False Consciousness: Why Most are not really Conscious

[Felasco]

Hume notwithstanding, I think Baba Bozo is anticipating a time when the mechanics of the brain are understood with equal clarity.

Let us forget about the mechanics of the brain, it's not important in this context. A distracting side trail introduced by me, best discarded.

For my money, uwot has the best post so far.

When asked how he would study chipmunks, he said he would observe them. That's simple, obvious, direct, non-esoteric, and practical.

A danger presented to all threads of this nature is that don't bother to do the actual observation of the chipmunks, and race right ahead in to the satisfying business of theories and conclusions.

Even if one wishes to stay within the realm of philosophy (and not aphilosophy) careful observation is still the first step.

[Arising_uk]

In order for there to be something such as an "object" or a "thing" there have to be boundaries. Functionally, in the real world, boundaries are largely an illusion given the pervasive interconnectedness of all things.

No, functionally all objects have boundaries that's why they are objects. The illusion is yours in reifying the relations between objects into a thing.

This can be demonstrated in a compelling way with the simplest experiment. Please hold your breath for the next minute.

In thought, conceptually, it feels like Arising is a very discrete and separate thing with a hard black clear boundary line between Arising and non-Arising, but in the real world this is only true for a couple of minutes at best.

And my skin is what? That I need to breathe is a function of me being a living object or thing.

When does that next breath you take become you?

When it puts oxygen into my bloodstream.

We could reasonably draw the boundary between Arising and air in a number of places, which illustrates the essentially arbitrary invented nature of boundaries.

What other places? There is nothing arbitrary about the external world being objects and things in relation.

[uwot]

Let us forget about the mechanics of the brain, it's not important in this context. A distracting side trail introduced by me, best discarded.

For my money, uwot has the best post so far.

When asked how he would study chipmunks, he said he would observe them. That's simple, obvious, direct, non-esoteric, and practical.

Well, yes, but then with chipmunks I know what I'm looking for. As far as I can see, all there is to observe of thought is the mechanics of the brain associated with thoughts, the reports that people give of their thoughts and the relationship between the two. You have stated that it's not the mechanics we should look at, which also rules out any relation they might have to anything. That just leaves people's reports which are better gathered by engaging them rather than hiding. Or reading, which you don't appear to have much time for, Baba Bozo. Fair enough, books aren't everyone's cup of tea, but we are going to have to establish just what you think we are looking at.

A danger presented to all threads of this nature is that don't bother to do the actual observation of the chipmunks, and race right ahead in to the satisfying business of theories and conclusions.

Even if one wishes to stay within the realm of philosophy (and not aphilosophy) careful observation is still the first step.

As a hard nosed empiricist I would argue that observation being the first step is comfortably within the realm of philosophy. So, yes, I agree.

[uwot]

In order for there to be something such as an "object" or a "thing" there have to be boundaries. Functionally, in the real world, boundaries are largely an illusion given the pervasive interconnectedness of all things.

No, functionally all objects have boundaries that's why they are objects. The illusion is yours in reifying the relations between objects into a thing.

I think, Baba Bozo, you might be thinking along the lines of Heraclitus. Plato credited him with the claim that you can never step into the same river twice. The point being that the water that makes up the river isn't the same from one moment to the next. There is also the ship of Theseus. Basically, Theseus' ship was preserved, but as time went by, bits were replaced until not a single plank from the original boat remained. The question is, is it still the ship of Theseus? Identity, what makes something distinct from the rest of the universe, has been an issue since the dawn of philosophy.
A standard puzzle philosophers have to consider is that, apparently, every cell in our body is replaced after seven years or so, but are we the same person? The atoms we are made of, as you say, Baba Bozo, were all formed in supernovae, and in that sense we are intimately linked to the universe, but as you point out, in my view correctly, whatever thought, or consciousness is, it too is part of the universe. As such, it should be observable as you suggest. The weird thing, as Ginkgo has pointed out; it isn't. Funny, that.

[Felasco]

No, functionally all objects have boundaries that's why they are objects.

Please identify the boundary between you and your next breath.

[Felasco]

Well, yes, but then with chipmunks I know what I'm looking for. As far as I can see, all there is to observe of thought is the mechanics of the brain associated with thoughts, the reports that people give of their thoughts and the relationship between the two. You have stated that it's not the mechanics we should look at, which also rules out any relation they might have to anything. That just leaves people's reports which are better gathered by engaging them rather than hiding.

