• Anonymys
    117
    In his book "Consciousness and the Brain," Dehaene describes factors, such as the MCPH1 gene, that separate Monkey and Human ability to verbally report their experiences or thoughts. The question that plagues evolutionists in various fields is "can simple genetic changes be the determining factor of consciousness?" and if so, "what combinations of genes lead to the ability to be conscious?" These are great questions, and in this day in age, scientists have technologies available that can begin to answer some of these questions through behavioral, neurological, and genetic testing. However, these questions lack depth in the study of consciousness as genetic elements only account for a small percentage of cases in which consciousness is affected. In this short paper, I hope to provide significant evidence that the ability to communicate self-actualization may be the number one factor that allows for the identification of conscious experience and describe some methods that have been used to characterize various population groups' ability to be conscious.

    Rene Descartes postulates the impossibility of any individual to deny their existence through the phrase "I think, therefore I am." The mastery behind this phrase is not so much in its definition or categorization of consciousness but rather in the inability to deny a conscious existence while maintaining skepticism towards any experience outside the vacuum of the mind. Summarized, as long as the ability to realize our existence stays true, then our existence stays true. Regarding consciousness, which is the awareness of our existence, Descartes has created a platform by which individual existence cannot be denied, and thus consciousness is established.

    As the mechanisms of consciousness that allow for self-awareness are not understood as separate from the physical structures of the brain experimental postulations through theoretical modeling, as seen in Dehaene's global workspace theory, provide frameworks supporting consciousness as resulting from communication between major and minor neurological structures also known as top-down processing. The top-down processing method uses sensory input and previous experience to create an image that can be easily understood, defined, and acted upon. However, Dehaene proposes that without retrieval processes, external stimuli become jumbled neuronal exchange rather than a real-time interpretation of stimuli. Simply understood, if neuronal information was cooking ingredients and top-down processes the chef, then consciousness can be seen as the waiter, giving you the options of what food you can pick off the menu (limited by ingredients (stimuli) and chefs ability (interpretations based on experience). Dehaene stresses the importance of consciousness as more than a mechanism by which self-analysis takes place, but more importantly, the role of consciousness via conscious decision-making leads to present experiences. While top-down processing may be able to process and provide insight into experience-based living, it is impossible without bottom-up processing, understood as the incoming stimuli signal sent to specific brain structures. These signals are scrutinized over various brain structures and finally processed through complex analysis as a definitive sensory experience. Without bottom-up processing, top-down processing cannot piece together the big picture and lack the ability to interpret and simplify our present and experience of the world.

    Now that Descartes's statement of conscious experience is aptly connected and grounded to the brain, we can begin to understand how the physical brain presents consciousness or this idea of self-analysis, as seen through active reporting. EEG has been used in many cases to correlate specific tasks with visualized brain activity. However, while this is a great use of EEG in the behavioral field, what if scientists reformatted this concept and used brain activity to correlate specific tasks with consciousness states? Dehaene provides evidence that EEG, while not used in the past to determine states of consciousness effectively, can do what patients in various lower level conscious states cannot: active reporting on their current experience. While the separation between life and death in the past had much to do with the perceived level of awareness, doctors can now use EEG to travel past awareness states for determining death and tap directly into the brain to visualize a patient's conscious state. Dehaene proposes that definitions of conscious states have been simplified due to the mistake of paralleling awake states with conscious states. Using EEG, Dehaene provided evidence that individuals with no awake state still show consciousness through brain activity. A famous example of this phenomenon is Locked-In syndrome, in which an individual is unable to present any state of awareness yet whose brain is fully functional. The patient's ability to experience life, think critically, self-analyze, and report, are untouched, yet due to their bodily condition, they cannot physically show their conscious ability. Descartes "I think therefore I am" statement suggests the inability to deny one's existence regardless of external experience as long as the ability to determine one's existence remains untouched. Dehaene supports Desacrete's statement by revealing through various techniques, including TEM, fMRI, PET, and EEG, that various states of consciousness affect patients' ability to determine one existence and therefore result in conscious death (Brain Death) or consciousness (as previously defined). To clarify, Brain death and brain activity are not necessarily related as one can be brain dead but show brain activity through tDCS activation of localized neurons. Brain Death differentiates from consciousness through a lack of self-excitation in the brain via internal mechanisms such as neurotransmitters, exciters, or inhibitors (for example, NMDA receptors).

