for" the awareness aspect of Spirituality.  For my own use, I now use the term Apapsyche:  apas (sanskrit work,working) + psyche (Greek self,soul, and mind} = Operational Energy of the Soul.  The tendency and inclintion of those who have not personally visited the Esoteric within themselves is to perceive of "consciousness" as something that one can "think" about, and apply like paint to any difficult to esplain phenomenon. 
In other words, part of the defintion of "consciousness" it seems to me, is that the term is first and foremost an "abstract term".  It "stands for" a reality that cannot be known intellectually [by one brain and thinking], and can only be known experientially.  One must be in an altered state of awareness in order to perceive the reality of "consciousness".  Short of that, one may reference it by its abstrat label, that of "consciousness".... but it should be made abundantly clear that, what the abstrat term stands for may not be known by ones brain and thinking.
It seems to me that the thrust of what is developing is an attempt to push "consciousness" into the MIND, and this would be an error.  Consciousnes is a dimension of ones Spirituality, and is also of a permanent and absolute nature, wereas the MIND is not permanent, in an absolute ssense, and it is not part of the Spiritual realm.  Indeed, in Eastern mysticism it is explained that it is Spiritual energy that sustains the operations of the MIND.
______________________  Docjp 15:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another offering

message: And then I looked at this article and change my mind. It's a mortal sin!!--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I stopped beleiving in hell

message: With all the man did in the esoteric study of cultivating active consciousness in humans, can he be fit somewhere in this article? Or perhaps that mention belongs in self-awareness.DragonGuyver 00:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gurdjieff

message: There is no reference at all to Judeo-Christian view of conscience in this article although vague and less than defined description of oriental "altered states of conscience" (an incitation to drug use?) are proposed as the "spiritual approach" to it.
This discards 5000 years of thinking on the subject. So much for a would be Encyclopedia.
An addition to this paragraph referencing the words brought down to the Hebrews by Moses as being a statement of personal conciousness, has been lately erased ...
EXODUS 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 
This article winds up with no reference at all to any Judeo-Christian view upon consciousness - IMHO : very little of a comprehensive and tolerant view, don't you think?
:no. patrickw 14:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does en.wikipedia.org stand for soviet-like censorship ? 

message: Re the sentence: "There is speculation, especially among religious groups, and maybe some evidence, that consciousness may exist after death or before birth.
I read (skimmed) the article to find a pointer to that evidence or more discussion on those points and found none.  Maybe it should be marked with "citation needed" or similar?
Rhkramer 23:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "consciousness may exist after death or before birth" 

message: I removed the following section from the article following the cleanup necessary to save retrocausality from AFD.  Chris King does not appear to be recognized in the scientific community.  I question whether the sourcing meets WP:RS.  In general, I have reservations about the appropriateness of this content to the article, but I'm open to discussion and further sourcing (from better sources) if someone wants to go to bat for it. Serpent's Choice 07:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free will and consciousness 

message: Is there a good word for the combination of waking sensorium, imagination, memory being recalled, and sleep dreams?  In other words, consciousness + dreaming?  216.179.3.247 17:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Phenomenal consciousness is the term you are seeking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.14.5.30 (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need a word