You have said this a number of times, in different ways. You always refer to consciousness as a passive thing. Consciousness is "being in the state of having experiences", as you say. But surely there is an active aspect to this too? Empirical observation confirms that we also initiate or create experiences, for ourselves and for others. As conscious entities, we experience stuff, and we interact with the world so as to create experiences too, don't we? — Pattern-chaser

All the things you are attributing to consciousness are done by the brain in an activity we can all pre-conscious mind (a mind behind the mind we experience). There appears to be no need for a conscious mind.

So it's the brain that controls the body, in your world? Does the (immaterial) mind have no place in your scheme? Forget for a moment that the 'conscious mind' is part of the mind, and consider the mind as a whole. Every criticism you have levelled at consciousness seems also to apply to the mind as a whole. So, is the human mind just a figment, a frippery? After all, according to you it can do nothing...? — Pattern-chaser

The mind is a production of the brain.

One simple argument against your position is related to the example you gave of driving a car. When driving there are TWO mental states:

1. The subconscious that ''automatically'' drives

And

2. The conscious that thinks about other things while 1 is doing the driving.

The mind is a production of the brain. — Unseen

And the brain is a collection of atoms.

Whose comment is the least useful and relevant? It's a close-run thing, I think. :wink:

All the things you are attributing to consciousness are done by the brain in an activity we can all pre-conscious mind [?] (a mind behind the mind we experience). There appears to be no need for a conscious mind. — Unseen

I wonder if you have gathered, from the article you read, that all actions taken by the mind are taken by the rest-of-the-mind, leaving the conscious mind as a passive observer? I believe this is possible, given our current knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that your conclusion has not yet been reached by the scientists working on it. The evidence does not (yet) say what you say. You seem to have latched onto one particular thing, and applied it a little too widely.

Empirical observation confirms that we also initiate or create experiences, for ourselves and for others. As conscious entities, we experience stuff, and we interact with the world so as to create experiences too, don't we? — Pattern-chaser

Yes, but it is the brain/pre-conscious mind doing that. It could be doing that without you being conscious (having experiences) at all!

I believe this is possible, given our current knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that your conclusion has not yet been reached by the scientists working on it. — Pattern-chaser

Scientists often do not see the implications of their work on philosophical issues, and thus don't draw conclusions. How many scientists depend upon a deterministic world to carry out their formulae but don't sit down and ask, "Does cause and effect imply that my brain is imprisoned by causality as well?"

I wonder if you have gathered, from the article you read, that all actions taken by the mind are taken by the rest-of-the-mind, leaving the conscious mind as a passive observer? — Pattern-chaser

I wonder if you have gathered, from the article you read, that all actions taken by the mind are taken by the rest-of-the-mind, leaving the conscious mind as a passive observer? — Pattern-chaser

Well, that is pretty much my position. The real action goes on whether like it or know it or not, but we only find out about some of it. Since it's all going on before we find out about it, it's beyond our conscious control, so the conscious experiences we have are just evidence of what's going on in our mind, and we have no way to exert control. Humans, cats and dogs, and other mammals and higher life forms could live out their entire lives, acting in exactly the same ways, and all the while experiencing nothing at all. Like plants.

I'll go further. It IS gratuitous to have experiences. Our preconscious mind could function without the conscious one. In fact, it does so often. You do a long day of driving, mostly thinking of whatever's going on in your life as you do so. By the time you reach your destination, you got there making, really, very few decisions on a conscious level. — Unseen

When you say ‘have experiences’, can I assume you mean ‘be aware that you are having experiences’? Experience itself, or participation in events, is necessary for the physical universe to exist. But is it necessary to be aware that we are having experiences? I think that depends on how much experience we have with an experience.

When you first learn to drive, it is impossible to make the necessary connections in the brain required to drive a vehicle unless one is first aware that the information received from the senses correlates to the organism participating in the operation of a moving vehicle at a particular speed in a particular environment. Every thought, feeling and action related to driving a vehicle - including your visual attention, the pressure under your right foot and its relative position, the distance between buttons and levers and what they do, the rapidly changing placement of the vehicle on the road and in relation to stationary or moving obstacles - would have initially been consciously experienced, with each decision made in full awareness, and all relevant new information then processed in the brain for future reference.

As you acquire more driving experience, most of the operations and related decisions are gradually based more on stored information, and subsequent driving experiences of the organism, including visual and spatial cues, no longer need to occupy consciousness to trigger decision-making protocols. But if a kangaroo suddenly jumps in front of your car, then whatever else is going on in your life is probably going to quickly take a back seat, and you will once again become acutely aware of the rapidly changing placement of the vehicle on the road in relation to the kangaroo and other moving or stationary obstacles...one would hope...

I think the preconscious mind of an adult could indeed function very well for the majority of the time without consciousness - and I’m inclined to think that many of them do just that. If SURVIVAL is your main purpose in life, then consciousness isn’t necessary at all once you’ve reached adulthood, is it?

For me personally, I’d prefer to have conscious experiences - seeking new information, more complex understanding and new connections with the universe - than not have them. But then, I would argue that SURVIVAL VALUE serves as a limiting rather than motivating factor in evolution - it’s certainly not the ‘be all and end all’ of evolutionary progress.

I wonder if you have gathered, from the article you read, that all actions taken by the mind are taken by the rest-of-the-mind, leaving the conscious mind as a passive observer? — Pattern-chaser


Well, that is pretty much my position. The real action goes on whether like it or know it or not, but we only find out about some of it. Since it's all going on before we find out about it, it's beyond our conscious control, so the conscious experiences we have are just evidence of what's going on in our mind, and we have no way to exert control. Humans, cats and dogs, and other mammals and higher life forms could live out their entire lives, acting in exactly the same ways, and all the while experiencing nothing at all. Like plants. — Unseen

Although this discussion includes "conscious" in its title, I wonder if it is helpful to suggest that you start looking at humans as embodied minds, and stop concentrating so heavily on the conscious part of our minds? For, despite all you say - i.e. whether it's accurate or not - it's our minds that control our bodies. Is it really so important to us, as humans, which part of our minds do what, when it's only the actions of our minds that are central to this discussion?

Yes, we are discussing why we are conscious (beings), as the OP asks. But is one small part of our minds - even though it is the conscious mind, and we're considering why we're conscious beings - really so important as to dominate the discussion, and have us ignore the rest of the mind, and the bodies in which they reside?

Experience itself, or participation in events, is necessary for the physical universe to exist. But is it necessary to be aware that we are having experiences? I think that depends on how much experience we have with an experience. — Possibility

I'll stop you right there. The universe literally would not exist without someone to perceive it. That is the position known as idealism (vs. materialism), the view that nothing exists apart from mind. Is that really your view? Very few philosophers hold that position anymore.

I don't deny the primacy of mind. I deny that conscious mind is necessarily an essential, much less necessary, aspect of that mind. But mind itself isn't necessary to life. Witness plants. Our mind (=brain) could run the show without presenting anything to consciousness, as it actually does much of the time.

Curious ... neuroscience has given us some answers that are perhaps disconcerting. While our perception is that we have free will and that we make all our decisions consciously, the science doesn't appear to support either.

As we observe brain function in progressively greater detail, our 'conscious' impression of sequential events and our response to them is shown to be quite inaccurate. Apart from our awareness, our billions of neurons process signals much like any programmed system. Decisions are made, we're told, based on that programming before we consciously decide. All decisions. Before we do what we consider to be logical and moral analysis and weighing, the choice is already made.

The logical conclusion from practical science is that consciousness and choice are largely imaginary. Dealing with those difficult facts perhaps precedes the philosophical discussion which exists only in that 'imaginary' context. While we might labor through the questions in great detail, the engine driving the process sets the boundaries. Or so the science would have us believe.

No soul, no free will, no person apart from the programming ... thoughts?

I'll stop you right there. The universe literally would not exist without someone to perceive it. That is the position known as idealism (vs. materialism), the view that nothing exists apart from mind. Is that really your view? Very few philosophers hold that position anymore. — Unseen

And I’m not one of them. The way I see it, there is a difference between participation in events and mental perception.

With quantum physics and process philosophy, it’s no longer a question of idealism vs materialism. The role of the observer in the unfolding of the universe need not be considered passive in a materialist perspective, as far as I’m concerned. It depends on how you think consciousness evolved from non-living matter to plants and animals to humans.

It depends on how you think consciousness evolved from non-living matter to plants and animals to humans. — Possibility

I don't think it evolved the way the eye evolved. I think it is a mutation that was never eliminated. The reason I believe this is that I see no need for consciousness in order to survive. Some of the most successful creatures on the planet, in terms of survival, are not conscious. Bacteria, the entire plant family.

That’s because you view survival as the ultimate success. In your view, then, humans - as soft, porous-skinned creatures with over-developed information processing systems and an acute dependency on each other for survival - are a complete ‘fluke’ of evolution. In my view, we are its greatest potential yet to be realised.

If survival were the ultimate pinnacle of evolutionary success, then there would have been no reason to evolve past bacteria and plants. The fact that life did, you seem to consider as a series of mutations that animals are just trying to make the best of in the ultimate battle for survival. If that’s the case, then as humans we make very little evolutionary sense at all.

If survival were the ultimate pinnacle of evolutionary success, of life itself, then congratulations: you’ve already made it, and all you have to do is make sure you don’t die. Good luck.

As I described before, however, when that kangaroo jumps out in front of your car and your survival is on the line, your consciousness is not just a passive observer anymore. Whatever you pay conscious attention to in that moment can be crucial to your survival. If you’re still thinking of whatever else is going on in your life, your pre-conscious mind is not going to get the job done on its own, because it has no precedence (unless you’re extremely well practised at dodging kangaroos, of course).

So consciousness may not be necessary to live (depending on how you live), but in a continually changing world and when the chips are down, it is necessary in order to survive.

Consciousness is more than simply having experiences, then, isn’t it? Perhaps it has something to do with not simply receiving and processing information, but also physically incorporating or embedding that elaborately processed information into the organism. A computer must store information, then retrieve it and communicate it to the system each time the CPU determines that it’s required. A living body, however, doesn’t require the CPU for all of its operations. Muscle memory, habit, impulses, instinct, etc - all of these are examples of information embedded in the somatic systems over time, rather than controlled by the brain. But it is through consciousness that this information is so elaborately processed before embedding as a pre-conscious sequence of events.

In my view, consciousness has evolved in matter from a one-dimensional information processing system that simply receives and incorporates the information (like a water molecule receiving heat), to a four-dimensional processing system that relates information to each other in spacetime (2D), quantifies, measures and evaluates that information (3D) and also has the capacity to relate the information beyond the existence of the organism to an understanding of the universe across all spacetime BEFORE embedding it into each molecule of the organism as required.

Some of the most successful creatures on the planet, in terms of survival, are not conscious. — Unseen

This is an assumption. You can't possibly know it with certainty.

I'll respond when you isolate your key point or points and make it/them concisely and with brevity. I've state elsewhere that I don't have time to respond to bedsheet posts. I've also quoted Einstein, who once said: “If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

I know it with about the same certainty as I know that I'm not writing from the surface of the moon. The lack of a sufficiently evolved nervous system—or the total absence of one—makes believing lower organisms might be conscious nevertheless borders on a religious belief. But if you want to invoke Cartesian doubt, swing for the fences.

The lack of a sufficiently evolved nervous system—or the total absence of one—makes believing lower organisms might be conscious nevertheless borders on a religious belief. — Unseen

Why do you think a nervous system is necessary for consciousness?