    While there is plenty of evidence that consciousness lies within the transfer of neurological information throughout the brain, how are "conscious beings" differentiated from insects, octopus, or dolphins? Perhaps they aren't! According to Dehaene, quantification of consciousness is necessary to conclude the state of consciousness various animals are subject to. Like humans, most animals can report on varying state of consciousness through learning, processing, use of working memory, and activation of brain waves directly linked with conscious processing (as opposed to unconscious awareness). The similarities between non-human animals and humans are evidenced through developed cortical regions such as the frontal lobe and represented by masking tasks, bi-partisan testing, and confidence analysis, requiring not only learning capability but also self-awareness and self-analysis. Dehaene states that the parietal and prefrontal lobes, required for working memory, processing, and decision making, are required in confidence analysis testing and thus refute the premise that non-human and human animals lack a sense of consciousness. However, the premise that animals are conscious does not necessarily provide evidence that animals can question their existence via non-direct-language-tools as humans do, i.e., mathematics, physics, and chemistry. Human beings can study the unobservable world through language development throughout time, leading to societal evolution, technology development, and self-oriented reasoning. The current literature states that unlike humans, ' animals cannot question their existence.

    To conclude, Rene Descartes's statement provides a standard for consciousness that cannot be reduced. To be conscious is not only to be but rather consciousness is the arbitrary placeholder in which humans project their sense of self. It is through consciousness that self-awareness, self-actualization, reporting, and even decision making can exist. While consciousness can be seen throughout the animal kingdom, the unique qualities of consciousness in humans lies in the ability to report or make decisions and develop new ways of understanding the world in which we experience. Through various modalities, humanity has become the only species that actively portrays a sense of self beyond our experiences by developing languages that allow for the communication of ideas we cannot yet even fully understand. Descartes's statement is evidence of humanities' ability to self-actualize and evidence that consciousness in itself is used to justify our existence separate from the world.

    What do you think? What else can be extrapolated from a theory of consciousness stemming from Independent experience?

  • hope
    216
    a theory of consciousnessAnonymys

    Mind, brain, consciousness, conscience, beliefs, are 5 completely different things.
  • Anonymys
    117
    Mind, brain, consciousness, conscience, beliefs, are 5 completely different things.hope

    You're right! However, through my hypothesis, I hope that I have unified Mind, Brain, and Consciousness in some way. But in case it was not clear as to how I was utilizing these terms, I can use Merriam-Webster Dictionary to elaborate and clarify.

    Mind: "The organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism."
    In other words: The unique internal experience of an organism

    Brain: "The portion of the vertebrate central nervous system enclosed in the skull and continuous with the spinal cord through the foramen magnum that is composed of neurons and supporting and nutritive structures (such as glia) and that integrates sensory information from inside and outside the body in controlling autonomic function (such as heartbeat and respiration), in coordinating and directing correlated motor responses, and in the process of learning."
    In other words: The physical organ in which the mind, consciousness, thoughts, and beliefs exist.

    Consciousness: "The state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought."
    In other words: Any awareness of the input and output of the mind.

    Conscience: "The sense or consciousness of the moral goodness or blameworthiness of one's conduct, intentions, or character together with a feeling of obligation to do right or be good."
    I didn't use Conscience in my theoretical analysis.

    Beliefs: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing."
    Also, I did not mention Beliefs.

    Consciousness and unconsciousness can also describe arousal states; however, I did not utilize this specific characterization in this essay.

  • theRiddler
    260
    I dunno. I think "I am that I am" is ultimately more profound than "I think, therefore I am." For one thing, I occasionally just stare, and I still AM. "I think, therefore I can reason that I was and am" would have been more to my liking.

    As to consciousness, we're trying to encapsulate inner experience. A big problem with that is that, typically, inner experience is largely part in partial with external phenomena, and the two truly can't be extrapolated.

    We need to stop thinking of ourselves as brains. We clearly aren't. We need to see the wholeness of what we are: these bodies (or souls) or we aren't going to get anywhere.
  • hope
    216
    I hope that I have unified Mind, Brain, and ConsciousnessAnonymys

    I'll unify them for you: mind and matter are both made of consciousness.
  • Anonymys
    117
    I'll unify them for you: mind and matter are both made of consciousness.hope



    Whose Consciousness makes up mind and matter?
  • AnonymysAccepted Answer
    117


    I think "I am that I am" is ultimately more profound than "I think, therefore I am."theRiddler

    Why? Because it's found in a holy book?

