Truly, What Is Consciousness?

[Consul]

We already have it ever since we became social animals which arguably is always. Understanding how other sentient creatures feel is evolved by natural selection in social animals. True, many humans lack a sufficient degree of empathy and sympathy , so apes and dogs are nicer social animals than we are.

To say that I cannot experience or perceive another subject's experiences is not to say that I cannot empathetically or sympathetically imagine another subject's experiences—what it is like to be that other subject. However, if the other subject is nonhuman, I have difficulty or just don't succeed in doing so. To use Thomas Nagel's famous example: can I imagine what it is like to be bat?

-- Updated April 16th, 2017, 11:28 am to add the following --

…I cannot experience…another subject's experiences…

I just noticed that this statement is misleadingly ambiguous. I don't mean to say that an experience of mine and an experience of another subject cannot be different tokens of the same type (kind) of experience, and that two (numerically) different experience-tokens had by two (numerically) different subjects cannot be qualitatively similar or even qualitatively identical. What I mean to say is that I cannot experience, have or undergo another subject's experience-tokens, since in order for me to be able to do so I would have to be that other subject.

[Woodart]

You cannot experience or perceive the consciousness of another subject.

I hear that that is how you think the universe works - but I think there are boundaries beyond your and my understanding, Horatio - I mean Consul.

[Consul]

You cannot experience or perceive the consciousness of another subject.

I hear that that is how you think the universe works - but I think there are boundaries beyond your and my understanding, Horatio - I mean Consul.

HOW can subject A experience or perceive experiences had by subject B in case A ≠ B?

[Felix]

Consul: You cannot experience or perceive the consciousness of another subject.

All you can rightly claim is that you cannot perceive (have not perceived) another subject's consciousness, not that it's impossible to do so. Transpersonal psychologists can recount countless episodes of people doing just that, see for example Stanislav Grof's books.

Woodart: I think it is fair to say that emotions are subjective evaluations.

I think you mean a response to subjective evaluations?

[Woodart]

HOW can subject A experience or perceive experiences had by subject B in case A ≠ B?

Have you ever read any Krishnamurti? Have you ever been in the presence of a real mystic? There are not many of these people around and they tend to shun the public. Do you think humans are going to advance, in only certain ways? What if we meet creatures that are 10 million years more evolved than us – do you think they might show us a trick or two? And is it in the realm of possibility that these creatures where shown “tricks” by beings much more advanced than themselves?

I think you mean a response to subjective evaluations?

Correct.

[Consul]

HOW can subject A experience or perceive experiences had by subject B in case A ≠ B?

Have you ever read any Krishnamurti?

No.

Have you ever been in the presence of a real mystic?

I don't know what a "real mystic" is.
Whatever, you haven't answered my question.

[Belindi]

Then we disagree in this matter. Can I possibly point you to physiology of emotions and add that physiology is scientific and objective?

Belindi – it may be presumptuous of me, but I think you are leading me to your point of view as a determinist. I respect determinism, but I do not think it tells the whole story. I expressed my thinking on this in another thread:

onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtop ... 26#p286226

If this is your position, we could talk about it here or there, because it goes to the heart of consciousness. If you are saying something else – please explain – because I am missing it?

What you are missing is you conflate feelings and emotions. Emotions have mass. They are visible and tangible. Emotions are compounded of the effects of hormones and other biochemicals on the body including the brain-mind. The word you need is not 'emotions' but 'feelings' which emotions do influence but feelings add memory and learning. In fact, some individuals learn so little sensibility, reasoning, and knowledge that they react to their emotions. Others add more sensibility, judgement, and knowledge to their emotions.

You use the word 'emotions' as most people use the word. We have to tighten up our definitions when we are doing philosophy. Consciousness is a peculiarly difficult idea to discuss so there is good reason to consider the neuroscience in order to shed light on our ideas.

I am a determinist you are quite right. As a determinist I am on the side of adding sensibility, critical judgement, and knowledge to emotions, as I think that unrefined emotions curtail choices thus making for less freedom of thought and action.

