Talk:Consciousness

Untitled

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.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)
• Archive 3 (13/04/07 to 29/11/09)

The nature of the consciousness: a quantum mechanical approach

Has anyone read this interesting article: "Reality in quantum mechanics, Extended Everett Concept, and consciousness" by M. B. Mensky? It has been published in English in "Optics and Spectroscopy" journal on 12 Oct 2006. [1]. This article raises some interesting points on nature of the mind and it's independence on outward things (e.g. our brain).

Below is an Abstract to this article:

"Conceptual problems in quantum mechanics result from the specific quantum concept of reality and require, for their solution, including the observer's consciousness into the quantum theory of measurements. Most naturally, this is achieved in the framework of Everett's "many-world interpretation" of quantum mechanics. According to this interpretation, various classical alternatives are perceived by consciousness separately from each other. In the Extended Everett Concept (EEC) proposed by the present author, the separation of the alternatives is identified with the phenomenon of consciousness. This explains the classical character of the alternatives and unusual manifestations of consciousness arising "at the edge of consciousness" (i.e., in sleep or trance) when its access to "other alternative classical realities" (other Everett's worlds) becomes feasible. Because of reversibility of quantum evolution in EEC, all time moments in the quantum world are equivalent, while the impression of flow of time appears only in consciousness. If it is assumed that consciousness may influence the probabilities of alternatives (which is consistent in case of infinitely many Everett's worlds), EEC explains free will, "probabilistic miracles" (observing low-probability events), and decreasing entropy in the sphere of life."

It would be great if someone could adapt this text for use in article on Consciousness.

Wasn't it David Lindley who said (derisively) that "Consciousness is kind of mysterious and quantum mechanics is kind of mysterious, so why don't we just put all the mysteries is the same place?" ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I tend to think that QM approaches to consciousness just explain one mystery by saying that it's related to some other mystery. We kind of get into that already in the Consciousness#Physical section, and in particular with the wikilinks to topics like the Orch-OR model. However, honestly, this section is little more than a collection of name-dropping and jargon. I don't think the Consciousness#Physical section actually does any explaining, or helps the reader to understand (even at a very vague level) what is being suggested here. I certainly don't think that this particular abstract adds much to that section. Edhubbard (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edhubbard, "text" means "article". You should have read the article itself, not just the abstract. I cannot paste this article here just because this text is copyrighted. But someone probably can read it and adopt an idea. May be Quantum Mechanic is too mysterious and vague to understand it, but it is based on scientific method much more strictly than, say, Psychology. So much the better is it to investigate. Also I'd like to mention that Mikhail Mensky is a well-respected physicist in a good standing. I have read his popular scientific book "Human and Quantum World" (in Russian) and can say that his hypothesis has good arguments. Another interesting thing is that annotation to this book was written by Vitaly Ginzburg (who is a Nobel Prize winner in physics and arrant materialist) with generally positive feedback. In conclusion, I have to mention that hypothesis about relation between Consciousness and QM is supported by many well-known physicists (Roger Penrose and Henry Stapp are some of them). Only the last reason should be enough to thoroughly work on Consciousness#Physical section.

Hi Charles, if I'm not wrong, that was either Roger Penrose or Henry Stapp who said that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Mind (talk • contribs) 06:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Quantum, I'm certainly not saying that we should not have any discussion of QM approaches, and I'm not fundamentally opposed to adding the article you suggest, but simply providing the abstract and no context, you provide us with no rationale to add it. Although my personal feeling is that this is the wrong level of explanation, there are currently a number of very important QM ideas (the Penrose and Hammeroff Orch-OR work being the most fleshed out, as far as I can tell). As you can see in my comments above, I not only say that I don't see why this article should be added, but also that our coverage of things like the Penrose idea is currently not very good. By just linking to the Orch-OR model, but without any context, the current QM section only makes sense to people who already know these models. I do not see how the particular article you are suggesting we add improves this article. As per WP:BURDEN, it is not my job to work through to understand why it belongs, but rather up to you, the person who would like to see it added, to explain in clear language why it should be added. Simply posting an abstract, and saying "it would be great if..." does not tell any of us how or why this addition would improve the article. Now, if you feel qualified, the whole QM section could still use some work, so perhaps before we add this particular article, we should work on the things that have whole book-length treatments, like the Orch-OR model. That needs a sentence or two that clearly and concisely explains the ideas about microtubules, quantum isolation, and how this is thought to give rise to consciousness. Give us a better explanation of what this would add to the article. If you can't do it in a sentence or two, it probably would be better added to one of the daughter pages. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

