Talk:Consciousness

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

• Archive 1 ( // to 21/10/05)
• Archive 2 (21/10/05 to 13/04/07)

Subjective consciousness is nonexistent

There's no such thing as a subjectively perceived "contentless" consciousness, nor is there such thing as a subjectively perceived unconsciousness (aside from a time-disconnect).

Thus, there's no such thing as a subjectively perceived consciousness, either. The concept is entirely imaginary or speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkl sem (talk • contribs) 07:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

consciousness is subjectivity itself. it is the dreamer aware of his dream.Jiohdi (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Libet's Findings & Consciousness

Although one of the books (with Libet as coauthor) is listed, the impact of his findings in nowhere to be seen. I also did not notice findings of other psychologists and neurologists reflected in the article. And the picture of consciousness psychologists and neurologists offer is completely different from that one philosophers offer.

I would say that both pictures need to be presented in any encyclopaedia entry. Maybe my website can help: Imagination is Greater than Knowledge.

Damir Ibrisimovic 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear all,

I see that there is not much progress made… Everything seems to be revolving around “hard problem”. Maybe simple opening and closing your eyes can do the trick?

As long we try to squeeze consciousness into our brain we will never be able to resolve this puzzle. Our brain is just an organ for higher processing. It does not contain richness of the world we experience with our eyes open:

Mystery.

Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion by Myscience

Myscience, please explain why you don't think that the text I added contributes to the article. I think that there are at least some points there that would contribute, for example the view that the consciousness is currently asleep and fascinated, and that it can be awakened. I would be happy to revise the paragraph I added, and if you have any suggestions please state them. Anton H 14:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since I have received no answer I added a revised paragraph from the viewpoint of Samael Aun Weor. If you don't like it for some reason then please discuss that here instead of just deleting it. Thanks. Anton H 07:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Aun Weor does not have the stature for an independent mention in this summary article which is largely about movements and broad ideas. Geometer 10:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Anton H 10:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

External links

Does anyone feel this one deserves to be there:

• Consciousness from Encyclopedia of Spiritual Knowledge

Though this will certainly offend the person who added the link if they read this, it seems like pure crackpottery to me, and it's very brief. Since it seems to have been added only recently it probably hasn't been reviewed, though I doubt of all articles out there on the web this one would have a place if this were a featured article. I'll let the frequent editors of this article decide whether they want it there or not. Richard001 11:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This consciousness page is quite neuro-scientific... I've moved the spiritual discussion to "Higher consciousness." I think this better serves those who are interested in both the science of consciousness and the spirituality of consciousness. I'm still hoping for replies about disambiguation of consciousness (see below). --Dylanfly 20:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Definition by Jeff Hawkins

In the book On Intelligence, Jeff Hawkins defines consciousness as "what it feels like to have a cortex". Could this be worked in to the article? Sancho 06:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchom, Thomas Nagel has written on "what-it-is-like" in his seminal paper "What is it like to be a bat?" and surely such a point is relevant to consciousness as subjective experience or creature consciousness.

However, there is more to conscious processing than the cortex. The cortex is associated with higher order functions. To exclude the amygdala when describing the neural basis for consciousness would be to exclude several emotions, such as fear. I therefore suggest that the proposed metaphor should not be worked into the article.

(I don't know what my cortex feels like, although I have heard descriptions about what it looks like in the open air (porridge after oxidation) :)

