Nouns, Consciousness, and perception

Hello Human

Key terms and definitions:
-Consciousness: the set of things an agent is aware of
-Conscious subjective experience: a set of all mental images created by the brain that an agent is aware of. This term will be abbreviated as CSE.
-Conscious state: CSE of something (e.g. CSE of happiness)

1-Perception and reality

Our modern understanding of perception is as follows: signals are collected by our senses and are then converted into electrical signals glowing through our brain. It is also well established that our experience of the world is not representative of the actual state of our environment. That is, the mental image created by our brains is very different from the way the world is.

2-Conscious states and brain states

In recent decades, conscious states have been strongly correlated to specific brain states, that is patterns of brain activity. I argue that conscious states and our CSEs are the results of brain states entering consciousness, that is, our CSEs (e.g. pain) are the result of brain states (e.g. C-fiber firings) entering consciousness. This is supported by the aforementioned strong correlation between conscious states and patterns of brain activity, and by the fact that when unconscious, patterns of brain activity continue while the conscious states associated with them do not occur. However, further research is needed for that second premise, given that patterns of brain activity associated with memorization are the only patterns present during conscious moments present during unconscious moments, so if one of you is a psychologist with EEG equipment or knows one, please inject dopamine in an unconscious person and see if the patterns of brain activity associated with happiness are present, thanks.

3-Naming

Naming, I argue, is a process through which one assigns a noun to a perceived regularity in their CSE. The meaning of the new noun is the description of those regularities. This is supported by the origins of all terms used today. For example, the noun "sandwich" was assigned to the perceived regularities of 2 pieces of bread and in-between parts. This regularity also happens to be the definition of the term "sandwich". It is also supported by the fact that our experience of the world does not correspond to the actual state of the world.

This implies also that the definition of a noun can change, as regularities observed by the person who assigned the name might not be present in another person's CSE, and names might be used in new ways that refer to other regularities. The morning star and the evening star can mean the same thing or not, depending on whether one perceives them as part of the same regularity. If you said the two terms in a culture where the two are considered separate, then the terms would not mean the same things. If you said them today, they'd mean the same thing, as they both are part of the perceived regularity of being the planet Venus.

This implies also that nouns have a causal link to the physical environment and brain states. Conscious states are the result of our brain's processing that is the result of the transduction of sensory signals that is the result of the collection of signals by our senses that is the result of air, photons, or any other sensory medium moving in space-time that is the result of the existence of those objects, as established in part 1. They can also be the indirect result of consciousness accessing our brain states, as established in part 2. This implies that names do refer to actual physical states and objects, though not as strongly as some would wish.

Now, given how likely it is that a mistake has been made in my reasoning, given how many claims I've made, I need to know, what do you think?

Mww

I argue that conscious states and our CSEs are the results of brain states entering consciousness, that is, our CSEs (e.g. pain) are the result of brain states (e.g. C-fiber firings) entering consciousness. — Hello Human

If consciousness is the set of things, and if brain states enter consciousness, then it follows brain states are already things or become things upon entering consciousness. A brain is a thing, but is a state of a thing also a thing?

For states to enter something is an effect on it. What is the cause?

Crying isn’t a noun but can it not be considered a perceived regularity?

If consciousness is the set of all things, and the set of all things changes, wouldn’t consciousness change? If consciousness changes, what’s the difference between it and our conscious state? If there is no real difference, one or the other is superfluous or mis-defined.

What I think is......all in all, not too bad.

Good luck.

PoeticUniverse

Now, given how likely it is that a mistake has been made in my reasoning, given how many claims I've made, I need to know, what do you think? — Hello Human

No mistakes.

Consciousness is

Intrinsic—My own, as independent;

Compositional—Structured with many phenomenological distinctions;

Informational—Particular and specific;

Integrated/Whole—Unified;

Exclusive—Definite content, no more no less.

Subjective Features:

Referral—The ‘projection’ of neural states with no perceiving of neural firings/states.

Mental Unity—Experienced as a unified field, whereas its sources are all over the brain.

Qualia—The subjectively experienced felt qualities of sensory consciousness.

Continuous—Seamless stitching of the ongoing changing contents from short term memory.

Mental causation?—How can consciousness—an intangible, unobservable, and fully subjective entity—cause material neurons to direct behaviors that change the world? Subconscious brain analysis, taking 300-500 milliseconds to complete, is all done and finished in its result before consciousness gets hold of the product.

Uses/Advantages:

Flexibility of Reaction—We’re better able to react to conscious content, beyond just the automatic reflex-like responses triggered by non conscious content.

Focus—Selective attention allows the brain to focus its activity on what’s important.

Evaluations—Feelings make one aware of what is good or bad.

Survival Value—Complex decisions possible.

Behavioral Flexibility—Unlimited associate learning combines multiple cues into a single perception.

