No, no, noooo!!!
Anyway, we *learn* to feel separate from other people and things. As babies we believe that everything we see is part of us. As time goes by, we learn about "object permanence" - things still exist when we can't see them - and we come to fear strangers. We come to think about us and them instead of me, me, me.
And then we hear an individual voice in our head which is motivated by our own personal emotions. Other people don't feel our emotions like we do. They can get an idea about what it is like but they don't directly experience *your* emotions.
So it partly has to do with our brain learning to distinguish its body from the wide world, partly to do with *our* voice in our head and partly to do with *our* own personal emotions/sensations.

You really should learn about how the brain works from biology books - don't rely on speculative philosophy.
But anyway, I think "working memory" is the thing that allows reasoning/"imagination" (in rats, apes, people, etc). We just happen to have the most of it. This allows us to do deeper reasoning and think about high-level things such as language (instead of simple things like rat-like reasoning).
The working memory of apes is quite limited though, so they can't generate proper sentences (you need a lot of working memory to store whole sentence structures) but they can be taught to understand complex speech.
You need to be able to generate sentences to be able to have an internal voice that can do abstract reasoning. (e.g. ponder "how did everything get here?" "why is the world here?" "what happens after I die?", etc)
And besides the internal voice, you also need the drives (avoiding pain, seeking relaxation, resonation and new resonations with goals) that determine your short-term goals, and a reasoning/"imagination" system.

There are a huge number of theories of consciousness floatly around these days. This "phase transition" theory sounds unbelieveable vague and simplistic.

I read your (linked) post few days ago, so I don't have a crystal clear recolection of the content, but from what I remember, you give a somewhat detailed description of brain mechanics. I mean, the physical fucntion of the brain and how it is involved in behavioral functions. I like your simplified theory, it explains some main brain functions in layman terms, but you haven't helped to answer what is concscious.

I am looking for an identification of the conscious entity, the perceiver that sees itself as one being.

Maybe it was just wrong wording on your part, but you are saying that consciousness is the perceiver.

Consciousness and being conscious are different things. I am looking for what is conscious (not consciousness).

I'm not sure I understand you. I don't think you're looking for a list of critters that are conscious. Are you asking what particular piece of the whole is concious? Are you asking for conscious as the sense of right and wrong?

I the model I'm working with, there is no one conscious piece, the consciousness is a description of the self awareness and representation of all of the individual pieces working together. I should also state that I'm presenting a computational model for consciousness, not describing how human consciousness works.

So you are saying that matter is conscious?

You have to keep in mind, atoms are atoms. In the 'complex web' of atoms you describe, which you believe to be the conscious individual is still just atoms. Each one, abiding by the Laws of physics, playing a sole part in the big scheme. None of the atoms are conscious; at least I find it extremely difficult to accept many inanimate atoms, acting as one being... questioning its existence as a singular self.

This is the mystery, and it is not yet solved (at least here at the board). There must be something apart from the individual atoms of the brain, that experiences consciousness; as whatever role the atoms may play in consciousness or 'producing' it, the individual atoms are not conscious.

Your theory could only be applied if atoms were conscious... as you called it "conscious matter".

Yes.

No, nothing to do with ethics.


I commend your work in studying and catigorizing the functions of individual aspects of the brain that relate to consciousness. I believe you are far ahead of me when it comes to understanding neural science.

Nobody has so far been able to tell me what the conscious experiencer is.

(One person, so far, has *clearly* said that matter can be conscious, the way we are conscious.)

I just want to clarify with everyone, why I don't believe that matter can be conscious, the way we are.

Matter is enegry that is manifested in a physical form. Without getting into the heavy physics, let's observe some basic characteristics of the atom.

We know that an atom consists of several parts; the most basic (commonly known) being the proton, the electron, and the neutron. We don't need to worry about the others and more primary parts for the purpose of this observation.

We also know that these parts all function according to certain Laws (of physics). They do not choose they're functions, they simply do what they are 'told' to by the Laws. This is important, atoms do not have free will.

If we were to observe one (specific) atom within the living brain, we could just as well predict it's behaviour and properties as we could with the same elemental atom outside of the living brain. Basically, an atom is still an atom, whether it is in the brain or in dirt.

Each and a every atom in the brain behaves like an atom (of the same element) outside of the brain.

This is why I don't believe that the physical brain, is conscious, because not one atom in the brain can be a conscious atom.

If no atom in the brain is conscious then it means that none of physical substance of the brain is, including the brain as a whole, obviously.

We can describe a network of physical interactions in the brain as 'consciousness' (in a physical sense) for accademic purposes, but we can not say "matter is conscious," because any physicist will tell you, it is sure as heck isn't.

A quantum physicists may tell you about what they refer to as "quantum weirdness"; strange observations at sub-atomic levels, which seems to imply that there is 'some type of consciousness' behind physics, but that is a whole other topic in itself!

Again, this is my speculation.

It's not the matter that's conscious. Matter is just matter. However, a system of matter (containing atoms and rules of interaction) can assemble in complex ways. Particular configurations can form a symbology, representing information about another system. For example, a computer is a bunch of matter that can describe something else. A computer is made of matter interacting in physics, that can create a new system of "atoms" and rules. Each of these numbers (which are the computer's atoms) is actually a bunch of matter and signals inside the computer that operate under the rules. These are two seperate layers of meaning. For example, you could use the laws of physics to describe a system exactly the same as physics, except like charges attract. Upon these rules, you could make a new computer running on those rules, and so forth. This is the recursive nature of rules and symbols, the depth is only limited by the power of the top level system.

Now a nerve cell is a different type of computer. It's uses the laws of physics to represent information, the retina transforming light into electrochemical pulses, taste buds binding to chemicals to generate a signal. These nerves for a representation of their interactions with a electrochemical system. The brain takes this information interpreting it into a different context, an electrochemical representation of an electro chemical signal. Any multicellular creature pretty much qualifies for this model.

In processing these signals, there are layers upon layers of this information nesting upon different systems. Different areas built upon this underlayer perform different tasks, the signals get directed to the interpreters, which create new signals processed by another area, and so forth. Rather than just responding to input, a signal can be encoded upon another area, forming a primitive memory. Up until this point, it's a strict heirarchy. A system doesn't know about the system it's encoded upon, nor are they capable of representing themself, they just do their job.

Now, my hunch is that in humans have areas that are connected to lower levels. As such, we may not have anymore layers than a chimp, but our topmost layers are connected to some of their foundations with much more complexity. For example, when we see something, there is are memories that are retreived. These are two areas that are on the same level. No problem. But not only do we remember something, we can remember that we remembered something. When we remember an emotional event, we not only generate the memories, we generate those emotions. So the top most levels that generate the "final" signal can feedback into the lower levels, generating new signals. "I think therefore I am" isn't quite correct, "I can perceive that I am thinking, therefore I am thinking." The problem/virtue of this is that we are incapable of knowing true perceptions from false perceptions with certainty, because to weigh two perceptions is to perceive those perceptions.

Anyway, to answer your question, it's not any part, not a magical "consciousness particle" that exists somewhere. It's the connections, and the interconnectedness of perception and self-perception from which the consciousness emerges. It's the nested layers of rules and symbols, with the feedback of layers into the layers which they are formed upon.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Filip Sandor:
I just want to clarify with everyone, why I don't believe that matter can be conscious, the way we are.

Filip, this isn't going to work. First, computers are going to disprove you, probably in our own lifetimes.

Second, and more fundamental, if matter cannot be conscious the way we are, then where does consciousness reside?

How does it interact with matter?

Why have these connections never been observed in thousands upon thousands of autopsies?

Why did the universal consciousness permit previous versions of homo to die out? Were they conscious like us?

Is the consciousness of chimps and other animals wholly material? If so, then why isn't ours, and if not, why are we special, and how does their consciousness operate?

Is it possible for a human to be cut off from the source of consciousness? How do they function then?

How did this "source of consciousness" interact with animals during the long evolutionary process that led to humans?

If no atom in the brain is conscious then it means that none of physical substance of the brain is, including the brain as a whole, obviously.

Let's see....I believe that no human is alive, because no atom is alive. I believe that no tree leaves are green, because no atoms are green. I believe that .... but you get the idea. Obviously things like life, consciousness, etc, are emergent properties from certain arrangements of matter.

If we were to observe one (specific) atom within the living brain, we could just as well predict it's behaviour and properties as we could with the same elemental atom outside of the living brain. Basically, an atom is still an atom, whether it is in the brain or in dirt.

So, the chemical and electrical activity in the brain are meaningless. And what about behavior at the molecular level? The structural level?

Michael

I like your interpretation of consciousness being the result of complexity upon complexity, atomic, chemical, cellular, etc systems, interrelating throughout the entire brain 'body'; I agree witht he picture you drew, as far as the physical interactions go and it is the same type of picture I envision.

The question still remains unanswered though.

We have postulated some detailed and in many cases, what seems to be, correct interpretations of how consciousness works or how it is formed on a physical level, but we have not yet shown what is conscious, since like you said nialscorva, matter is still just matter and it is not conscious.

But if consciousness is simply physical complexity and it means that a system of atoms is 'aware', in the sense of cause and effect, of its interrelation with other systems, as well as environmental stimuli, then we can say that all atoms are conscious and in complexities, become self-aware... contemplating their own existence!

For the sake of sanity, I am not asking for anyone to explain to me, how our metaphysical bodies interrelate with our physical bodies (and brains), if we come to the conclusion that we are in fact metaphysical beings. I just want to make sure that everyone will be a little more open to alternate possibilities of what we really are, aside from highly complex atomic structures, based on what we don't know after this thread is 'dry'.