< A PLAN: The article should contain a section "quantum mechanics and consciousness", which, if properly written, would begin with a short discussion of Nils Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation and a quick description of the Measurement problem (Richard Rhodes' pullitzer prize winning The Making of the Atomic Bomb is an excellent source, partly because he makes the connection between Bohr and Kierkegaard, and shows that phenomenology was always a part of Bohr's thinking.) The next paragraph should state at the top that many thinkers have argued that quantum mechanics indicates that individual consciousness plays a role in measurement, which in turn "creates reality." I would mention Fritjof Capra first, because he wrote some enormously popular books (The Tao of Physics, etc.) on the topic. Other thinkers who agree include Ken Wilber and other new age folks. Then I would have paragraph debunking this idea, quoting David Lindley (physicist) (from his book Where Does the Weirdness Go) and other physicists and critics who think this connection between metaphysical consciousness, eastern philosophy and quantum mechanics is based on a misunderstanding. Next I would take up Roger Penrose's ideas. After this, towards the bottom, there may be room for some truly obscure ideas, like the one mentioned above. I think this is the only way to approach the topic, since we must deal with ideas in the order of their influence and popularity. (See WP:UNDUE to understand why we have to do this.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy cr--! I just realized Wikipedia already has an article on this topic. See Quantum mind. This article (Consciousness) should, at most, summarize that article (Quantum mind) in a paragraph or two. All material relating to quantum mechanics and consciousness belongs in that article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And there is an article that directly discusses the idea at the top of this section, namely the many minds interpretation. Maybe the paper mentioned above could help that article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I second your plan, but given your discovery of the Quantum mind article, I think that we should really be selective about what we add here, and push the more detailed and esoteric aspects off to the Quantum mind article, as per Wikipedia:Summary style. In this way, we maintain the balance between length and comprehensiveness on this page, and give the topic more room to grow on the quantum mind page as needed. I think that one consequence of this plan is that we are basically agreed that the article mentioned above will not end up in this article, but may end up in the many minds interpretation article. Charles, you clearly know quite a bit more about this than I do, so let's certainly try to work on this together, with you taking the lead, and me helping out as much as I can. The thing I know best (perhaps unfortunately) is the neuroscientific counter-arguments to the Orch-OR model, like how anesthesia blocks consciousness, but not microtubule function, and vice-versa, how there are microtubules throughout the body, but it seems that the brain is the key to conscious experiences... Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion of Orch-OR is to be balanced, the core argument against quantum consciousness theories is that quantum features would decohere in the brain much too quickly to be of any use in neural processing. The Penrose theory is especially challenged in this respect, as it requires quantum coherence to be sustained for about 25 ms. Tegmark (2000) (Physical Review) is often quoted in this respect, and even Stuart Hameroff, Penrose's collaborator on the neuroscience side of the theory, admits a prima facie problem with decoherence. However, a neutral report should probably avoid the common practise of failing to mention that Physical Review published Hameroff et al's reply to Tegmark. Also in the last few years there has been Engel et al and other papers on quantum coherence in photosynthetic protein, and Prokorny's work on ions and ordered water near the surface of microtubules. I should stress these latter writers are not discussing consciousness or even neuroscience, but only the mechanics of protein. The earlier version of the Orch-OR article had a prolonged neutrality problem partly because it became bogged down in refuting a legion of other objections to the theory and this was seen as advocacy. As far as I could make many of these were in fact not valid and the best thing was to pass over them and concentrate on the decoherence issue. I would suggest the neuroscientific arguments mentioned above fall into this latter class. Hameroff writing in Anesthesiology, 2006 asserts that Franks and Lieb as far back as the 1980s and a preponderance of later evidence points to anaethetic action being in hydrophobic pockets in proteins including those in microtubules. Only 15% of proteins have hydrophobic pockets large enough for anaesthetic molecules hence the selective action of anaethesia. The argument about microtubules through out the body is countered by the much greater density of microtubules in neurons. Persephone19 (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

==

This all very interesting, but it does not explain how some atoms can get together and become self-aware.

This looks seriously WRONG!!!