[Woodart]

What you are missing is you conflate feelings and emotions. Emotions have mass. They are visible and tangible. Emotions are compounded of the effects of hormones and other biochemicals on the body including the brain-mind. The word you need is not 'emotions' but 'feelings' which emotions do influence but feelings add memory and learning. In fact, some individuals learn so little sensibility, reasoning, and knowledge that they react to their emotions. Others add more sensibility, judgement, and knowledge to their emotions.

You use the word 'emotions' as most people use the word. We have to tighten up our definitions when we are doing philosophy. Consciousness is a peculiarly difficult idea to discuss so there is good reason to consider the neuroscience in order to shed light on our ideas.
.

I thought I clearly said that feelings can be two separate things: 1- a sensation or 2- an emotion. So I said the word is confusing because it could be construed a wrong way. Therefore I try not to use it – so I am not misunderstood. I do not think it is worthwhile to talk about this word. I do not like quibbling, especially when there is nothing to gain.

I understand you think physiology explains all emotions or feeling. I think it does too, but only to a certain extent. It is not the whole picture.

I am a determinist you are quite right. As a determinist I am on the side of adding sensibility, critical judgement, and knowledge to emotions, as I think that unrefined emotions curtail choices thus making for less freedom of thought and action.

Here is what I wrote in the other thread I referred to:

The problem I see in the free will vs determinism debate is that each camp try’s to disprove or discredit the other. I think this is a mistake. Both are at work in our lives. I acknowledge that much, maybe most, of what happens to me is determined by prior circumstance. Or to put it a better way – shaped. The nuances of emotion can inject an influence which is beyond the physical and sometimes the rational. Emotions can be a wildcard. To say we do not fully grasp emotions is an understatement. Emotions really are subtle.

Deterministic philosophy gives us principles to eventually connect everything. That which we do not understand or see a causal relationship; the philosophy extols us to have faith in the principles so that over time we may see the light. In many instances it is true that in time and with increased focus a connection is revealed; but not always. Does science always have an answer? No – it does not.

Another interesting way to look at determinism is to observe its proponents. Pure deterministic philosophers tend to zealous. They have seized a system of thinking that needs to be propounded and defended. It’s a religious crusade. Why? – Because it is the truth; it settles the question of free will; it provides a logic system you can hang your hat on. Let’s put aside for a moment the veracity of determinism. What does it say about its adherents? It says they like a script that provides resolution to how the universe is connected. Well, who wouldn’t?

Well here we are as human beings adrift on a pebble in the vastness of the universe. We are consumed with are insignificance and insecurity. We as thinkers are painfully aware we do not know very much and the more we learn – we discover there is more to know. The universe gets larger and deeper the more we look. Determinism comes along and gives us a ray of hope that we may have a little handle on things. I agree it is a great way to explain many, if not most things - or at least connections. Is this script a blueprint to the whole picture – is it scripture? I think not because we are still desperately insecure – an emotion.

Another way of looking at things is to ask a question which is a kind of joke. What is the oldest profession? The answer has always been – prostitute. Would it not be fair to say that before the prostitute there needed to be a person pointing a finger and saying – whore! Who was that finger pointer? It was a priest, shaman and/or person of wisdom and authority. In other words it was a philosopher. The philosopher/shaman framed how we look at the universe and ourselves. He/she chased the boogieman away and told us how to live. Well maybe free will is the boogieman. However I doubt determinism sees the whole picture.

Emotion as part of consciousness is more than the sum of its parts. Emotion is not energy in a physical sense; although it is connected to a physical body. Emotion is amorphous and can be at the same time specific. Emotion can be weak and strong at the same time. A good analogy would be a quantum particle – it has more than one state. Emotion is a driver and spark to our predilections. It is both a guide to freedom and a chain to imprisonment.

