~ Consciousness; the brain’s non-conceptual theory about itself ~

[Bill Wiltrack]

.


.................................................................






“Consciousness is the brain’s non-conceptual theory about itself, gained through experience—that is learning, interacting with itself, the world, and with other people,” says Axel Cleeremans.



In the paper where he puts forward his thesis, Cleeremans argues that in order to be aware, it’s necessary not simply to know information, but to know that one knows information. In other words, unlike a thermostat that simply records temperature, conscious humans both know and care that they know. Cleeremans claims that the brain is continually and unconsciously learning to re-describe its own activity to itself, and these descriptions form the basis of conscious experience.



Ultimately, Cleeremans believes that consciousness is “the brain’s theory about itself.”





Axel Cleeremans
Université Libre de Bruxelles




... learning may occur without consciousness, consciousness without learning is not possible.







.

[Dalek Prime]

Knowing that one knows information.... That I can accept. Very close to I think therefore I am.

[Arik-Alb]

This theory sounds reasonable, though I'm not sure what a "non-conceptual" theory is. I believe there is non-conceptual knowing, but I'd also consider that to be a non-theoretical (i.e. non-verbal) type of knowing that comes from (or just is) immediate experience. If the claim is that the brain forms unconscious theories which constitute our experience, then these must be conceptual theories.

If the brain is unconsciously forming conceptual theories, and this is the basis of consciousness, then how can this account for animal consciousness? Do animals unconsciously use concepts to describe their brain's workings, despite that they don't consciously use concepts?

[Dalek Prime]

That's the thing about consciousness. I know I have it. I make the very plausible leap that I'm.not the only one who does. But to examine a model, any model, from the midst of it, is fraught with many unknowns. Yes, we can look at the workings with newer tools, and estimate what is going on in the wetworks, but this like many other things is not as clear cut as what we know, which is that somehow, we have consciousness. Beyond that, no matter how accurate, is not as profoundly solid as our awareness of it, whatever it is.

Anyways, I'm sick, and probably not making much sense, so I'll leave off. Goodnight.

[Trajk Logik]

.

Ultimately, Cleeremans believes that consciousness is “the brain’s theory about itself.”

In other words, consciousness is simply being self-aware.

But isn't this simply a result of how the brain categorizes experiences? A self is simply a category of certain experiences, just as trees, rocks, clouds, etc. are all categories, and if present in the current experience then it can be said that it is aware of such a thing as trees, rocks, clouds, or the self.

I would say consciousness is simply the amalgam of sensory information from the different senses coming together into an information architecture. There exists this space occupied with various sensory information that the attention roams around and then amplifies certain areas for certain purposes.

Attention is a necessary requirement for consciousness and conscious could be a model of attention.
https://www.princeton.edu/~graziano/research.html

Any organism with a central nervous system is conscious because the brain is the central location where the sensory information comes together for attention to prioritize. Whatever part of the experience the attention is amplifying in the moment is what the organism is aware of at that moment. It could be the food, mates, or the self. I believe that many animals are self-aware - just not in the form humans are. Whenever an organism is attending some personal state, it is self-aware. Animals don't get confused by their own smell and the smell of others, or the sound of itself, and the sound of others. It is capable of categorizing these experiences in such a way so that it can trigger the appropriate behavior. You don't see dogs jumping at the sound of their own bark because they are aware that they are the ones barking and not some other dog.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.




.................................GREAT post. Thank you for participating & welcome to The Forum.




.

[A Human]

.In the paper where he puts forward his thesis, Cleeremans argues that in order to be aware, it’s necessary not simply to know information, but to know that one knows information. In other words, unlike a thermostat that simply records temperature, conscious humans both know and care that they know. Cleeremans claims that the brain is continually and unconsciously learning to re-describe its own activity to itself, and these descriptions form the basis of conscious experience.[/size]

This is actually quite standard in advance considerations of things like this.
Another way of putting what was said above (not being familiar with the author(s)), just what was said in the text above.

It's not enough to be learned in epistemology, epistemology about epistemology is required.

A person can become familiar with how they know what they know AND simultaneously familiar with how they think they know.

Another way of putting it, a person can be familiar with what they know AND familiar with the processes they have that are generating that input as well.

[Walker]

You don't see dogs jumping at the sound of their own bark because they are aware that they are the ones barking and not some other dog.

Not exactly.

Dogs do jump when they bark. A bark is designed to be loud and that requires a whole body effort. I’d say that the sound of their own first bark startles them to bark again, louder, with even more jumping force. A dog doesn’t bark just once, unless it’s been trained to stifle after the first bark. You’ll hear a dog bark once and then immediately it follows up with many more energetic barks. It was startled by its own first bark. Likely every bark after that is inspired by the previous bark, each startling bark amping up the energy for possible trouble coming around the corner. Dogs are barking machines that can keep on self-fueling the barks until told to shut up, though they sometimes think the human is joining in to make a pack chorus, which encourages them to continue.

Dogs bark when startled and there’s not much of a time lag between the stimulus and response, which indicates there’s not much mental processing going on with the bark process. No inhibitions to hold back the bark unless the dog has been trained. The training doesn’t usually involve an appeal to the dog’s reasoning powers.

Ever notice a dog bark at its own farts? This sometimes happens when they’re drowsy and semi-conscious. They startle themselves with their own sound, and may even leap to their paws barking at that sound somewhere behind them, not knowing that they made the sound. If it’s a young dog and fully awake, it might even chase its own tail, not knowing that it’s chasing its own tail.

Or maybe they do know.

Maybe they also know that they are locked onto a course of inevitability, doing what they must, and so they just get on with it without the drama of doubt.

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







Axel Cleeremans has zero credibility here, not sure you are using the quote function correctly, and welcome to The Forum!



Wear it out!



Wear it out!






.

[Terrapin Station]

"Non-conceptual theory"???

Take away his degrees.

[OuterLimits]

The OP is just semantic garbage. Much garbage can be simply dumped out by contemplating "the problem of other minds."

What is the Problem of Other Minds?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/

If one has no scientific evidence (or definition) regarding some individual's sentience aka awareness aka first-person subjective experience, then science has nothing to say regarding what causes it or changes it.

"But in the study of the mind, sentience floats in its own plane, high above the causal chains of psychology and neuroscience." - Pinker,
How the Mind Works

[Bill Wiltrack]

.







Think we're basically saying the same thing. Perhaps we are losing each other in semantics.

If you think of the intellect as a function then realize that consciousness is a state of being that may help us to find the common ground between us...







.