It seems to me the lead-in to this article is seriously flawed. Specifically where it says: "A characteristic of consciousness is that it is reflective, an "awareness of being aware". This "self-awareness" may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, and dreams." I don't mean it's wrong in MY opinion. It looks wrong in terms of the common consensus of current opinion. It doesn't even look consistent with the rest of the article. It appears to be saying that "self-awareness" is a part of consciousness, which seems wrong. I was sure that there was at least a debate that dogs, cats, etc can be conscious but not "self-aware". It's news to me if someone has discovered that dogs and cats are self-aware. I must have missed that in the news. I checked earlier in the history of this page and this quote was not there, which is also what makes me suspicious. Since I just came upon this article for the first time today, I'm reluctant to make this correction myself, but I thought I'd post this to at least start a discussion.BashBrannigan (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was on vacation when this comment was made and missed it, but I'll respond now. There are three fundamental things I believe about consciousness: (1) everybody understands the meaning of the word differently; (2) most people think that there is only one correct way to understand the word; and (3) most people believe that the majority of other people understand the word in roughly the same way that they do. These factors make it extraordinarily difficult to keep any sort of consistency in this article. Ideally we would discuss the range of meanings that people use, but factors (2) and (3) mean that attempts to do so always lead to trouble. Looie496 (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, but the problem is that the statement: A characteristic of consciousness is that it is reflective, an "awareness of being aware" is making an assertion which I am convinced is not consensus. I'm no expert on this area, but I feel convinced that the statement is very POV. I'm not saying this because I disagree with it. It's because the statement is being stated as if it's a statement of commonly accepted fact, which I'm sure it is not. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and if you edit the article in that way, I'll support you. My problem with this article has always been that too few people watch it, with the result that any attempt I've made to edit it has turned into a one-vs-one dispute -- and on Wikipedia, one-vs-one disputes are intractable. Anyway, the least controversial solution might be to preface the statement with a qualifier like "some writers have argued that...". Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Before someone changes it, Ostracon rewrote the summary and, again while I'm no expert on this subject, it seems far better to me. This has my vote. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Responding to this statement, above:

It seems to me the lead-in to this article is seriously flawed. Specifically where it says: "A characteristic of consciousness is that it is reflective, an "awareness of being aware". This "self-awareness" may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, and dreams." I don't mean it's wrong in MY opinion. It looks wrong in terms of the common consensus of current opinion.

I agree that is wrong, because of what we observe daily about plants and animals. Plants seem to have at least a sensation level of awareness of their environment. They turn towards the light, for example. Animals obviously have that too, but additionally, a higher level of perceptual consciousness. Meaning that they do some interpreting of the sensations they receive. Deer run rapidly away from any sensation, which they perceive as a threat to their own safety. Man has an even higher level of consciousness, which is his ability to conceptualize his perceptions into endless categories. My conjecture is that man's self-awareness is related to, or is a part of, that third higher level of concept formation.

I think some ability to form concepts has to be part of an animal's consciousness, before it can make or use tools. When I was in college, they were still teaching that man is the only tool maker/user. We have long since discarded that idea, since examples of other animals using, and even making, tools are abundant. I now conjecture that some of the higher animals also have some limited ability to conceptualize. Far less and much less complex than man's ability, but nevertheless there are observational examples, which seem to require a conclusion that some animals can form concepts in their minds too. I can give one example, from one of my dogs:

Male Rottweiler/German Shepard mix. One day, I found a bunch of bullet slugs lined up in a straight line, in the middle of my sidewalk. They had been dug out of a bank of earth which we have used as a backstop for many years, while target shooting with our many guns. Berny (the dog) had been digging in that bank and he was able to separate out the various types of spent slugs (380, 45, 357, 9mm, 30-30, etc.) from pebbles of that same size and weight, and then collect them into his own display format on the sidewalk. That obviously required some ability to conceptualize, in the brain that directed that behavior. For those who think someone else did it: We live on a ranch, which has locked gates and electric fencing. No one but my wife and I had access to the bank, or sidewalk where we found that bullet collection. And, I later observed him digging in that bank and collecting even more bullets.

The point being that there obviously are various levels and degrees of consciousness and "awareness of being aware" may be included in some cases, but it is not the sum total of what constitutes "consciousness," nor should it be stated that there can be no consciousness without that highest level of concept formation ability, being present. EditorASC (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why?

But why does consciousness exist? I am self-aware but I don't know how humans happen to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandart (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this? Should this be undone? We're not supposed to edit talk, can we undo talk? BashBrannigan (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore it – Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary --David Ludwig (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does have a section called "Functions". Dandart, are you suggesting that it's not adequate, or did you not see it, or did you feel that it doesn't address the question? Looie496 (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Charlton article in Further Reading

There's been a back-and-forth on whether the Bruce Charlton article (Evolution and the cognitive neuroscience of awareness, consciousness and language) belongs in Further Reading. My take is that its appropriateness has not been demonstrated. The article gets 10 citations according to Google Scholar, and hardly any of them are from high-quality journals. Charlton is the editor of Medical Hypotheses, a journal that is generally treated as an unreliable source by WikiProject Medicine because it publishes a lot of wild speculation. In short, I am open to being convinced that this article is notable, but haven't seen any evidence of it yet. I would like to remove the article from the list, but don't want to carry on an edit war unless there is support from others. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully support removal of this link. As a text on the subject, it is neither notable nor influential. It does not appear to have been published in a reputable journal, and links to "hedweb" are probably not something we need in a serious article on Wikipedia. The author does not appear to be a major authority on the subject, either. A PubMed search brings up quite a few opinions and letters to the editor on a wide array of subjects, not so many influential pieces on consciousness. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, please consider that viewpoints from alternate authors, even if the authors are not a "major authority", can be worthwhile for inclusion on a reading list. Items on the reading list should include items that are just that: items that are worth reading, thus contributing to the topic at hand. A healthy reading list has the courage to show a variety of sources, even if they are not first-tier "major authorities", or "notable" and "influential" sources from the mainstream establishment. The reader of the reading list has the responsibility to compare and contrast the various items which s/he reads. A sterilized reading list does not help the reader in becoming well-informed. Over the long term, an overly-conservative approach to Wikipedia areas that should offer some flexibility (such reading lists) will result in Wikipedia becoming a parrot of the mainstream establishment.