Discrimination—Small perceptual differences possible, such as between good and poisonous food.

Diversification of Species—Such as the Cambrian explosion and a kind of evolutionary arms race in finding new ways to avoid detection, spurring predators to become more sophisticated.

Beauty—Such as plants evolving colorful flowers to attract pollination.

Actionizing—Pondering of the consequences of scenarios before a commitment to action.

The brain interprets reality, and puts
A face on the waves of sound, light, color, touch,
And a sense on molecules’ smell and taste.
Consciousness is the brain’s perception of itself.

Consciousness mediates thoughts versus outcomes,
And is distributed all over the body,
From the nerve spindles to the spine to the brain—
A way to actionize without moving.

Physics describes well the extrinsic causes,
While consciousness exists just for itself,
As the intrinsic, compositional,
Informational, whole, and exclusive—

As the distinctions toward survival,
Though causing nothing except in itself,
As in ne’er doing but only as being,
Leaving intelligence for the doing.

The posterior cortex holds correlates,
For this is the only brain region that
Can’t be removed for one to still retain
Consciousness, it having feedback in it;

Thusly, it presents a unified Whole,
And this Whole forms consciousness directly,
A process fundamental in nature,
Or is the brain’s own symbolic language.

The Whole can also be well spoken of
To communicate with others, as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For nonconscious states know not what’s been formed.

Wayfarer

In recent decades, conscious states have been strongly correlated to specific brain states, that is patterns of brain activity. — Hello Human

This is not true, it is fiction. It is mistaken to believe that patterns of brain activity can be correlated with the contents of conscious thought. I'm sure you can detect some things, like, whether a subject is conscious, but mapping intentional content against neurological data is not even a remote possibility. See this review.

Hello Human

↪Wayfarer

There are mind-controlled drones that work by the mere operation of thought that work by observing brain states. Or maybe am I wrong and they work in a different way ?

Hello Human

A brain is a thing, but is a state of a thing also a thing? — Mww

Of course, a man is a thing and so is an angry man, or an happy man. Or did you mean something else by state of a thing ?

For states to enter something is an effect on it. What is the cause? — Mww

I don't really get what you mean, could you clarify please ?

Crying isn’t a noun but can it not be considered a perceived regularity? — Mww

Yes of course. It seems that I have made a mistake by limiting perceived regularities to nouns. Apparently it also can be a verb, adjective, or an adverb.

If consciousness is the set of all things, and the set of all things changes, wouldn’t consciousness change? — Mww

.
Consciousness is the set of all things an agent is aware of. That is, intentionality is a defining feature of consciousness.

Wayfarer

There are mind-controlled drones that work by the mere operation of thought that work by observing brain states — Hello Human

They do work that way, and there is also emerging technology that interfaces with disabled user's brain waves. I don't see any problem with that ameliorative technology, it offers many great possibilities. But what you're proposing is on a different level, namely, that of understanding intentional activities and conscious states in material terms. That is another kind of thing altogether. It seems close to 'brain-mind' identity theory.

Hello Human

↪Wayfarer

But those emerging technologies work by associating brain states with certain actions, like moving up or down. I'm not saying we can understand our conscious experience by understanding the brain, this isn't possible at the moment, as we do not know exactly what is the nature of the relationship between consciousness and brain states, for example we don't know how the sensation of pain arises from C-fiber firings, but we do know that the strong correlation indicates at least some level of influence from brain states.

Wayfarer

↪Hello Human

Moving your arm or undertaking defined motor skills is one thing. But you're talking about the fundamental constituents of knowledge, reasoning, meaning, and so on - affective states, how the mind construes experience, and so on. There are many deep and possibly intractable issues involved in that. There are philosophers who believe that neuroscience will eventually replace philosophy, but I think it's the least likeable, and least credible, tendency in modern philosophy. That said, I acknowledge that I don't know much neuroscience, but this is a philosophy forum, and I do know about the hard problem of consciousness.

Another article:

Neuroscientists Have Discovered a Phenomenon That They Can’t Explain

There's also a well-known book, The Philosophical Foundations of Neuroscience, by Hacker and Bennett, which you might find interesting. Detailed review here.

hypericin

↪Hello Human

What consciousness is not a "CSE"?

Hello Human

↪Wayfarer

the hard problem is about how experience arises from non-sentient matter, not whether or not it arises from it. We know for example that certain areas of our brain are activated when doing logic, math, reasoning, and that particular types of neurotransmitters are associated with particular emotions.

And about representational drift, the subject of the article, it means simply that we don't know how thoughts arise from patterns of neuron activation. But, we do know that there are neurons that activate, though we don't know why the activated neurons change. And even then, we still do know that certain brain regions, as opposed to specific neurons are activated by a specific activity. For example, if you try to compute something, your motor regions are not going to be activated, while other regions will be. Our understanding of the brain is very incomplete, of the mind, even more so, but we already know that there is a relationship between body and mind, though we do not understand it yet.