In my view determinism and free will work together to give us a full picture. The focus of that picture is many times refined by free will and at other times determinism set the camera lens. I don’t think we should throw the baby out with bath water.

Emotion is a part of consciousness, a large part. Well, where does it come from? Obviously it is connected to our biology. So does biology tell the whole story? I do not think so. A much harder question is to ask – what is emotion and can we describe it? I think we can describe parts of it – characteristics, intentions, features and attributes. Emotions tend to be mixed up with each other; and to make matters worse they get mixed up with other people’s emotions.

There has been a lot of work lately with MRI, EEG and other electronic hardware to track emotions. It has produced a wealth of information – good data. However the data is not always consistent and many times contradicting. Well, you say, we need better hardware. Perhaps, but I think better hardware will still leave gaps in our understanding. Why? – Because understanding the mechanics of emotion does not tell the entire story. Emotions have qualities that go beyond physical attributes and dimension. Take for example projection – we project our emotions unto other “things” – trees, rocks, dogs. How about empathy or compassion? Where do these emotions come from, what triggers them? What about humor, it’s a funny thing. Strike that, it is not a laughing matter. Determinists may say they have an explanation for these things. Well, I would like to hear it?

Emotions are intertwined with another tricky entity – desire. Desire or volition is another aspect of consciousness. Well what is it? I know what some of my desires are; but what is it and where did it come from? Why do I have desires and what can I do about it? Join a church – philosophy club? Can I use the same electronic machines to measure my desire? Maybe, but I think it will be awhile before a machine can tell me why I want something or what I want next. I have not heard an adequate explanation from determinist on the subject of desire. If you have one – please share it. I hope it is more than one force acting upon another. Or some mathematical equation that makes us all dizzy.

It would be convenient to say we will get a handle on this eventually. And maybe we will in 1000 years or a million years. Or it might take 10 billion years. Can you imagine what human beings would be like in 10 billion years? I can’t, I am just hoping we can make it through the next 4 years. And unfortunately for us this is not a joke, or maybe it is and the joke is on us all.

[Consul]

Consul: You cannot experience or perceive the consciousness of another subject.

All you can rightly claim is that you cannot perceive (have not perceived) another subject's consciousness, not that it's impossible to do so. Transpersonal psychologists can recount countless episodes of people doing just that, see for example Stanislav Grof's books.

In the fantasy world of psychedelia and spiritualism people are dancing with angels. I'm talking about the real world.
Nevertheless, I'm a curious person, so if you can explain how it's possible for me to (directly) experience or perceive your experiences, please do so!

The only possible case I can imagine are cerebrally conjoined twins who share parts of their brains so that they can share experiences by undergoing identical experiences (experience-tokens) produced by the brain part they have in common. But we two are not cerebrally conjoined twins, so we cannot share experiences in this way!

My question as to whether it's possible for subject A to experience/perceive the (content of the) consciousness of another subject B concerns subjects (persons) who are not only different/non-identical but also (mereologically) distinct/disjoint (non-overlapping). The brains of two distinct/disjoint subjects A and B could somehow be technically connected and synchronized, such that the content of A's consciousness becomes a duplicate of B's content of consciousness; but even in this sci-fi case we have two (mereologically) distinct/disjoint brains and two (mereologically) distinct/disjoint fields of consciousness. So even though A's experience-tokens are duplicates of, i.e. qualitatively identical to, B's experience-tokens, A cannot experience/perceive B's experience-tokens because they are numerically different from the ones he experiences/perceives.

[Tamminen]

I think the reason why it is so difficult to explain or define consciousness is that we see it as a phenomenon among other phenomena. But phenomena present themselves to the subject (i.e. to me, to us) and consciousness is the way phenomena present themselves to us. Therefore consciousness is ontologically closer to us than other phenomena, and there is no conceptual bridge between consciousness and the material world, which means that consciousness cannot be explained or defined by scientific concepts. There are only correlations between those two levels of being.