    I think therefore I am is not an explanation for coming into existence but rather a statement as to how internal and the perception of the external experience is fostered by the ability to think, feel, and rationalize.

    We need to stop thinking of ourselves as brains.theRiddler

    Unfortunately I am 98% a materialist, so by definition I cannot agree with you, however I de believe in a higher power, and so I recognize that there is an element I do not understand and the possibility of external intervention beyond material control is something I cannot currently disprove.





    There is no evidence...hope

    Sure, while this egocentric argument may apply to the understanding that others minds do not exist, although the concept of "other" already implies some level of sentience, the Problem of other minds has no bearing on constructing matter from consciousness and in fact, implies that consciousness may not exist outside of ones own material brain. Additionally, we can postulate that the physical matter that makes up one's own mind and consciousness is the same as those around you then; it would be rather arrogant to state The Problem of other minds without first realizing that you may not have a "mind." Thus, I find this argument rather ambitious. Too ambitious for me.

    If the "Mind" really is as stated: "The organized conscious and unconscious adaptive mental activity of an organism." In other words: The unique internal experience of an organism, I see no logical explanation leading to the belief that no one else on planet earth has a unique organization of mental activity.

    A few deep conversations with someone outside of your immediate household should be evidence enough to recognize the presence of a mind without needing surgical proof of the mind.
  • hope
    216
    consciousness may not exist outside of ones own material brainAnonymys

    brain may not exists outside of ones own spiritual consciousness
  • Anonymys
    117


    I don't know how to respond constructively to that.
  • hope
    216
    I don't know how to respond constructively to that.Anonymys

    Do u have direct evidence of your brain right now?

    No you don't. you have evidence of your consciousness and also your mind. Which you reduce to your brain and then claim its evidence of the brain. haha. backwards thinking
  • Deus
    320
    Do u have direct evidence of your brain right now?hope

    Nope! It is a true though that consciousness is an emergent property that cannot be reduced to its constituent part such as brain. And consciousness does not mean that it brains are the only way to achieve consciousness. It’s definitely one way of an object/subject recognising itself as conscious though.
  • hope
    216
    object/subjectDeus

    Object subject is impossible.

    Its either all object, aka: materalism

    Or it's all subject, aka: solipsism
  • Anonymys
    117
    Do u have direct evidence of your brain right now?hope

    Yes, I do. The brain as a Central processing system for the physical world clearly exists.

    As described by the 3D Default model proposed by Jerath, conscious experience integrates the relevant bodily experiences into a recreation of stimuli, creating an interactive experience with the external environment via the thalamus. This model is unique as it accounts for the entire body as an internal source for the conscious experience, not just the brain as an input system like Dehaene's global workspace theory. Jerath proposes that the thalamus is the engine for awareness and the primary hub for consciousness, coordinating, integrating, and orienting sensory information. Furthermore, the 3D model describes the conscious experience as the most optimal recreation of the physical stimuli to best interact and respond to the external environment.

    According to Schachter's theory the emotional experience is translated from specific and nonspecific peripheral signals into explicit feelings, much like how our visual cortex translates signals from the eyes and translates them into an interactive experience. Schachter suggests that the cortex creates a cognitive response to peripheral information consistent with the individual's expectations and social context. In this model, emotional states are influenced by the conscious state. Demasio corroborates this thought by stating that the feeling state or emotional expression is a story that the brain constructs to explain bodily reactions. Furthermore, Demasio's argument explains why emotional states are paralleled with autonomic responses. Likewise, Arnold states that autonomic responses are not an essential component of emotion, but rather emotion is the result of unconscious analysis of a stimulus.

    Additionally, Neurotransmitters, traveling between neuronal synapses, such as Dopamine, Seratonin, GABA, Glutamine, and Norepinephrine play a significant role in information processing and unconscious communication throughout the body. Pleasure, learning, sleep, pain, memory, and relaxation are emotional, conscious, and unconscious states regulated through neurotransmission. Unlike the fixed structures of neurons, hormones flow in the bloodstream and can interact with neurons and neuronal structures. Mediated by the nervous system, hormones are released from the endocrine system triggered by the pituitary gland and play a major role in expressing and managing emotional experiences. While neurons transmit stimulus information from the nervous system and between fixed cerebral structures, hormones transmit chemical information throughout the body.

    The physical structure of cerebral systems and the method of communication, namely through select neurons, is such that activation of structures responsible for emotional response simultaneously activates conscious experience. Likewise, activation of conscious experiences, namely through decision making, also activates emotional regulation. For example, learned fear as a response to external stimuli and subliminal bodily states. Emotion ultimately dictates the way in which conscious life is experienced. Every decision and thought are first mediated by neural structures responsible for emotional regulation. While an interactive and simplified version of a conscious emotional experience is evolutionarily adaptive, the unconsciously regulated emotion-based consciousness is detrimental when not properly regulated. Diseases and disorders affecting the physical structures of emotional processing systems lead to the degradation of the conscious experience. PTSD, for example, stems from a physical rewiring of the neural connections between the amygdala and the hippocampus. The brain's physical rewiring results in a conscious experience originating from a learned emotional response from a specific stimulus. Without regard to top-down or conscious, processing the emotional response elicited by the learned stimuli causes an overwhelming and often debilitating conscious experience. Without regulation of emotional systems via top-down processing, the conscious experience becomes subject to bottom-up processes resulting in an uncontrollable and unregulated conscious state driven by autonomic systems.



    Its either all object, aka: materalism

    Or it's all subject, aka: solipsism
    hope

    There is also Dualism, Panpsychism, and other non-binary explanations for conscious emergence.
  • hope
    216
    There is also DualismAnonymys

    Dualism is false and impossible

    Matter and spirit are two fundamentally different substances.
  • hope
    216
    physical world clearly exists.Anonymys

    You see shapes of colors and decide that objects exist?

    That decision was made in your mind.
  • Anonymys
    117

    It’s definitely one way of an object/subject recognising itself as conscious though.Deus

    Right, and as Descartes proposes, "I think, therefore I am."




    You see shapes of colors and decide that objects exist?

    That decision was made in your mind.
    hope

    That decision was made unconsciously in my brain then brought to conscious thought and then the object appears as my mind perceives it. Ocular observation can only happen when the wiring of the eyes to the brain is correct, not because my mind, or the organization of the physical and non-physical experiences dictates it as such.

    Edit: "Ocular" perception can also occur with prosthetics post blindness.
  • Deus
    320
    Yes, I do. The brain as a Central processing system for the physical world clearly exists.Anonymys

    No you have no evidence of this, unless you’ve decided to perform a brain scan on yourself you could can not justify that belief.
  • hope
    216
    not because my mindAnonymys

    You can only see one side of an object at a time. It's your memory that fills in the other side and tricks you into thinking it really exists. That's just your mind.

    That is why a 3D landscape can be created on a flatscreen tv so easily. Because flat is all we ever had we just didn't realize it.
  • Anonymys
    117


    Okay, let's say I don't have empirical evidence of my brain at this moment. I could, as you stated, get a brain scan and confirm. The fact that there is a consistent and validated way of measuring the brain and its activity through EEG, MRI, fMRI, etc., reveals that the brain exists. Therefore, Just like every other animal, my brain must also exist. So while I may not have evidence (although I do through EEG and PET scan) that I do not have a brain, by inference alone, I could deduce the existence of my brain.




    That is why a 3D landscape can be created on a flatscreen tv so easily. Because flat is all we ever had we just didn't realize it.hope

    okay you're just trolling now
  • Anonymys
    117
    You can only see one side of an object at a time. It's your memory that fills in the other side and tricks you into thinking it really exists. That's just your mind.hope

    I'm sorry but this is simply not how or why you see in 3D.
  • hope
    216
    why you see in 3DAnonymys

    we dont see in 3D, that's my whole point. We see flat. There is no evidence of objects.
  • Anonymys
    117
    There is no evidence of objects.hope

    I again somehow have no constructive criticism for this comment

    Is this just me? Can anyone else say anything about this? Maybe I just can't understand...
  • hope
    216
    I again somehow have no constructive criticism for this commentAnonymys

    If you have any evidence for the existence of objects just present it. and I will check and see if it is or not. and if it is then I will believe in objects. Otherwise they are not much different then belief in god.
  • Anonymys
    117


    Please just read this

    It is "Moore’s proof of an external world & the problem of other minds"
  • hope
    216
    Please just read thisAnonymys

    lol

    I could just link you articles for my side. It's better if i talk to you instead of your links talking to my links in the link war.
  • Anonymys
    117

    haha!

    Fair enough. Give me some time
  • hope
    216
    haha!

    Fair enough. Give me some time
    Anonymys

    Time is another thing which does not exist.

    haha
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.