193.10.185.3 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I think the time has come to make this page dis-ambiguous. There is Consciousness, artificial consciousness, Political consciousness, Black Consciousness Movement, consciousness raising, and perhaps more. I'm concerned that this discussion of consciousness overwhelms the other common uses. --Dylanfly 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides the question of disambiguation, the big question is what to rename this page on consciousness? Perhaps Human consciousness? Or Consciousness (of self)? Or.... ????? Please speak up, folks. I think there's a rather urgent need to disambiguate, and we'll need a collective effort here. :) --Dylanfly 13:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I really need to hear from people... please. Consciousness is used so broadly on wikipedia and it makes for a horrible mess. About 100 religious/spiritual articles link here, for example, and most of them are really not related to what's being said here. So I'd like to go through a disambiguation. But what to call this page? Maybe self-conscious being ? Please chime in, friends. --Dylanfly 18:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article is about what philosophers and neuroscientists mean by consciousness. It might be renamed "consciousness (philosophy)" but I dont recommend this. This article discusses the mainstream meaning of the word "consciousness", the other uses are really about being conscious of or better still aware of something. Political, black, eco, etc. consciousness are post 1960's sound bites or catch phrases. Dypteran 11:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, good points. But, the "common" usage to which you refer is here slanted to have a purely scientific basis. Arguably, "consciousness" is a very, very common religious term; one which is not represented here. Also, the political connotations of consciousness are in very wide circulation indeed--that they it is a post-1960s usage does not lessen its importance. I feel that this article is heavily, unfairly, and inaccurately weighted to a neurological perspective on consciousness. For that purpose, it is an excellent article, but for the vast array of other uses, it does not work well at all. Thanks very much for the input, though. Let's hear from more people... --Dylanfly 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed, reading above, that you removed the bit of the article that covered spiritual/religious approaches. I am easy either way about the inclusion of the religious aspect but it seems odd that you removed it then find that the article lacks this aspect. Dypteran 19:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: moving the spiritual component. I hear you. It was just such a tiny little, tacked on thing. It wasn't integrated at all. I think any attempt to create one unified page for consciousness is a bad idea. Marxist uses consciousness, spiritual consciousness, and neurological aspects of consciousness-----these things just don't mesh well. The fact that so many things in English use the same word leads to misunderstandings. Wikipedia will be improved once we disambiguate. I think the only other option is to create one massive consciousness page, but the neuro-science people active here have fought against that.--Dylanfly 12:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

External Link Video Add

I'd like to add a video of panelists from the University of Southern California discussing the concept of human consciousness. The link is http://www.researchchannel.org/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=3783&fID=345 (this does not automatically open the video). Please let me know what you think. (ResearchChannel 19:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC))

Well... Taking a look at the video, it seems to me to be biased by exactly what it does not present. It does not present a single panelist actually working in the relevant sciences of Cognitive neuroscience, Psychology (the experimental portion, not the clincical part) or even Artificial intelligence. Instead the panel is composed of two physicists, two philosophers, and a "leading" parapsychologist (whatever that means). Honestly, I find the fact that USC produced this sort of biased sample of the relevant sciences to be a bit of an embarassment to an otherwise fine university. It's not as if they don't have qualified representatives, such as Antonio Damasio (now at USC) or Christof Koch (at CalTech) nearby. If it was added as an example of Chalmer's positions, or of Searle's views, perhaps, but this should certainly not be taken to be representative of consciousness studies as a field, simply because so much is left out, and is not indicated as having been left out. Edhubbard 21:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy of Mind---MERGE?

In the interest of disambiguation, I think perhaps we should MERGE the Philosophy of Mind section with said article.

I am unclear as to what section of the Philosophy of mind article you intend to merge. In general, I disgree with that on three grounds. First, the scope of philosophy of mind is greater than just the question of consciousness. Second, and conversely, consciousness is not merely a topic in philosophy of mind, but as has been noted already, neurology, cognitive psychology, and in various extended senses, even politics. Finally, the Philosophy of mind article is a featured article, so any changes to that article should be extensively discussed not only here but also there before anything happens. Edhubbard 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This page is best made into a more strictly neurological view of consciousness, and we could then disambiguate from spiritual consciousness, political consciousness, philosophical views of consciousness, and many, many more. I think that, as it stands, this is not the page that people are looking for when they link from, say, Hare krishna.

The only alternative, as I see it, is to merge religious and political views here, but that would make a very cluttered article. This neurological page is so good as is. Can I hear reactions about disambiguation of consciousness and the proposed removal of philosophical approaches? Cheers, --Dylanfly 16:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Or, this could be an umbrella page, with {{main}} links throughout the body and very brief (two sentence) summaries for each sub-section. I'd say this page should encompass a broad but shallow definition of consciousness, with each paradigm having it's own separate page with a main. You could have Consciousness (neurology), Consciousness (philosophy), Consciousness (politics) mains and make this a much shorter article. It'd be a big job though. WLU 16:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I second this notion. Further, I wonder if there is an intellectually sustainable distinction between Consciousness (religion) (or Consciousness (meditation)) and Consciousness (philosophy). I don't think it would be too big a job -- except for getting consensus. DCDuring 20:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Vis a vis the discussion of splitting the topic of Consciousness into separate sections (Neurology and Philosophy; Political Consciousness could perhaps be subsumed under the topic of [memes]): if this is not done then it will be inferred that only the Neurological approach to Consciousness – particularly the materialistic view of e.g. Daniel Dennett – is correct; or that this is the standard by which other approaches should be judged. The fact that other schools of thought exist – even within the neuroscience community – implies that Neurology is not necessarily the only valid approach to the question of what Consciousness is. It may not even be the most fruitful approach in the long run. SamMart 16:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Sam

Putting any of the consciousness material under memes seems like a stretch, IMHO. Any discussion of anything close to an idea could be placed in memes because there will be some host population in which that idea evolves. Could you explain the rationale for the identity of political consciousness and memes for purposes of making them the same entry? DCDuring 20:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The "materialist view of e.g., Dennett" is actually the more or less the most commonly accepted view in neuroscientific circles, and there are plenty of other philosophers that hold generally materialistic views of consciousness. There are certainly some, like Penrose, who feel otherwise, but Penrose's view is certainly far from mainstream, even though it gets a lot of press... Edhubbard 21:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Great points, gents. But Dennett or not, the question before us is whether and how to disambiguate the page. Right now a thousand articles land here and only half are really speaking about the neurological sense of consciousness. What might be the name of this page? WLU seems to suggest Consciousness (neurology). Seems pretty decent to me. --Dylanfly 19:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is a Political consciousness page, admittedly a weak one, but it could be a start. The Higher Consciousness page that Dylanfly off-loaded some material to from this page is also a good start. DCDuring 20:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought Dylanfly was exaggerating when he said there were a thousand links to Consciousness. Not really. Some of them are through the Conscious redirect page, but a lot of them are direct. Even efter excluding User page links and WP page links and the redirect links, there are still hundreds. Those links embody some user expectations that we need to respect. Are there any statistics available on the usage of internal links ? DCDuring 20:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current page steers the sort of general course that is necessary with a subject that is as wide and potentially woolly as "consciousness". It gives people a sort of "taster" for the subject. The link to Philosophy of mind at the beginning of the philosophy section is good and similar links should head all of the sections. Incidently, the philosophy section of this article is pretty cool, using Block's diplomatic solution to defuse violent debate. So, I am in favour of leaving the the general structure of the article as it is. Incidently, although I am a great Iain Banks fan, it is not true that most neuroscientists adhere to Dennett's views, whatever gave Edhubbard that idea? I worked in the field for a while and believe that there were a wide range of ideas on consciousness amongst neuroscientists but most agreed with Crick that correlates of consciousness are an adequate basis for research. BTW, the philosophy of mind article is a good intro to the academic philosophy of this subject and might be ruined by a merger, people get hot under the collar about consciousness but are more laid back about academic philosophy of mind. Dypteran 14:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I just had a look at the talk page for philosophy of mind, it is a featured article. This reinforces my view given above: don't spoil a really good article by merging it with an article that is always going to cause contention!. The consciousness article is a good place to deal with passions and disambiguations, it can then link out to the calmer waters of other articles for full treatments of each aspect of the subject. Dypteran 11:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sapience in definition of consciousness?

I'm a little surprised to see sapience in the first sentence as part of the definition of consciousness. It's probably a sufficient condition but it's hardly a necessary one, is it? I see it was added in April 2004 in this revision http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Consciousness&oldid=3273536 I'm tempted to remove it. Any comments on whether it should stay? Brian Fenton 19:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. If wisdom is associated with gained knowledge then consciousness as subjective experience is a prerequisite for acquiring knowledge, hence wisdom. E.g. if animals (e.g. dolphins) are conscious beings then we would need to consider them as having wisdom (which I take to be something over and above intelligence). I have never heard of a "wise ape", perhaps in Aesop's fables there are wise non-human animals... Ostracon (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Eastern philosophies on consciousness

There is no mention on this page of the views of eastern philosophies on consciousness (samkhya, yoga, vedanta which I am most familiar with, but maybe also buddhist, chinese, etc...). Maybe a paragraph or two should be added for that, especially since their view on consciousness is radically different from western. See my comment on Discussion page for mind. NikNovi 11:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Consciousness and Ethics

IMHO, the application to ethics section before the TOC is not relevant to consciousness in general and should be moved to a separate section of the article.Ostracon (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggested changes to 'description and location of phenomenal consciousness'

I'd like to suggest the following changes:

Philosophers have investigated phenomenal consciousness for centuries. René Descartes, who arrived upon the famous dictum 'cogito ergo sum', wrote Meditations on First Philosophy in the seventeenth century, containing extensive descriptions of what it is to be conscious. Descartes described conscious experience as ideas such as imaginings and perceptions laid out in space and time that are viewed from a point, this notion of interchangeability can cause confusion among modern readers. Like Aristotle Descartes defines ideas as extended things, as in this excerpt from his Treatise on Man:

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.

Thus Descartes does not identify mental ideas or 'qualia'with activity within the sense organs, or even with brain activity, but rather with interaction between body and the 'rational soul', through the mediating 'gland H'. This organ is now known as the pineal gland. Noting that, anatomically, while the human brain consists of two symmetrical hemispheres the pineal gland, which close to the brain's centre, is singular. Thus Descartes identified it as the mediator between body and soul.

Other philosophers agreed with Descartes to varying degrees, such as Nicolas Malebranche, Thomas Reid, John Locke, David Hume and Immanuel Kant. Malebranche, for example, agreed with Descartes that the human being was composed of two elements, body and mind, and that conscious experience resided in the latter. He did, however, disagree with Descartes as to the ease with which we might become aware of our mental constitution, stating 'I am not my own light unto myself'. David Hume and Immanuel Kant also differ from Descartes, in that they avoid mentioning a place from which experience is viewed (see "Further reading" below); certainly, few if any modern philosophers have identified the pineal gland as the seat of dualist interaction.

The extension of things in time was considered in more detail by Kant and James. Kant wrote that "only on the presupposition of time can we represent to ourselves a number of things as existing at one and the same time (simultaneously) or at different times (successively)." William James stressed the extension of experience in time and said that time is "the short duration of which we are immediately and incessantly sensible."

Any thoughts or objections? I know citations are needed, but this is beyond me at the mo. Visual Error (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Not bad, at all. I can provide citations, but I don't know how to format them. Janice Rowe (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Janice - I've inserted the text with a few changes. There's some reference templates here, actually - will they help? Visual Error (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Consciousness based ethics

What is the word, if there is one (I suspect there isn't), for the ethical position that for an entity to be granted any ethical consideration, it must be conscious? For example, such a person would place no intrinsic value or non-conscious abstract entities like Gaia or biodiversity, or to non-conscious tangible things like rivers, trees and mountains (I suppose there are some who would believe some or even all of those things are conscious, however I can hardly take such views seriously), and dead people and animals (unless you believe in some sort of afterlife; note that future people, and animals for that matter, would most certainly be given consideration as they will exist at some point). Such people, like myself, could still hold a variety of views, from virtue ethics to consequentialism, but would be united by this common foundation (the main philosophy specifically inconsistent with this, or so it seems to me, is deep ecology). Is there any word for such a position, or does anyone know if it has even been discussed anywhere? (It should also be mentioned in the article, of course). On the other hand, if it hasn't I really think someone ought to do so... Richard001 (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

No response... and from my inquiries there doesn't seem to be a word for this approach either. Perhaps someone will come up with one some day. In the mean time, we need more on the relationship between consciousness and ethics. The book I'm reading at the moment (End of Faith by Harris) takes this consciousness oriented approach. I'm sure lots of others do too of course; there should be no shortage of sources to draw from, even if there is no word for what it is that they're all talking about. Well, since I'm unlikely to add anything myself any time soon I'll just add it to a to-do list. Richard001 (talk) 09:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Would a wolf’s behaviour be ethical? It certainly seems so to environmentalists, unless they are chased by one. But then they would not have time to think how just the wolf might be.

Consciousness based ethics is rather weak in human and nonhuman sense. I would suggest a reversal: ethics based consciousness.

Forms of cooperation within and between species extend far beyond animal kingdom and offer better foundation for what we might consider as ethics. Only when we have some respect for others we can start imagining how it is in their shoes – consciousness. Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Pigeons cant pass the mirror test

The experiment has never been replicated independently. Only pigeons trained to pass the mirror test, are able to do so. There is a great youtube video on this, but here are three super credible references.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k728202u2g4517u2/ (your college has to subscribe to this or else you can't view) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2J-3W3NFT8-7&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f699c7e49a2d90a12b61068234f7c6e3 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-pigeons/

I suggest taking the pigeons out of the consciousness article, as it only brings down the credibility of this article and wp. Also, probably the same pigeon loon has notoriously tried to place this "fact" into other non-related articles about psychology and neurobiology. I don't dare delete it because I dont want any retaliation, so if someone else is brave enough to remove the pigeon outta the list, be my guest. Sentriclecub (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation Needed

The word “consciousness” obviously needs to be disambiguated. Phenomenal consciousness is sensations rich, while psychological or neurological consciousness is hardly so. This everybody can demonstrate to himself/herself by simple opening and closing his/hers eyes.

I would, therefore, suggest that this article makes this distinction and that our colleagues in psychology arena write about consciousness from their perspective. In psychology, this is well researched topic.

Kind regards, Damir Ibrisimovic (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

In response I will here try to disambiguate what needs disambiguation and will try to unite what needs not. Phenomenal consciousness emphasizes that there is a quality to consciousness, it is either felt as so and so, in other words that consciousness is experienced. In extension, on the view that consciousness is subjective experience, there exists a perceiver and the experience is private to the person undergoing the experience. Now, if there is someone who perceives, then were is this perceiver? Is it me? Yes. Is it my body? No, that cannot be entirely correct. If I lose my leg I am still conscious. Is it my brain then? On this question, researchers disagree, however, cognitive neuroscientist believe that there is a relationship between consciousness and the brain. If we remove a part of the brain, or someone gets injured, they might experience changes in their subjective experience (i.e. consciousness). So... Consciousness probably has something with the brain to do, but what is the relation?

Psychology, as one textbooks defines it (Passer and Smith), is the science of mind and behavior. If psychology was only about behavior (as it were from 1913 and towards the sixties), which some psychologists still hold today, then consciousness would not need to be studied by psychologists. However, psychology is about the mind as well. Within the philosophy of mind and in the cognitive neuroscience it is widely accepted that consciousness is an aspect of mind. That is why psychologists study it. The mind has some relation to the brain. That is why cognitive neuroscientists study it. Finally--from a very general perspective--neuropsychologists study the relationship between psychological phenomena and the brain. Subjective experience or phenomenal consciousness is being studied in studies of the experience of pain using methods belonging to cognitive neuroscience.

What happens in the mind is not independent from what happens in the brain. Nevertheless, I understand why this relation seems tricky. As one philosopher said (not an accurate quote): "How does this lump of grey produce technicolor experience?"

I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion about consciousness.

Regards,

Ostracon (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Commentary on the First Section

Consciousness is not a point of view
First paragraph, "Consciousness is a point of view"

This seems to stem from a confusion between the first-person perspective and subjectiveness. They are interrelated but not the same thing. I suggest removal of this description.

Confusing Introduction
I personally find Julian Jaynes evolutionary perspective on consciousness to be controversial. Might I suggest that the introduction would be fine without the 'inner space' commentary, which appears confusing to me in comparison to the views of Block and Nagel. However, that consciousness is not cognition is a good point and may be kept in the introduction.

The Role of the Neurosciences
Neuroscience is a broad area building upon several sub-disciplines. The united field of neuroscience was not established until 1971. Since neuroscience also regards aspects of the brain that do not involve mental processes the claim that consciousness is a subject in "neuroscience" is not entirely true. If we consider that:

1. Mental processes are biological features of the brain (Searle)

2. Consciousness involves mental processing (i.e. it probably has something with the brain to do)

3. The sub-discipline of neuroscience that studies mental processes--i.e. the biology of the mind (Gazzaniga)--is "cognitive neuroscience"

..."neuroscience" ought to be replaced with "cognitive neuroscience".

Neither behavioral nor basic neuroscience aims to understand consciousness.

Philosophical Stances on Consciousness
Are "personal identity" and "phenomenology" really stances on consciousness? Personal identity might depend on a concept of consciousness, but consciousness is not the central issue here - except on some views. Phenomenology (in the philosophical sense) refers to an approach to consciousness, however, does not necessarily presume a certain view of consciousness. It is more a method of inquiry than a philosophical stance. It certainly entails certain presuppositions, but it offers in itself no clear-cut answer to the ontological problems of consciousness, without first applying the phenomenological method. Moreover, a textbook would probably introduce dualism, monism, idealism and perhaps even pan-psychism for starters. These are ontological views, and the article may improve in clarity if they be separated from behaviorism, functionalism, identity theory (which has little to do with personal identity) and so on.

Ostracon (talk) 20:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Consciousness defies definition.

I love the first line :P It's hard to explain it isn't it LuGiADude (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)