Why do you think a nervous system is necessary for consciousness? — bert1

Because alteration of an organism's nervous system predictably affects its consciousness.

Because alteration of an organism's nervous system predictably affects its consciousness. — Hanover

It does, but what follows from that? That's perfectly consistent with the idea that alteration in the functioning of a plant, or a rock, or a cell, or a plastic bottle, or whatever, likewise affects its consciousness.

It does, but what follows from that? That's perfectly consistent with the idea that alteration in the functioning of a plant, or a rock, or a cell, or a plastic bottle, or whatever, likewise affects its consciousness. — bert1

As I noted, the only reason I believe any object other than myself has consciousness is by observing its behavior. Consciousness cannot be seen directly and the only consciousness I can actually experience is my own. I therefore have no reason to believe rocks have consciousness.

As I noted, the only reason I believe any object other than myself has consciousness is by observing its behavior. — Hanover

OK, so what is the relevant difference between the behaviour of humans and the behaviour of rocks, such that you attribute consciousness to the former but not the latter?

Out of interests of whatever created the universe (which could have been early/more advanced consciousness?) and any potential conscious peers.

Why it would come into existence from nothing may be because it's possible to experience sense data at a certain level of environments, and environments manifest in the deepest times.

A system where you are rewarded or punished predicts the outcome of babies and injects consciousness.

Consciousness is hardly strange, but the universe may confuse you having so many experiences.

Consciousness is the exoplanets feat, but it shows the potential of the universe, so may outdate this universe.

I suppose it comes into existence naturally, because it's such a useful and productive experience.

Are you suggesting you don't know you're communicating with a conscious being and wonder if I might be a rock?

Since you can decipher my behavior from a rock, why not use the distinctions you recognize to answer your own question.

Presumably it is a product of biological evolution. — Relativist

That's a how answer masquerading as a why answer. A genetic mutation, for example, might explain how some life got consciousness gratuitously, for example Plants can be very highly evolved, having elaborate self-defense systems, for example, as well as ways of tricking insects into pollinating them or becoming plant food for predatory plants. Our brain should be able to navigate the world and make decisions and choices based on sensory data with no assistance from the conscious mind, and in fact does this sort of thing below our level or awareness all the time.

As I noted, the only reason I believe any object other than myself has consciousness is by observing its behavior. Consciousness cannot be seen directly and the only consciousness I can actually experience is my own. I therefore have no reason to believe rocks have consciousness. — Hanover

Do you believe that a rock molecule has the capacity to receive an isolated bit of information from its environment (eg temperature change, directional force) that it embodies, and in doing so transmits information to its environment - whether or not it is aware of that information AS temperature change or directional force as such?

It depends on how you think consciousness evolved from non-living matter to plants and animals to humans.
— Possibility

I don't think it evolved the way the eye evolved. I think it is a mutation that was never eliminated. The reason I believe this is that I see no need for consciousness in order to survive. Some of the most successful creatures on the planet, in terms of survival, are not conscious. Bacteria, the entire plant family. — Unseen

So, do you believe that consciousness simply appeared as it is, or developed from something simpler?

Bacteria have the capacity to sense their proximity to a desirable or undesirable chemical and adjust their movement accordingly (chemotaxis). Their ‘experience’ is extremely simple, but it is an experience nonetheless. I wouldn’t call this ‘conscious’ as such, but the capacity to process information (relate one bit of information to another) before incorporating or ‘responding’ to it could be seen as a precursor to consciousness, depending how you think it may have developed.

How do you elevate a chemical reaction (in an amoeba, for example) to a chemical condition outside its cellular border to having an experience? You're painfully close to personifying a single-celled creature's reaction to an environmental condition. A Roomba's navigation system may be more sophisticated than an amoeba's but we don't imagine that the Roomba is experiencing cleaning your floor.