I find the Charlton article to be interesting and well-written. To the author's credit, he works for the Informatics Research Institute at Newcastle University[2], an accredited University. I have no affiliation with the author (Charlton), Newcastle University, nor any other authors or sources in this Wikipedia article.

I fully support including the Charlton article in the reading list. Thank you for your consideration. PolarYukon (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your reasoning. I respond that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a comprehensive collection of links to every bit of speculation, reliable or not, that individual editors consider interesting. Nor is Wikipedia meant to be a bulwark against a "mainstream establishment". Instead, it is meant to gather and present verifiable information to readers. Insisting on verifiability is not "sterilisation" or acquiescence to some conservative, establishmentarian conspiracy, it is simply what we are tasked with doing here as editors. The current further reading/external list section is, in my opinion, out of all proportion to the rest of the article, and should be pruned considerably to leave only the best links and sources with the most representative sampling of current opinion. A non-reviewed amateur opinion essay, presented by a fringe website promising that "nanotechnology and genetic engineering will eradicate aversive experience in all sentient life" is not an appropriate external link in this context, or, indeed, in any other on Wikipedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PolarYukon here. You're on a slippery slope towards censorship here. Given the non-consensus nature of the subject you might do well to taken an open minded approach to the reading list. Anybody attempting this subject is likley to be grown up enough to decide what's useful, or they may be a bit mad in which case it doesn't matter. You say the reading list is disproportionate, but the article is in for a rewrite after demotion to C status, and the likely solution is for the article to expand rather than the reading list to shorten. 77.103.4.235 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the above wasn't signed properly.Persephone19 (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Toward a Rewrite: Two maps on consciousness

I have created a map that aims to present an overview of the most important views (that are subject to disagreement) on consciousness from an academic perspective: Map over views on consciousness

It is my intention that the map could serve as a pathfinder for an article rewrite, which will take us from point C to point B; The article was recently demoted to C-level at the philosophy project and this was the last project to follow suite. I don't expect Wikipedia to cover the whole map, and the map does not cover the basic definitions and other consensus views, which the article will naturally include.

What are your thoughts on this map? Do you think it it representative? Can we use it as a means of direction?

Ostracon (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The article certainly could use substantial reorganization. Regarding the picture, I have to say that the parts where it goes into the most detail are precisely the parts I know least about (I'm a neuroscientist), but I don't see why it couldn't serve as a starting point. The main thing it would take to make progress here is to have a group of editors with broad enough familiarity with the range of ideas so as not to get stuck on idiosyncratic notions. Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Here is a second map featuring scientific approaches, with an emphasis on neuroscience: Science and Consciousness map

Again, I'm awaiting your thoughts on this second map. Ostracon (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good, I believe you've sketched out the major points appropriately. The trick will be to convert the tree structure from the pictures into the linear structure that prose must have. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments were requested. This might seem unrelated but looking at the way this is developing, including that map, I believe a big concern many editors of this article should have is whether jargon is being over-used without any eye to whether that jargon is assisting in actual communication. For example making this one of the first things said in the article means what? "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives." To me as a native English speaker used to parsing the pseudo poetic it is basically saying that consciousness is awareness, which was already mentioned. Gee, that wouldn't sound academic enough right? And many of the distinctions and connections in this map are similarly just about different words used in different schools and disciplines and so on. People should not be using Wikipedia as a note pad for experiments in being deep, or as a place to get their own thoughts together on a complex subject. We all have the possibility to go get a blog. Keep it simple wherever possible, and please do not introduce issues of academic disciplines and schools if these are side issues. Handle those in specialist articles, but by all means link to them from specialized sub-sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The good thing about the existing article is that it is heavily historical, and very general, which is why it has survived without being a battleground! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.27.98 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it a good article, or is it an example of a Wikipedia article that quietly accretes disorganized references?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Music Therapy?

Someone added "Music Therapy" to the "See Also" section. I don't know enough about this topic, but is Music Therapy to be taken seriously and should it belong in this article? There is a section in Wikipedia on it, but I always thought of Music Therapy as "hollywood-hippie" stuff. But maybe I'm wrong. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Should it be taken seriously? Yes. Is it relevant to this article? No. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Invisible Landscape be removed?

I had removed the addition of “the novel titled The Invisible Landscape - Mind, Hallucinogens, and I Ching, Terrence McKenna and Dennis McKenna”, but the editor reverted and so it is back in. We need other editors opinions on this. My belief was that it was clearly out of place, mostly due to the quality. The McKenna brothers seem out of place alongside the opinions of George Berkeley and Descartes, but perhaps that’s my opinion. Neither McKenna appears to even have a masters degree and the material itself is based upon a novel. The writing of the material itself seemed inadequate, which made the content dubious. The editor likely means well, but I have suspicions that this material is not appropriate. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The points raised by BashBrannigan are legitimate since neither Terrence or Dennis McKenna is a well known figure, as compared to Descartes and Berkeley. However, their description of consciousness is closest to the current scientific explanation of consciousness (somatotopic and topographic maps), as compared to the descriptions put forth by Descartes or Berkeley. Since it is the philosophical beginning of the current understanding of consciousness, I believe it is important to add this information. (Note: Dennis McKenna received a masters from University of Hawaii and a doctorate from the University of British Columbia, although his field of study was botany). It is important to remember that this section of the article deals with the philosophy of consciousness and not the science behind it. While being well-educated helps, a masters or doctorate is not needed to be a philosopher. The author's lack of a degree should not affect our views about the ideas put forth by them since these are philosophical ideas. BolonYokte (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether this stays in the article will depend on: 1. is the a fringe theory 2. Is the theory widely known and notable 3. Are the authors (the McKennas) the best representatives of the theory? Has anyone more notable authored of the same theory. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material again. A novel is simply not an adequate source; the qualifications of the authors are irrelevant. If the novel had received substantial coverage by independent sources in the philosophy literature it might be a different story, but there is no evidence of that. Looie496 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not Subjective experience

Consciousness is experience. It has nothing to do with subjectiveness and objectiveness. It occurs due to duality. When a being becomes conscious of its self..it experiences everything around it which it is not. It cannot be verified by objective science since it does not fall within the domain of science. when consciousness cease to exist then the being ceases to exist because he can no more experience anything. There is only single..no duality. I suggest one has to remove "subjective" from subjective experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.37 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and everything must be referenced from reliable sources. Personal opinions/beliefs of wikipedia editors are irrelevant. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the IP was right to remove it anyway in my opinion, because it's redundant -- "experience" and "subjective experience" are the same thing, aren't they? Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Are they? Are no experiences free from subjectivity? I'm fairly sure "the world is round" is regarded as more than a subjective experience. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I think about it, having looked at Experience#Types of experience, maybe you're right. Well, partly -- I don't see that "the world is round" is experience of any sort. Looie496 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Subjective experience" simply emphasizes that experience is private and thus inaccessible to others - restricted to one subject. Possibly, it could be contrasted with "shared experience". (Subjectivity is merely a characteristic of experience.) The reason of the current use might be to hinder confusing experience-as-lived-experience from experience-as-having-experienced-a-history-of-events, for example work experience - experience in the latter sense may very well be shared by a collective and not being restricted to a subject. Ostracon (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: If 123.238.79.37 is unhappy about the objective-subjective distinction might I suggest intersubjectivity (a special case of subjectivity) as an alternative to objectivity. Regards Ostracon (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor removed "subjective" from the line “Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind.[1]” which is cited from “Farthing, G. W. (1992). The Psychology of Consciousness.” How can you remove a word from a quoted source without that being POV? If you disagree with “subjective” then you have to remove the entire line not just the word. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Subjective experience seems to make it clearer as to what you are talking about. It is arguable either that experience can be unconscious, or can act on unconscious processing. Damasio has a neat example of an amnesiac patient, who saw two researchers on a particular day. One chatted over a cup of coffee, the other administered boring tests. The next day when the amnesiac comes to the hospital, he has no conscious memory of either researcher, but shows a preference for the one who chatted over coffee.Persephone19 (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

experience as used in reference to 'consciousness' is experience of the physical world by humans through five senses. The receiver of the end result through processing of five senses is the 'experience' or 'consciousness'. To say experience could be subjective and also objective is illogical. 'Earth is round' is not an experience in so far as no human had personally experienced it. Most of us have learned from reading science books. We are supposed to believe what the books says as 'objective' and so fact. Facts are not experienced. Fact is the conclusion drawn from experience. This fact sometimes may be and may not be true. Science deploys so called 'empiricism' and 'evidence' to confirm the conclusions drawn from experience.

