ekorczynski

Smilin's post seems quite accurate.

There is overwhelming evidence that consciousness often functions merely as a "witness" to action as opposed to an "agent" or "cause" of action.

From the link that I posted previously,
Dr. P. Read Montague, a neuroscientist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, says the idea that people can get themselves to work on automatic pilot raises two questions: How does the brain know what it must pay conscious attention to? And how did evolution create a brain that could make such distinctions?

The answer emerging from experiments on animals and people is that the brain has evolved to shape itself, starting in infancy, according to what it encounters in the external world.

As Dr. Montague explained it, “Much of the world is predictable: buildings usually stay in one place, gravity makes objects fall, light falling at an oblique angle makes long shadows and so forth. As children grow, their brains build internal models of everything they encounter, gradually learning to identify objects and to predict how they move through space and time.”

As new information flows into it from the outside world, the brain automatically compares it to what it already knows. If things match up - as when people drive to work every day along the same route - events, objects and the passage of time may not reach conscious awareness.

But if there is a surprise - a car suddenly runs a red light --- the mismatch between what is expected and what is happening --- instantly shifts the brain into a new state. A brain circuit involved in decision making is activated, again out of conscious awareness. Drawing on past experience held in memory banks, a decision is made: hit the brake, swerve the wheel or keep going. Only a second or so later, after hands and feet have initiated the chosen action, does the sense of having made a conscious decision arise.

Dr. Montague estimates that 90 percent of what people do every day is carried out by this kind of automatic, unconscious system that evolved to help creatures survive.

Choose no beliefs,
Enjoy transcent experience,
edo

Smilin

Thanks ek... very informative...

Now, is consciousness simply a human experience?

or do other creatures share it?

Are humans unique in the fact they possess 'consciousness'?

ekorczynski

There's a link on the Julian Jaynes society webpage to an article written by Jaynes in 1978 in the Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, titled "In A Manner of Speaking: Commentary on Cognition and Consciousness in Non-Human Species"
Jaynes, Julian
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1978, Vol. 1, unfortunately, the link is old and the new link seems broken.

http://julianjaynessociety.tripod.com/index.html

So, I don't know what Jaynes thought about consciousness in animals other than Homo Sapiens.

However, from the title of his paper alone, we can at least make a distinction between "cognition" (a.k.a., "awareness", "mentation", "mind", "thought") and "consciousness" which IMHO can be considered as a 2nd-order or recursive effect of "cognition." As such, (and as central to Jaynes thesis) consciousness is not necessary for mental function, awareness, learning, communication, language, or even social structure.

Therefore, just because animals other than Homo Sapiens may be seen to exhibit characteristics of awareness, learning, communication, etc. does not in any way prove they might experience consciousness.

In short, tough call, and maybe tough to even think of an experiment that could determine it.

Recognition in a mirror is no proof. Language is no proof. I saw a special on Koko the famous gorilla (that communicates with human sign language) in which it was shown that Koko and her extended gorilla family express joy and sadness, the ability to think of the welfare of others, and many other traits that most humans like to consider as uniquely human. Still, taking a strict definition of consciousness as opposed to cognition, these behaviors could well be a result of complex cognition but not necessarily consciousness.

-edo

dk

Originally posted by dk:
People being rational creatures aren't ruled by flight/fight instincts/emotions(passions), but can control themselves. A person in control of themselves has a hightened sense of self, or a hightened consciousness
Posted by Smilin
I disagree,
If you ever find yourself in a situation where you are about to drown,,,, your instincts WILL take over.
If you find a wild grizzly bear charging at you, you WON'T remain rational.
And ask anyone who's served in the military, and who has been faced with 'kill or be killed'. I guarantee you from personal experience you won't think about your actions, you'll just act.
As far as acting out of emotions, do you really believe that people don't act out of strictly emotions at times?
dk: Drowning, charging grizzly bears, and war present life and death situations. The extent to which a person can control their destiny in such dire circumstances they must overcome and focus their sense, emotions, perceptions and instincts with reasoned purpose. Tragically many people die from a mob mentality as an entailment of panic. In a Chicago nightclub just a few months ago 21 people died when pepper spray turned them into a mob. In Vermont 98 people died in a fire set by pyrotechnics before their eyes. By all accounts the audience as a mob squealed with delight at the amazing visual display, only to find the delights of the mob turn into deadly consuming embrace. I’m not wrong.

ekorczynski

Dear "dk":

Check out the link:
(http://www.vivaconsulting.com/education/hijacking.html)
for a great overview of how little consciousness actually determines behavior in Homo Sapiens.

IMHO, to the extent that one experiences consciousness (and it does seem to be somewhat of a scalar) one can choose to override acting upon instinctive impulses (in effect, "stuffing it"). However, as I'm sure most people have experienced, this in no way alters the original instinctive impulse.