To the second article, Bennet and Hacker are against the current remnants of Cartesianism in neuroscience and the understanding of the mind based ONLY on the brain, which means that we can understand the mind at least more completely in material terms if we studied other objects than the brain. I agree with this, you can't understand perception by ignoring the eye or the ear. This is not to say that the mind is entirely physical, it must be physical at least in part, and as I've said before, there is mounting evidence that essential parts of the mind can and are studied empirically.

Hello Human

↪hypericin

could you please clarify your question? I don't really understand what you mean. If my understanding of your question is correct, then I'd say all CSE is intentionality towards an object, that is consciousness of something.

hypericin

↪Hello Human

I was responding to

-Consciousness: the set of things an agent is aware of
-Conscious subjective experience: a set of all mental images created by the brain that an agent is aware of. This term will be abbreviated as CSE. — Hello Human

Hello Human

↪hypericin

Honestly I don't know whether or not all consciousness is CSE. I can't think of a mental image that is subconscious or unconscious, apart from maybe the circadian rhythm, but I don't know if it can be considered a mental image. Anyway, what do you think ?

bert1

This is a great OP. I disagree with most of it, but I am able to disagree with it because it is so clear and transparent. I'll reply in greater length another time. In short, your definitions do reflect some usage, but crucially not other important usage. Sometimes (indeed, perhaps most often) 'consciousness' is not used to describe a set of anything. It is something like 'the capacity to experience'. It is that concept that is often the subject of philosophical discourse, including in discussion of the 'hard problem'.

I'll challenge your focus on brains. If the structure and function of brains determine, in a strong correlative way, the experiences of that brain, why does not the structure and function of a rock similarly determine the experiences of that rock? Or does it? What is the relevant difference (if there is one) between the two cases?

MikeF

"It is also well established that our experience of the world is not representative of the actual state of our environment. That is, the mental image created by our brains is very different from the way the world is."

↪Hello Human

When you say our mental image of the world is very different from the way the world is, in what sense do you mean? I would think that, on average and within their biological limits, our senses give us a pretty good image of the reality around us. Our senses are the product of millions of years of evolution. If they did not provide an accurate picture, wouldn't you think that would impact our chances of survival?

Very curious as to how you would describe actual reality and in what ways our perception is very different.

Hello Human

↪MikeF

what I mean is that our perception of the world is an image constructed by our brains based on signals. Those signals, like air or water moving, are not the objects in-themselves. They're influenced by the objects we perceive, but specific properties that objects seem to have because of those mediums are not real. Color, for example, is simply photons of differing wavelengths xollected by photoreceptor cells that the brain processes to create the illusion of color. Sound, is simply molecules pushing each other that makes certain parts of our ears vibrate, and it then processes by the brain. Those properties constructed by the brain are what are commonly called secondary qualities or phenomenon in philosophy.

There are however, other properties that objects have that our brain allows us to perceive. Shape, size, mass, volume are examples. Shape, for example, is perceived because the photons coming from an objects are arranged a certain way because of the actual Shape of the object. If a photon bounces off a ball, the ball will seem round because of the way the photons bounced off the ball. Think of it as this way, you have the actual like shape, like a circle, and the photons bounce at certain points within that shape, and if you placed a point on every point a photon bounced, the shape would be full, in the case of the circle, that means that all points of equal or lower distance to the circumcenter than the radius would have been touched by a photon, and the points would form a filled shape, for lack of a better word. For the other more quantitative properties, you simply use the aforementioned filled shape and measure parys of it and if needed you perform the necessary calculations. This is commonly called primary qualities or noumenon in philosophy.

Wayfarer

↪Hello Human

What about meaning? The act of interpreting what signs mean, and making judgements on that basis? Do you have an account of that?

Hello Human

↪Wayfarer

when you assign meaning, you use your mind to draw conclusions based on the mental image created by your brain. For example, when I see that a man I don't know stands in front of my home and looks inside, I use my mind to conclude he shouldn't be there.

MikeF

↪Hello Human

Color is not an illusion, however. If a light source radiates every wavelength in the visual spectrum upon an object and only certain wavelengths are reflected, while others are absorbed, that is really happening. One is actually detecting the wavelengths being reflected, which may be distinctly different from the combinations of wavelengths reflected by another object, or more specifically, the surface chemical composition of the object.

Movement of air molecules is not an illusion. They are actually moving and moving in multiple ways, multiple frequencies. Our brains are not inventing the pattern of frequencies, but rather, perceiving the pattern of frequencies. The air is actually moving in the way perceived.

