What is Consciousness?

[dagda]

'No, actually we don't say that, we tend to say that there is evidence and that that is what we interpret, if there is no evidence then (unless there is real "fit", which is kind of evidence in itself) we assume it is untrue. No one is saying that there are things that might be real ads yet unexplained and it is entirely possible that precognition for example might be one of them. The problem lies in the fcat that so many claims are made and there is no way to distinguish between which are valid and which are not UNLESS you demand some kind of evidential support, some tie into reality and our senses (via technology). '


Actualy, I think you have proved Edward's argument here. You need evidence. Fair enough, but I am willing to bet that you are talking about emperical evidence e.g. something you can SENSE. This means that, by demanding material evidence for phenomenon before even concidering its validity then you are saying 'nothing is real unless I can sense it'. I think that is what Edward was trying to say.



'Or that your imagination trumps your reason!'

What is so imaginitive about it? Schitzophrenics see things all the time. Imagination does not trump their reason, they have a problem. In the same way, perhaps we all have a problem e.g. we can not realise that we are part of a whole. It is a fair enough hypothesis, I think.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I can't answer this so I have asked a question at a site that puts the questions to relevant scientists.

I know Edward has vaporised but I got my answer back.

I asked the following question:

Is there any documented (by which I mean in a reputable scientific journal) evidence for precognition or any other ESP style abilities? I am debating someone who claims there is and I'm the skeptic, I've searched on-line but haven't found much (it's hard to see past the forest of claims). James

I got the following answer:

Hi James,

While I'm not an expert in the field of precognition, ESP, or as it currently known, 'psi', a quick glance through the literature suggests that we have no conclusive evidence that ESP exists. In fact, in properly controlled (i.e. truly scientific) studies, very little evidence supports the existence of psi.

The wikipedia article on clairvoyance sums up current thought: "Parapsychological research is regarded by critics as a pseudoscience." I found the article by Moulton and Kossyln entitled "Using Neuroimaging to Resolve the Psi Debate" (Journal of Cognitive science, 2008, 20:1, pp 182) to be most useful; I found it with google scholar. The introduction sums up the problem as the following:

Past experimental research... has not empirically resolved the psi debate for three fundamental reasons. First, psi phenomena are notoriously and inexplicably unreliable. No effects consistently replicate on an experiment-by- experiment basis, and meta-analytic effects suffer from similar instability (e.g., Milton & Wiseman, 1999; Bem & Honorton, 1994). Second, the positive evidence that has been reported is merely " anomalous." As many have noted previously (e.g., Mumford & Rose, 1995), the absence of a normal explanation does not justify the presence of a paranormal explanation. Third, experiments with negative (i.e., null) results have always been vulnerable to the reasonable criticism that they assessed the wrong behavior. With no clear consensus on how psi might manifest itself behaviorally and a near-infinite set of possible behaviors to test, behavioral psi research is unusually susceptible to the argument that "absence of proof is not proof of absence."

Another paper (Bem, (2003) "Precognitive habituation: Replicable evidence for a process of anomalous cognition") discusses how "The holy grail for many psi researchers has long been a straightforward, transparent laboratory demonstration of psi that could be replicated by any competent experimenter -including a skeptical one - using participants drawn from the general population." This statement further suggests that the studies haven't stood up to scientific scrutiny.

So, to briefly summarize, the problem isn't merely a meager amount of evidence, but that most studies that have been performed are critically flawed. That would mean that any 'positive' result would have to considered tentative, at best, and more likely, uninterpretable.

I'd recommend using google scholar to find scientific articles on the web. There's just too much 'noise' if you search the entire web. If you can't get to the links via your internet connection, I recommend going to your local university library. The links may connect you to the papers there, and the stacks may even carry some of the journals of interest.

Hope that helps shed some light.

Alex G

Kyu

[g-mark]

All metaphysics aside, all whacked out new-age theories and wishful-thinking nonsense notwithstanding, what is consciousness?

Look, we know it's real. The existence of this forum proves it. But what is it? Is it self-reflection? I've been thinking that in its purest form, it must simply be self-awareness. But am I missing something?

consciousness
con⋅scious⋅ness
   /ˈkɒnʃəsnɪs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-shuhs-nis] Show IPA
–noun
1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.
3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.
4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.
5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.
6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.
7. Philosophy. the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.
—Idiom
8. raise one's consciousness, to increase one's awareness and understanding of one's own needs, behavior, attitudes, etc., esp. as a member of a particular social or political group.
Origin:
1625–35; conscious + -ness

And here's the real question, do animals produce it or do they receive it? That is, could consciousness be a kind of force similar to the physical forces in the universe?

All metaphysics aside, all whacked out new-age theories and wishful-thinking nonsense notwithstanding,

Did you write this? If you are not willing to listen to others opinions, why write your own?

One other question, hypothetically speaking, if precognition were a real phenomenon, what would that say about consciousness?

?

Is nature trying to become self-aware?

Are we part of nature?

[Kyuuketsuki]

G-Mark,

I hate to tell you this mate but dictionaries can't even get the definition of evolution right so continuously citing dictionary definitions at us, whilst possibly interesting, is a bit pointless.

Kyu

[zakbos]

Since Edward hasn't defined his terms, this discussion is rather mote. What does he mean by "consciousness?" What do you mean by the word? Without defining the phenomenom under consideration, it is impossible to identify what would or would not constitute evidence in favor of any particular hypothetical mechanism underlying the phenomenom.

Cheers,

Zachary

[Giff]

To have a conciousness you need a brain. It's that simple. A plant can't think since it doesn't have one.

So being councious is being awake really and be able to do decide what to do.

[zakbos]

Dear Giff:

That's starting somewhere, but I think we need to go a lot further. Shrews have brains -- are they conscious? Bees do too, but they seem even less conscious than shrews. Any definition of consciousness which doesn't advance a distinction between reportable/nonreportable mental events, between objective and subjective criteria, between pre-event and post-event awareness, etc., isn't a workable definition for the purposes of a discussion about evidence.

Which is a long way of asking: what is it that a plant can't do, by virtue of its lack of a brain?

All best,

Zachary

[g-mark]

I hate to tell you this, but dictionaries can't even get the definition of evolution right so continuously citing dictionary definitions at us, whilst possibly interesting, is a bit pointless.

Kyu

evolution
ev⋅o⋅lu⋅tion
   /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-] Show IPA
–noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics . the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution ( def. 8 ) .
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, esp. in close order drill.
Origin:
1615–25; < L ēvolūtiōn- (s. of ēvolūtiō ) an unrolling, opening, equiv. to ēvolūt ( us ) ( see evolute ) + -iōn- -ion

Sounds ok.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I hate to tell you this, but dictionaries can't even get the definition of evolution right so continuously citing dictionary definitions at us, whilst possibly interesting, is a bit pointless.

Sounds ok.

I didn't say ALL dictionaries ... Miriam-Webster doesn't mention the key one i.e. that evolution is defined as a "change in allele frequency in a population over time" but at any rate the point I was making was that NO dictionary gets every definition right and the more technological the concept the less chance they have of being so.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

That's why it is always important to take your dictionaries with a little pinch of salt