In your original post you said that people are "rational creatures" and thus not "ruled" by emotions. I mean no disrespect, but you seem to be hung-up on an arbitrary "either/or" dichotomy with no relation to facts. I'm not sure how you define "ruled" in this context, but there is abundant consistent evidence that Homo Sapiens experience emotions as well as intellect, and it is naive to assert that only one or the other "rules" our lives. Emotions and instincts are part of our lives, and they influence our decisions regardless of how much consciousness and/or cognition we experience in life.

However, IMHO you are certainly correct in that the degree to which we experience consciousness determines the extent to which we can alter our reactions to instinctive/emotional experiences. We just need to acknowledge that the instincts/emotions remain active and should be considered as, perhaps, "co-rulers" of our lives.

dk

Posted by ekorczynski:
Check out the link:
(http://www.vivaconsulting.com/education/hijacking.html)
for a great overview of how little consciousness actually determines behavior in Homo Sapiens.
dk: The article supposes that there exists something called a “brain circuits” that turns people into zombies governed by a gaming theory program outside of consciousness. Do “brain circuits” exist? No. Do “zombies” exist? No. Is it possible to know what governs people outside of consciousness? No.
I don’t see much of substance here, and generally find the idea of degenerative computer zombies a depressing subject, and probably accounts for the spike in the happy pill market.

Posted by ekorczynski:
IMHO, to the extent that one experiences consciousness (and it does seem to be somewhat of a scalar) one can choose to override acting upon instinctive impulses (in effect, "stuffing it"). However, as I'm sure most people have experienced, this in no way alters the original instinctive impulse.
dk: People have the capacity to balance impulses, habit, and instinct with reason.

Posted by ekorczynski:
In your original post you said that people are "rational creatures" and thus not "ruled" by emotions. I mean no disrespect, but you seem to be hung-up on an arbitrary "either/or" dichotomy with no relation to facts.
dk: Clearly many people are ruled by their instincts, impulses, compulsions, emotions and basic appetites, but these people are degenerates. Reason allows people to act with happiness in mind, instead of automatons. I see this as more of a post-modern tragedy than a dichotomy.

Posted by ekorczynski:
I'm not sure how you define "ruled" in this context, but there is abundant consistent evidence that Homo Sapiens experience emotions as well as intellect, and it is naive to assert that only one or the other "rules" our lives. Emotions and instincts are part of our lives, and they influence our decisions regardless of how much consciousness and/or cognition we experience in life.
dk: Ok, take a happy pill. Morality governs human conduct so that we might find a balanced life, and being balanced act with happiness in mind.

Posted by ekorczynski:
However, IMHO you are certainly correct in that the degree to which we experience consciousness determines the extent to which we can alter our reactions to instinctive/emotional experiences. We just need to acknowledge that the instincts/emotions remain active and should be considered as, perhaps, "co-rulers" of our lives.
dk: Moral law teaches people how to understand one another in relationship to themselves, and participate in their own life, not do whatever feels good. People are free to do as they please, but then they become degenerates. The idea isn't to do whatever feels good, but to express yourself with integrity in the pursuit of happiness. An IDU gets a dopamine rush at the sight of a needle/dope where a balanced person feels revulsion and disgust. That’s all I’m saying.

Mad Kally

Dear great and glorious brainiac. Since you know so much, I believe you and I shall now take a happy pill.

ekorczynski

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dk
[B]Posted by ekorczynski:
Check out the link:
(http://www.vivaconsulting.com/education/hijacking.html)
for a great overview of how little consciousness actually determines behavior in Homo Sapiens.
dk: The article supposes that there exists something called a “brain circuits” that turns people into zombies governed by a gaming theory program outside of consciousness. Do “brain circuits” exist? No. Do “zombies” exist? No. Is it possible to know what governs people outside of consciousness? No.
I don’t see much of substance here, and generally find the idea of degenerative computer zombies a depressing subject, and probably accounts for the spike in the happy pill market.

Posted by ekorczynski:

Ummm. You've actually posted the statement that brain circuits don't exist?!? The brain is part of Homo Sapiens, and the brain is built up with complex structures forming connnections that are commonly termed "circuits". This fact seems to have been pretty well established for thousands of years. Do you accept empirical evidence?

You further state that it is impossible to know what governs people outside of consciousness! It's arguable that we may not know ALL that governs people outside of consciousness, but just off the top of my head I can list the following:
* drugs (alchohol, caffeine, tobacco, etc.),
* emotions (fear, greed, lust, etc.),
* physical exercise (altering brain chemistry)...
all influence/govern (to an extent) humans.

You've written that "...many people are ruled by their instincts... , but these people are degenerates." If you meant this as a joke, it was too dry for me to appreciate. All humans are somewhat influenced by their instincts as a result of evolution, and there is boundless evidence to support this statement. To imagine that you are somehow superior and that others are "degenerates" ??? You wrote that, "people are free to do as they please but then they become degenerates." It seems that you hold very strong beliefs about this subject, but it doesn't seem that you've really contemplated the subject very much or considered the assumptions behind your belief. You might benefit from trying to re-read the previously posted link, considering that it reports on the analysis and work of researchers in the area (as opposed to the personnal opinions of non-experts like you or me).

BTW, FWIW, "zombies" are reported, in fact, to exist in Haiti in some form or another, so it's absurd to just blatantly declare they don't exist.

Your Transcendent Skeptical friend,
edo

dk

Originally posted by dk: The article supposes that there exists something called a “brain circuits” that turns people into zombies governed by a gaming theory program outside of consciousness. Do “brain circuits” exist? No. Do “zombies” exist? No. Is it possible to know what governs people outside of consciousness? No.
I don’t see much of substance here, and generally find the idea of degenerative computer zombies a depressing subject, and probably accounts for the spike in the happy pill market.
Posted by ekorczynski
posted by Ummm. You've actually posted the statement that brain circuits don't exist?!? The brain is part of Homo Sapiens, and the brain is built up with complex structures forming connnections that are commonly termed "circuits". This fact seems to have been pretty well established for thousands of years. Do you accept empirical evidence?
dk: It might shock people to find out that circuits are electronic devices built from transistors only discovered about 50 years ago. Transistors are built from semiconductor devices, each with three electrodes integrated to act like switches or amplifiers. On the other hand people are biological organism built from cells, not circuits. With a reasonable amount of effort a person of average intelligence can understand circuits with a year or two of study. But cells are indeterminably more complex, and the pathways of neural networks add layer upon layer of additional complexity. In fact there’s virtually no evidence that consciousness operates on the same level, much less under the same laws as circuits. The many analogies between “digital circuits and higher human brain function” are mere philosophical musings wholly dependent upon correlation and reflex actions.

Posted by ekorczynski
You further state that it is impossible to know what governs people outside of consciousness! It's arguable that we may not know ALL that governs people outside of consciousness, but just off the top of my head I can list the following: (snip) all influence/govern (to an extent) humans.
dk: I was being satirical, outside of what people are conscious, they know not, nil, void, null, zero, zilch. The word “unknown” means outside of consciousness.

Posted by ekorczynski
You've written that "...many people are ruled by their instincts... , but these people are degenerates." If you meant this as a joke, it was too dry for me to appreciate. All humans are somewhat influenced by their instincts as a result of evolution, and there is boundless evidence to support this statement. To imagine that you are somehow superior and that others are "degenerates" ??? You wrote that, "people are free to do as they please but then they become degenerates." It seems that you hold very strong beliefs about this subject, but it doesn't seem that you've really contemplated the subject very much or considered the assumptions behind your belief. You might benefit from trying to re-read the previously posted link, considering that it reports on the analysis and work of researchers in the area (as opposed to the personnal opinions of non-experts like you or me).
dk: Proclaiming “people are the result of evolution”, is a tautology. As reasonable rational creatures people can only know themselves by the laws that govern them. To the extent these laws are incommunicable, incomprehensible, incoherent, and conflicted they become meaningless tripe, and relationships between people degenerate accordingly. People being rational creatures can only govern themselves by laws that that are promulgated, understandable and suitability ordered with happiness in mind.

Here’s an article I recommend you read to get a feel for the complexity of the task, and what it means to say “consciousness resists definition”.

“(6) Correlation across a few situations is limited evidence. According to the definition above, an NCC is a system that correlates with consciousness across arbitrary cases of normal functioning, in any environment, with any unusual input or limited brain stimulation. In practice, though, evidence is far weaker than this. Typically one has a few cases, involving either a few subjects with different lesions, or study in which subjects are given different stimuli, and one notes an apparent correlation. This is only to be expected, given the current technological and ethical constraints on experimental methods. But it does mean that the evidence that current methods give is quite weak. To truly demonstrate that a given system is an NCC, one would need to demonstrate correlation across a far wider range of cases than is currently feasible. Of course current methods may give good negative evidence about systems that fail to correlate and thus are not NCCs, but strong positive evidence is harder to find. Positive hypotheses based on current sorts of evidence should probably be considered suggestive but highly speculative.” ---- What is a Neural Correlate of Consciousness ? : David J. Chalmers ; Department of Philosophy ; This paper was published in Neural Correlates of Consciousness: Empirical and Conceptual Questions (T. Metzinger, ed), published with MIT Press in 2000. It was first presented at Association for the Scientific Study of Consciousness conference on "Neural Correlates of Consciousness" in Bremen, June 1998.]

excreationist

When speaking about consciousness, a "zombie" is a person who acts *exactly* like a person in every single way.... they give the same answers to your questions and lead totally normal lives, just like normal people - but they're not truly self-conscious, like we are. If asked what they're thinking or if they feel pain and emotions, they'd answer in a totally convincing way. There would be no way to ordinarily tell that they're not properly self-conscious (or even "conscious" - though they're wide awake).
If consciousness is a mystical force that could be detected by some device (it could be invented by the Ghostbusters people) then you'd be able to distinguish between a "zombie" and a normal self-conscious human being, like yourself.
I don't believe that zombies can exist though... it follows on from my belief that consciousness is a purely physical process that involves a system that learns things for itself.
Zombie Killer - this is an article that tries to refute the idea of zombies being theoretically possible. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet though.