I would say that our senses provide us with an excellent representation of the macroscopic world around us when we put things to close examination. Obviously, in situations where there is incomplete information one cannot create a completely accurate representation of all that is perceived, say very low light conditions, or an object is at sufficient distance that one is unable to perceive enough detail to distinguish between similarly shaped objects.

In addition, we are now at a stage of development to where we can create tools that expand our ability to perceive the world beyond the limits of our biological senses. And with this we have only corroborated that the macroscopic world is as we have perceived it for millennia.

Wayfarer

. For example, when I see that a man I don't know stands in front of my home and looks inside, I use my mind to conclude he shouldn't be there. — Hello Human

But that act also refers to what is already in your mind, otherwise you wouldn't know that he was not expected to be there.

Hello Human

↪MikeF

color, when considered as a part of electromagnetic spectrum, is not an illusion. What I say is an illusion is the mental image of color created by your brain. You are not aware of the color of an object, but it is the wavelengths of the photons reflected by that object that you are aware of.

Air molecules moving is not an illusion too. The illusion is the sounds created by your brain. You are aware of the vibrations caused by the object behaving a certain way.

Yes indeed, our senses give us a good approximation of our environment. But it is only that, an approximation. And indeed, our new tools are very useful too and give us an even better representation of reality, for example more wavelengths and sound frequencies.

↪Wayfarer

I don't really understand what you're saying. Could you clarify it for me please?

MikeF

↪Hello Human

All I can say is that I would disagree. The color in our brain is an accurate representation of the of the wavelength combination being reflected. We are accurately discerning each time that wavelength combination is being reflected. Reflecting only a specific set of frequencies is real information and our ability to recognize and discern that pattern is an accurate representation of what is occurring.

We are perceiving the world as it is, and at the very least, it is a gross exaggeration to say what we perceive is very different from the way the world is.

Hello Human

↪MikeF

The color in our brain is an accurate representation of the of the wavelength combination being reflected — MikeF

Yes ! It's a representation of the wavelength combination, not of the object.

We are perceiving the world as it is, and at the very least, it is a gross exaggeration to say what we perceive is very different from the way the world is. — MikeF

I admit, I probably made an exaggeration when saying the world is very different from the way we perceive it. But it is still different in very important ways. We do not perceive every wavelength of the electromagnetic spectrum and every sound frequency. There are very important parts of reality that we cannot perceive without the help of external tools.

prothero

Consciousness: the set of things an agent is aware of — Hello Human

What does it mean to be aware of?
Are plants aware of the direction of the sun when they turn to capture its radiant energy?
Are jellyfish aware of currents and water temperature when they advance and withdraw?
Are iron filings aware of the earths magnetic field when they align with its orientation?
Equating "awareness" with "consciousness" creates some confusion in terminology?
What things are "conscious" in your view? Do you really wish to equate "aware" with "conscious"?

Hello Human

↪prothero

I think "aware of" means "knows the existence of".

TheMadFool

del

TheMadFool

-Consciousness: the set of things an agent is aware of
-Conscious subjective experience: a set of all mental images created by the brain that an agent is aware of. This term will be abbreviated as CSE.
-Conscious state: CSE of something (e.g. CSE of happiness) — Hello Human

CSE + awareness of CSE = consciousness
Conscious state = The something CSE is about.

So a dog is a conscious state. The mental image of the dog is a CSE. When I become aware of the mental image of the dog (the CSE), I'm conscious.

I'm having trouble telling the difference between CSE and consciousness. What I feel is awareness in awareness of CSE is redundant. CSE = consciousness; forming a mental image is consciousness.

Hello Human

↪TheMadFool

now that I think about it, consciousness, CSE, and brain states seem to be the same thing. We are aware only of mental images and brain states, and consciousness is the set of things one is aware of. So, I guess those terms are redundant.

Also, I have unfortunately misused the term "consciousness" which led to some mistakes. Indeed, consciousness cannot access brain states, because consciousness is composed of brain states. I think a more appropriate way of saying it is our conscious subjective experience is the result of us being aware of brain states. Or do you have any objection to this ?

Mww

what do you think? — Hello Human

If there is no real difference, one or the other is superfluous or mis-defined. What I think is......all in all, not too bad. — Mww

I guess those terms (consciousness, CSE) are redundant. Also, I have unfortunately misused the term "consciousness" — Hello Human

What I think now......much better.

prothero

↪Hello Human

That does not seem to help."knows the existence of".
After all, I can just reframe the same questions using "what does it mean to know the existence of".
We overvalue the "conscious" part of our mental activity.
We overvalue being able "to name" things.
True, language is probably responsible for our future planning and abstract mental abilities.
But "aware of" and "experiencing" are pretty widespread,if not ubiquitous, in nature, I would say.
Most human mental functioning and much awareness never enters "our consciousness" as we typically use the term.

Nouns, Consciousness, and perception

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions