[Gerry (OP)]

This stems from another forum where “atheism” was a hot topic, and all but the “scientific method” was disqualified.  I’m mostly all for that.  But this got me thinking:  Human consciousness.  Is it measurable?  Can it be isolated and identified?  What is consciousness – and can it be discussed on a scientific forum, or is it a topic more suitable to the philosophical ones? 

Is this the space where “religion” and science meet?  I get that something as profound as “consciousness” could be attributed to mere biology, but there’s way too many questions for that to be a satisfactory answer.  Decision making.  Morality.  Value systems.  Intellect.  Love. The perception of art, music, beauty – all subjective.  Or are they?  Can a love for one type of music over another be attributed to specific physiological things?  Are value systems genetic?  Is consciousness only limited to humans?  Mammals?  Fish?  Bacteria? 

Yup, this is definitely one for the philosophers!



Mod edit - I've formatted your subject as a question - this helps to keep the forum tidy and easy to navigate - thanks!

[Hels]

Hi there. This is my first post, so I hope it's helpful.  I usually define consciousness as the extent to which we are aware of the specificity of time.  That's my short answer.  The more long winded answer takes considerably more explaining, but ultimately the short answer is what it all boils down to. I don't think it's a philosophical question at all. But then, neither is God (he he ... I'll have to leave you dangling on that one until I've substantiated the underlying hypothesis).

[grizelda]

Well, there are a small number of types of entities and interactions the universe is made of, and a large number of each type. It is natural to see the recurring experience of the few types as a pattern (another word for type). So leveraging this situation, one could expect that the brain is a pattern-seeking instrument. With a bit of fine tuning, it could detect patterns of patterns, etc. Take music, for instance. There are patterns of rhythm and rhyme, repeating cadences of pitch and volume, staccato, syncopation, a cacophony of patterns. So given a place to stand, and a long enough lever, we can call the sum of the patterns we observe, consciousness, or structure.

[Hels]

Is consciousness just a pattern?  I think that's what you're suggesting (although - a cacophony of patterns?  My paradox loving brain may nick that concept, if you don't mind  []).  I'm not suggesting consciousness is a pattern.  Like time itself, it is a process and for that process to take place a body must have the necessary communications network and that network must be functioning in the right way (the "right way" being quite a generalised term in this regard).  Whilst some people would argue that trees have consciousness and we cannot prove otherwise, and whilst I must adhere to the fact that we cannot prove otherwise, I have to bend to the model of consciousness as a process requiring systems trees don't have. That is not to say consciousness is the sole domain of neural activity, but being a process means that I am not attributing patterns.

Actually, I tend to work completely the other way round.  Rather than looking for patterns in the things which exist, I tend to think how I would make a system which worked with xyz features, but even if the model I create is a perfect replica of that which exists, then all I can ever say is that my model is self consistent and consistent with the facts.  And my model of consciousness is consistent with the (known) facts, but that still doesn't mean it's right.  But until someone proves otherwise, I'm just happy to go with whatever advance in thinking can be gained from this one.

Does that make sense or am I writing at a complete tangent to what you were meaning?

[om]

Human consciousness.  Is it measurable?  Can it be isolated and identified?  What is consciousness – and can it be discussed on a scientific forum, or is it a topic more suitable to the philosophical ones? 

Mod edit - I've formatted your subject as a question - this helps to keep the forum tidy and easy to navigate - thanks!

Gerry, a discussion of quantum theory on Physics World has stumbled onto the same question.   See:http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/43275


With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel

[grizelda]

 Music usually starts out in some pattern of patterns, then moves away in some pattern to other patterns, and eventually returns to the original pattern. Lather, rinse, repeat. Our brain constantly refers the current pattern to the original pattern, so it always knows where it is in the continuum of things.
 So in general, we have an initial pattern we carry around, and refer the patterns of our experience to it. This is our identity. If not knowing who you are isn't the definition of not-conscious then it should be. 

[sandstone]

Greetings Gerry, you ask an important question.

Just one quote you might find interesting:

Consciousness occurs in systems that do not even have an identifiable brain.  Margaret Wheatley (1992) 'Leadership and the New Science'. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Regards, Sandstone.

[imatfaal]

Sandstone - could you provide an example of consciousness in a non-human system?  Thanks Matthew

[sandstone]

Greetings Matthew,

On p.106 of 'Leadership and the New Science', Wheatley refers to an observation by Nobel laureate chemist, Prigogine, that in 'non-living' chemical solutions, communication occurs, generating order.  In the chemical clocks he studied, the random mix of molecules became coordinated at a certain point.  A murky grey solution would pulse first black and then white.  Prigogine is quoted as saying: The amazing thing is that each molecule knows in some way what the other molecules will do at the same time, over relatively macroscopic distances.  These experiments provide examples of the ways in which molecules communicate...  That is a property that everybody always accepted in living systems, but in non-living systems it was quite unexpected.

Regards, Sandstone.

[imatfaal]

Communication and reaction to external environmental conditions are not consciousness.  I admit, it is much easier to say what consciousness isn't than provide a definition of what it is; but, a mechanism of internal arrangement is not consciousness.

[peppercorn]

On p.106 of 'Leadership and the New Science', Wheatley refers to an observation by Nobel laureate chemist, Prigogine, that in 'non-living' chemical solutions, communication occurs, generating order.  In the chemical clocks he studied, the random mix of molecules became coordinated at a certain point.  A murky grey solution would pulse first black and then white.  Prigogine is quoted as saying: The amazing thing is that each molecule knows in some way what the other molecules will do at the same time, over relatively macroscopic distances.  These experiments provide examples of the ways in which molecules communicate...  That is a property that everybody always accepted in living systems, but in non-living systems it was quite unexpected.

An interesting quote, Sandstone. But don't confuse comparison with living systems as meaning the author truly believes the chemical system has 'life', let alone conciousness.  I have seen these patterns in chemical 'soups' that exhibit an unexpected geometric order and they are incredible, but life they are not.

Incidentally, I would suggest that a stretch of an answer to:

Could you provide an example of consciousness in a non-[primate] system?

might be a termite mound.
Clearly, the hive-mind is not really concious in any human sense but it does meet the standard of:

Consciousness occurs in systems that do not even have an identifiable brain.  Margaret Wheatley (1992) 'Leadership and the New Science'. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

[graham.d]

"might be a termite mound" - Peppercorn, have you read "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstatder (may have spelt his name wrong here)? A very amusing, though also profound, book by this protaganist of Strong AI that has a character he refers to as Aunt Hillary and who is really exactly that!

[imatfaal]

Everyone should read G.E.B. Douglas Hofstadter has got to be one of the most engaging and profound writers out there.  I read it on the tube every morning and night and had total strangers commenting on how much they enjoyed it and they had never read anything else that had the same bizarre structure and beauty. 

I can't remember Aunt Hillary - time to reread it.  And I am still not convinced that a termite mound exhibits hive-consciousness - but I think that is probably just my anthropo-centric definition

[graham.d]

"I am still not convinced that a termite mound exhibits hive-consciousness". No, but Hofstatder uses it as an example how many individually operating primitives can combine to produce something that has purpose and order; something complex from a few simple behavioural rules.

One of the many interesting bits was where he proposes a problem for the reader to solve and then gives the answer on the next page. He then does a similiar thing; I spent ages trying to solve it until giving up only to find that on the next page he says something like - "of course there is no solution to this" grrr!

Great book.

[imatfaal]

I seem to remember reading (on rec.puzzles i think) that there are rumours of hidden messages in the text; not in a da vinci code way, but in a douglas hofstatder likes games and puzzles way.  the same person who recommended GEB to me also said I should read the emporer's new mind by penrose; now that was a real stuggle and it left me totally cold.

[graham.d]

It could have been me that recommended it (though it probably wasn't) as I like all of Roger Penrose's stuff. Another writer I admire is Steven Pinker. "The Language Instinct" is an example.

[imatfaal]

Agree entirely - 'the Blank Slate' is also superb and quite a brave book

[peppercorn]

"might be a termite mound" - Peppercorn, have you read "Godel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstatder (may have spelt his name wrong here)? A very amusing, though also profound, book by this protaganist of Strong AI that has a character he refers to as Aunt Hillary and who is really exactly that!

Sounds well worth a look  [:0]
Trouble is the world is chock-full of amazing books - where to start...

[sandstone]

Matthew,

There was no suggestion that the solution was a living entity.  According to Prigogine, it simply appeared to behave in a conscious manner. 

Sandstone.

 

[imatfaal]

Sandy - you have so far provided an example of a self-organising system that, although very interesting, follows well understood checmincal/mathematical pathways.  consciousness is so much more than that; it is difficult to define but in my eyes must contain elements of premeditation, strategic planning, emotional enjoyment, empathic feelings, and cognitive reasoning to name just a few things.