You are thinking now. Observe it. Simple.

As a hard nosed empiricist I would argue that observation being the first step is comfortably within the realm of philosophy.

If the observation of thought would be the appropriate first step in both philosophy and aphilosophy, why not try it?

[Greylorn Ell]

...
Brain research is a perfect example of the value of interference. Scientists have made thousands of interesting observations about the nature of consciousness, but still cannot explain the case of Phineas Gage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage...

Not sure what is it you wish explained?

AUK,

By all known experience and research, that injury should have left Mr. Gage a cretin. It obviously did not. Why not?

If he was left-handed, Beon Theory answers that question. But I've not found any helpful records.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn,

1. Observation is good.

Philosophy uses observation as a means to the end of theories and conclusions.

What Baba Bozo sometimes calls "aPhilosophy" (see ancient threads under username Typist) reverses the equation, and uses theories and conclusions as a means to the end of observation.

If philosophy was an object, aphilosophy would be the empty space surrounding and defining the object. The empty space is the silent but essential partner, just as the spaces between my words create those words.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper, and label the circle philosophy. This is the realm you explore as a scientist, the realm where observation is a means to the end of conclusions.

Baba Bozo is exploring outside the circle, in the realm where conclusions are a means to the end of observation.

Point being, I'm trying to put our exchanges in to a context.

Baba Bozo is only a jerk most of the time, and if you should wish to explore your better angels here, I will attempt the same.

Baba B,

Your notions about spaces reflect ideas that a mathematician friend and I are kicking around. My theories depend upon the realistic possibilities of spaces within which we exist but cannot enter.

Consider that if the space you declare to be outside that contained within the circle is truly empty, then there is nothing for you to find within it.

Baba Bozo has been a mellowing influence to this thread, his sense of humor mitigating the faults that he shares with others of us. You (like me and others here) have often come across as a jerk, but not so for Baba B. Perhaps he is the guardian angel perched on a shoulder, whispering in your ear. Or perhaps not. Whatever, I appreciate his sense of humor.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

You have introduced water as a metaphor for a medium I see no evidence for;

Do you deny the physical existence of some sort of chemo/electrical activity in the brain which could be labeled thought?

Do you deny the validity of Pam Reynolds' experience, wherein she went Out of Body during extreme neurosurgery, and subsequently (post-surgery) accurately related events and words from the surgery room?

Her experiences occurred during a period of time, clocked by the monitoring instruments, wherein her brain had been rendered electrochemically dysfunctional.

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

.

Thank you! Thank you for posting this.

It is not so important the content of one's thoughts but the recognition of thought as a function.

As an observable function.
.

Bill,

Yes. And the next question is-- what are, and perhaps even where are, the mechanisms of which thought is a function?

Do you also note that the only entity capable of observing a thought is the one who has it?

Greylorn

[Greylorn Ell]

...whatever thought, or consciousness is, it too is part of the universe. As such, it should be observable as you suggest. The weird thing, as Ginkgo has pointed out; it isn't. Funny, that.

Not so funny, inasmuch as everything that we observe is observed indirectly.

No human has ever touched a single particle of matter, in the normal sense of what we regard as "touch." The best we can do is to interact with the electric fields that surround atoms.

Sure, you can pick up a marble and roll it around in your hand, play with it with your fingers. But it is the electric fields surrounding the marble's molecules that interact with the electric fields surrounding your skin that produce the interactive forces/counterforces that are essential to the observations of any component of reality.

Your brain has learned to interpret electrochemical signals generated by your hand's interaction with a marble to recognize the size, shape, texture and weight of the marble. But your brain does not directly detect the marble.

And the "you" that deciphers the reality of a little marble in one hand remains a mystery. Where in your brain might "you" be residing?

[Greylorn Ell]

Let us forget about the mechanics of the brain, it's not important in this context.

Will Baba Bozo, when clunky, scraping, screeching noises come from beneath the hood of his automobile, take his car to a mystical repair person wearing a violet robe and wielding a wooden stick (magic wand) who openly declares that the mechanics of engines are unimportant?