On the hand, as some one had pointed out above consciousness is 'purely personal experience.' it is like calling one's anger, love or other experiences as being objective anger and objective love etc. 'Experience' is not a 'physical thing which exists' in terms of physics. So it is illogical to call 'consciousness' subjective experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.71.150 (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Many here are missing the point. The word "subjective" was used here as part of the referenced citation. It's irrelevant what anyone's opinions of this issue are, it is only relevant what the original source stated. Stop debating and giving your personal opinion on the subjectivity of experience. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point that whereas you can cite original source one also has to look into self contradiction in the source citation. If a source says "Mount everest is the highest and also the lowest peak in the world" will you include it here without amendment because the source says so?123.238.71.150 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The above argument is irrelevant and cannot be taken seriously. This is wikipedia, not youtube. Personally, I don't have time now to engage in an editing war or frivolous debates, so this is my last entry on this. I'll let my opinions as they stand and leave to others to take up. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is WP not junkyard where you can dump all garbage with sources in one place. If you do ot have time to engage in meaningful discussion do not edit this article or engage in edit wars. This palce is for those who have lot of time to discuss and understand WP policies.124.124.230.149 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to be interested in discussion. I'll leave it here.

124.124.230.149 (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sleep is not unconscious!

From the article:

"...can bring the brain from the awake condition (conscious) to the sleep (unconscious)."

There is a persistent myth that sleep is unconscious. See Physiology of Behavior 10e by Neil R. Carlson.

Quoting from Carlson...

"Although sleep is a period during which we do not respond very much to the environment, it is incorrect to refer to sleep as a state of unconsciousness. Consciousness during sleep certainly differs from waking consciousness, but we are conscious then."

Dreaming is a great example of this. Some may be tempted to say this only shows we are conscious during REM sleep, but remember, dreams also occur in slow wave (especially stage 4) sleep.

Additionally, this sentence, "some philosophers have been tempted by the idea that even consciousness could be explained in purely physical terms." does not look neutral. It seems demeaning towards the materialist point of view.

Grouphug (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have material with citations, feel free to add it. You'll notice that the section already has material not cited, so anything you add from credible sources would be an improvement. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Conscious Awakening?

Whats up with all of the discussion on here dating from 2009 on? Either way I like it, haha.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=consciousness&aq=f -over 14,000 pieces of film concerning the subject ResearchALLwars (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

SUGGESTION TO BREAK UP INTO SMALLER SECTIONS

This article is impossibly overbroad in its conception and thus hopelessly lacking in its execution. The quotable history comprising philosophical doctrines of consciousness, beginning with the Presocratics and evolving (devolving?) through more than 2500 years of thought to the myriad and nuanced theories of today, would literally fill a small library, and if we add the Eastern traditions then we're going to double or triple that content.

The topic 'Consciousness' needs to be a signpost, a broad category leading to more manageable consciousness-related subcategories and subtopics.

--Devala1 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify. Don't get me wrong: This article could certainly be better, and certainly it looses direction sometimes as it currently stands, but I think there is no justification for saying that the article has to be a mere signpost (singular). If you are saying that the chronological sections for example should be made up of signposts (plural) and not randomly get lost in some and not others, then I would agree. But I would say this article's length is not its issue. It is a typical case of an article that lots of people have added bits to, with no one ever spending time on the whole thing. So the most obvious thing it needs is an editor willing to structure and balance it, and give it a better flow. This would probably involve reducing some bits, but also perhaps lengthening others? Anyway, obviously the current article is not currently anywhere near filling "a small library".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for this article to be a signpost. Encyclopedias are good because they attempt to distill huge topics into something a lay-person can digest. In the case of this topic, that will pose many challenges, but I don't think a signpost is the right direction. Aaron.michels (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Consciousness etc.

Consciousness resides in only the ‘now’. It does not exist in yesterday or in tomorrow. Observer’s ‘I’ is not the same as consciousness because the latter is the duality of the ‘I’ and ‘now’. Union of ‘I’, which is the limit of Nothingness, with the limited by ‘I’ interval of flowing time and creation of a unit of ‘standing time’ ‘now’ is the consciousness of the observer of the existence not only of his ‘self’ but also of all that which he observes in the current ‘now’, including observations made in the past ‘now’. Observation of the outside world, in the ‘now’, is possible because units in the material space time have reflections in the immaterial space time where they are observed by the ‘self’. The current observations are stored in the unit ‘now’ to which observer’s ‘I’ has access. This allows recreation of the unit in the current ‘now’. Animals have similar consciousness and memory but they cannot communicate with their 'self', meaning that they cannot think without motivation from the external world. They also use independent material symbols to communicate meanings. Human soul can be autonomous from the material world and it can think using ‘self motivation’. KK (213.158.199.138 (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

Interesting claims. Wikipedia articles have to be based on the published literature, though. Unless you can attribute your arguments to reputable published sources, I'm afraid they are not useful here. Looie496

Improvements to encyclopedias are made all the time. What is more important the Truth or the Lie? KK (213.158.199.139 (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC))

See WP:V (or in this case, see WP:VNT) and WP:RS. What is important is not anyone's personal view of the "Truth", but rather what can be verified through reliable sources. As of now, you are merely presenting your personal observations or theory. It may be true, it may not be. We're not getting into that. But, unless you have have verifiable, reliable sources, it does not belong here. Also, see WP:TALK. Unless this is leading towards a concrete suggestion of how to improve the article, it does not belong on the talk page. Edhubbard (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you verify a new information which does not exist as part of our knowledge? The article will be improved if you add this new point of view after agreeing it with other scholars. KK (213.158.199.138 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

Unless you can name some sources, there is not much to talk about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything exists in the now. Consciousness isn't special in that regard. It follows then that "I" only exists in the now, so there can't be any "duality" of I and now. I can hardly make sense of the remainder of your comment, which uses vague language, makes baseless assertions, and lacks comprehensible grammar to boot. But since your premise is incorrect, I can assume everything that follows from it is equally incorrect. Hey, someone needs to say it.

My dear supporter! You say 'I only existsa in the now', and that is the 'duality'.KK (78.146.68.74 (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

Please stop this debate of your own opinions. Wikipedia is not a blog. BashBrannigan (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Please understand that no matter what brilliant ideas we have and discuss elsewhere the project here is just to collect notes from what has been published in the outside world. That project is big enough.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed material that had "citation needed" tags from 2007. Surely, three years is long enough for someone to provide citations. I also added "citation needed" to any paragraphs which had none. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also been attempting to find citations where there are none. I'm trying not to add new material, but simply trying to find references to back up what is already present. This is fairly laborious and I'm simply starting at the top and working my way down. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No mention of integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-theory-of-consciousness http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/imaging/can-machines-be-conscious http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/5/42/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueTemplar (talk • contribs) 21:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC) BlueTemplar (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a brief description of those ideas would be out of place in this article -- although personally I find Tononi's ideas about sleep much more interesting than his ideas about consciousness. Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

comment inserted into article which appears more like a note for the talk page

I removed the following from the article because it looked like a comment more appropriate for the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Neuroscience of free will also seems to provide relevant insights to the understanding of consciousness.

Locke

The information about Locke's position isn't very clear and makes little sense. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Distinction with social consciousness

Reading the Functions section, shouldn't there be a warning that this article is about personal consciousness, not social consciousness? --Chealer (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a separate article for "social consciousness" or should there perhaps be one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Meaning unclear

These from Consciousness#Evolutionary_psychology don't seem to make sense:

Another theory, proposed by Shaun Nichols and Todd Grantham, proposes that it is unnecessary to trace the exact evolutionary or causal role of phenomenal consciousness because the complexity of phenomenal consciousness alone implies that it is an adaptation.

Konrad Lorenz sees the roots of consciousness in the process of self-exploration of an organism that sees itself acting and learns a lifetime. Behind the Mirror: A Search for a Natural History of Human Knowledge

Isn't pretty much everything an adaptation? The second statement seems to be a sentence fragment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Good points, but apparently based on something in those sources. Sorry, but I don't recall reading any of those and am not quite sure what point was intended. I guess all I can add quickly is that it is better to fix than delete, if possible. Does anyone know what this should be saying?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not every genetically determined characteristic is an adaptation -- see spandrel (biology) and genetic drift. I suspect that the sentence fragment was intended as a reference. Looie496 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. But I still have no clue what that first statement is saying about the evolution of consciousness. It just seems to be a factoid, free of context. And "and learns a lifetime" must be some kind of accidental transposition. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In the theory of evolution, characteristics can arise either by natural selection of features that promote the survival of an organism, or by random drift. A general principle is that when a system is complex and highly organized, it's unlikely to result from drift. The sentence is basically saying that consciousness is so complex and organized that it can't be a result of randomness, and therefore must be an adaptation that promotes survival, even if we don't know how. I don't particularly agree with that argument, I'm just trying to explain it. Regarding the second part, it's incomprehensible as well as ungrammatical, and I would fully agree with getting rid of it. Looie496 (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Looie496. I've removed the Konrad Lorenz entry for now. Hopefully, someone will restore it with clearer meaning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Large insert just made

Below I paste in a large insert that I removed. Basically I think such a large paste job needs looking at to make sure it is fitted in properly. This article already suffers quite a bit from random accretions by people pasting in things without much care. I'll already fix the formatting a bit:

The possible mechanisms of consciousness （Zhongbing XIE）

There are two traditional and competing metaphysical views concerning the nature of consciousness as dualism and materialism (Herbert, 1998), in fact the occurrence of consciousness springs from interactions between subjectiveness and objective world, consciousness links subjectiveness and objective world as a bridge, objective things can enter into subjective world and subjective knowledge will act on objective world all through consciousness.

Drawing attention is a necessary condition for occurrence of consciousness which will induce neural excitation in brain, uncertainty elimination accompanied by new information input is a sufficient condition for occurrence of consciousness. Neural excitation in brain is a neural physiological event whereas consciousness is a psychological event, the occurrence of consciousness involves conversion and realization from a neural physiological event to a psychological event. The phenomenon of consciousness might be a combined effect of low-order-representation function of brain and higher-order-representation (Rosenthal, 1997) function of the brain that induce subjective perspectivalness (Vogeley & Fink, 2003), the occurrence of which might be an outcome of combined activation of relevant low-order-representation brain areas and relevant higher-order-representation brain areas.

There were studies of cognition and consciousness from point of view of dynamic system (Freeman, 1987; Robertson, et al., 1993; Van Gelder & Port, 1995; Edelman & Tononi, 2000). From dynamic system point of view we can see, cognitive space of one's mind consists of numerous stable cognitive states, one point in this cognitive phase space represents a kind of stable cognitive state in mind, one kind of stable cognitive state in mind corresponds to a stable neural excitation pattern in brain, a stable cognitive state in mind or a stable neural excitation pattern in brain can be taken as a stable attractor in neural dynamic system (Battaglia & Treves, 1998), a stable attractor corresponds to human cognition of the world as a pattern, a stable attractor will come into being through the process of attraction and contraction of phase space which is characterized by dimensionality reduction (Durbin & Mitchison,1990). There were studies indicated that brain states exhibited dynamic features of chaotic attractors (Nunez & Freeman, 1999; Freeman, 2001), so the process of awareness and identification in mind can be described as a process of attraction, resonance, matching, coupling and eventual activation of the stable neural excitation pattern or attractor in brain. The occurrence of consciousness also involves a process of contraction of cognitive state space which is characterized by dimensionality reduction and the coming into being or activation of neural excitation patterns or attractors in brain, it might provide us a possible pathway to depict and describe the process of occurrence of consciousness through utilization of some terminologies from dynamic system.

Drawing attention is a different process or event from occurrence of consciousness, it might be helpful to distinguish drawing attention from occurrence of consciousness from ergodic theory point of view. The core of ergodic hypothesis is that every allowable point in phase space will be visited by an ergodic system after a sufficiently long time, when an ergodic state is broken, then the system will be in a freezing state (Palmer, 1982). Possibly the same is true for consciousness, the occurrence of consciousness might also be taken as a state of ergodicity breaking; New information input will induce ergodicity in phase space, uncertainty elimination and occurrence of consciousness will be a consequent result of ergodicity breaking that follows new information input. If there is no breakdown of ergodic state after passing through the whole phase state, then it will induce a kind of background-level excitability. The ergodic theory might provide a possible mechanism to distinguish attention from consciousness and provide a possible explanation to occurrence of consciousness from dynamic system point of view.

Comments please. Where does this come from and how can it be fitted in?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Approaches to Consciousness

The article says there are 2 scientific approaches to consciousness - asking humans questions and studying non verbal behaviour and so can include animals but also there is looking at physiological correlates of consciousness such as rapid eye movements during dreaming or different EEG patterns when awake and when asleep. I would like to add something about this. Any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxford73 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that first sentence had so many "and", "or" and "buts" that it is too much work for a lazy Sunday afternoon to figure it out! BashBrannigan (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The section in question is material that I wrote recently, and it is really work in progress. What I was trying to say there is that there are two general ways of identifying the presence of consciousness. Studying the physiological correlates of consciousness is of course extremely important, but one must have some way of recognizing the presence of consciousness before one can study its physiological correlates. In any case, this article needs a lot of improvement in many ways, and if you feel that you can make it better, I encourage you to work on it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Starting slowly I have just added one word to the first sentence so it clarifies the point you make above. But it now says 2 approaches to identifying consciousness but then there are 5 sub sections - so that is really unclear. When I have a little more time I will have a look at it.Oxford73 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Vedanta section there is a description of different states of consciousness from a spiritual perspective. But sleeping, dreaming and waking can be distinguished by specific physiological parameters and I would like to add something on that. Any cooments from any editors? Oxford73 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that more information about sleep states and their relationship to consciousness would improve the article. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we are in need of a reorganization of the scientific approaches section? razorbelle (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I added in a brief section with a couple of references. As someone new to wiki and not an expert in the field overall I don't feel confident enough to reorganize the whole section. Oxford73 (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edit in light of it failing verification. Moreover, we should attempt to integrate the subject elsewhere in the article; I don't think it deserves its own section yet. razorbelle (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)