[Ginkgo]

When it comes to the brain there is nothing in modern science at the moment that can establish a one to one correspondence we can observe. We can of course observe such a correspondence when it comes to examining the internal working of a motorcar

To be honest, I'm still not entirely certain what the best analogy is for what Baba Bozo is trying to say. Perhaps in a car the thing that equates to thought is movement. As you say, Ginkgo, we understand from experience the causal chain that starts with the workings of an internal combustion engine and ends with locomotion. Hume notwithstanding, I think Baba Bozo is anticipating a time when the mechanics of the brain are understood with equal clarity.

You are right about the relevance of the casual chain in relation to the Falasco analogy. The thinking at the moment is that consciousness is not unified. Basically, this means there is no neural core,or center of consciousness. Conscious thoughts don't always occur in the same place and sometimes a thought can occur in several places in the brain at the same time.

Descartes has indirectly influenced many and has given rise to the wrong idea that when we receive information through our senses this information ends up as a crescendo of data going to the pace where it should go. That is, the neural center of consciousness which is where all of this sensory information is transformed into thoughts. A casual explanation for dis unity runs into a number of problems when we start to talk about spike trains and the brain.

[Greylorn Ell]

...The thinking at the moment is that consciousness is not unified. Basically, this means there is no neural core,or center of consciousness. Conscious thoughts don't always occur in the same place and sometimes a thought can occur in several places in the brain at the same time.

Descartes has indirectly influenced many and has given rise to the wrong idea that when we receive information through our senses this information ends up as a crescendo of data going to the pace where it should go. That is, the neural center of consciousness which is where all of this sensory information is transformed into thoughts. A casual explanation for dis unity runs into a number of problems when we start to talk about spike trains and the brain.

Ginkgo,

Remember please that Descartes was a pioneer in this kind of thinking. Mistakes were inevitable.

He came from Catholicism, and was trying to reconcile the notion of the soul as both spirit and mind, with the physicality of the brain to which soul was attached. He fixated upon the pineal gland as the "focal point" (my words, not his) of the soul because it was the only single, non-divided biological mechanism within the brain.

Descartes saw the "soul" as the conscious mind, i.e., the entity responsible for consciousness.

He knew that the brain was bi-hemispheral, two of everything duplicated left and right-- except the pineal gland. The soul had to be a single entity connected, somehow, to a bicameral brain. It was perfectly reasonable to assume that soul would be connected to the only other one-of-a-kind component of the brain-- the pineal gland. Hence, some of the errors in his thinking.

Descartes did what could be done with the limited science of his time-- a time in which but one of Newton's three laws of mechanics had been discovered (by Galileo). Descartes' mathematics led to the science needed to expand his ideas.

For example, Descartes did not appreciate the mathematical validity of imaginary numbers. These pesky mathematical entities come about when one tries to calculate the square root of a negative number. Imaginary numbers would seem irrelevant-- except that when we expand Maxwell's equations to describe the transmission of electromagnetic waves (radio waves, TV received through a good old-fashioned antenna, light, etc.) imaginary numbers are exponential terms in those equations.

And those equations tell us how radio and TV antennas work. Look at your car's antenna. It is a linear stick, not a point. More interesting, from the perspective of the incoming radio waves that it detects, your antenna looks pretty much like a bunny's ear, extended in three-dimensional space-time.

Had he been armed with this knowledge derived with the assistance of his own mathematical insights, would Descartes have settled upon a point-source, the pineal gland, as his antenna for the soul? I think not.

I think that he would have sought a larger, more complex series of mechanisms unique to the human brain that capture and restrain the soul, holding it hostage to the input/output devices of the brain during the brain's life, with the point of leaving the soul conscious of its existence at the end of biological life.

In this scenario, the soul has the freedom to roam within the confines of the human skull, learning how to translate information from all points within the brain, and how to control its connected body in minute detail, according to its focus, and dependent upon the body's limits.

As extreme examples of this spectrum of physiological focus-- the Green Bay Packers' previous quarterback, Brett Favre, could pick up a baseball with either foot. Stephen Hawking can "speak" by moving his eyeballs. Advanced yogis can control their metabolic rate.

Clearly, if soul exists (beon, in my parlance) it is free to roam within the brain, confined only by a biochemical leash that it can learn to stretch.

[uwot]

You are thinking now.

It's what I do.

Observe it.

How do I observe without thinking? To paraphrase David Hume (him again) when I try to observe thought, I cannot see anything that isn't a thought about something. When I take the something away, there's nothing left. Perhaps Hume and yours truly are mentally deficient, but I really don't know what you mean.

Simple.

That's easy for you to say, Baba Bozo.