Since we are using consciousness to search for consciousness, it's a bit like getting into your car, to go look for your car.
It's just not possible to step outside of ourselves, because everywhere we go, THERE we are. We do not HAVE a consciousness, we ARE a consciousness.

I would say that the problem of consciousness is not difficult, if it is a problem at all. Even Descartes had a hunch of this, although he interpreted consciousness as substance, which led him astray. Consciousness is the starting point of philosophy because it is the precondition of all being, and by studying the structure of consciousness we will get closer to the meaning of the world, matter and time, for example. This is, of course, a strong ontological view and differs very much from the present main stream of thought among scientists.

[Belindi]

Most of the posters are saying "consciousness" when qualia would pinpoint what is intended.

[Consul]

Most of the posters are saying "consciousness" when qualia would pinpoint what is intended.

"[T]o be conscious is to have qualia."

(Stubenberg, Leopold. Consciousness and Qualia. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998. p. 5)

Okay, but what exactly are qualia?
Qualia are experiential/phenomenal qualities/properties, and for an object or person to have such a quality/property is for it/her/him to undergo a sensation, emotion, or imagination with a certain subjective "feel" or "what-it-is-like-ness". So I suggest that (phenomenal) consciousness is best defined in terms of the sensation-emotion-imagination complex (= subjective experience). (I subsume thought under imagination.) Wherever there is sensation, emotion, or imagination, there is (phenomenal) consciousness. And there is always something it is or feels like to be a subject of a sensation, emotion, or imagination, all of which have an intrinsic qualitative character.

Footnote:
Above I presuppose that qualia are properties of subjects of experience, of experienceRs rather than of experiences. But, for instance, in the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Thomas Nagel defines "qualia" as "the subjective qualities of conscious experience", which definition turns experiences themselves into qualia-bearers.

"A note on phenomenal properties: It is natural to speak as if phenomenal properties are instantiated by mental states, and as if there are entities, experiences, that bear their phenomenal properties essentially. But one can also speak as if phenomenal properties are directly instantiated by conscious subjects, typing subjects by aspects of what it is like to be them at the time of instantiation. These ways of speaking do not commit one to corresponding ontologies, but they at least suggest such ontologies. In a quality-based ontology, the subject-property relation is fundamental. From this one can derive a subject-experience-property structure, by identifying experiences with phenomenal states (instantiations of phenomenal properties), and attributing phenomenal properties to these states in a derivative sense. In a more complex experience-based ontology, a subject-experience-property structure is fundamental (where experiences are phenomenal individuals, or at least something more than property instantiations), and the subject-property relation is derivative. In what follows, I will sometimes use both sorts of language, and will be neutral between the ontological frameworks."

(Chalmers, David J. "The Content of Phenomenal Concepts." In The Character of Consciousness, 251-275. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. p. 253)

-- Updated April 17th, 2017, 11:09 am to add the following --

Consciousness is the starting point of philosophy because it is the precondition of all being, and by studying the structure of consciousness we will get closer to the meaning of the world, matter and time, for example. This is, of course, a strong ontological view and differs very much from the present main stream of thought among scientists.

Yes, indeed. However:

"It is a famous anomaly of recent science that while an influential number of physicists, once supposed to be students of physical nature, are suggesting that only conscious experience exists, an equally influential number of psychologists, once supposed to be students of consciousness, have suggested that only physical nature exists."

(Williams, Donald Cary. "The Existence of Consciousness." In Principles of Empirical Realism: Philosophical Essays, 23-40. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, 1966. p. 23)



Seriously, the basic mistake of ontological idealism/mentalism/spiritualism is to suppose that "consciousness…is the precondition of all being", that esse est percipi—when it is in fact nothing more than the precondition of all perceptions, (re)presentations, (re)cognitions of being!

[Tamminen]

I am not claiming that all being is being perceived, because that would be silly. There is plenty of being that is never perceived, but it is never perceived from a standpoint of a subject, because it is impossible (for me, at least) to imagine a world that no one has ever experienced or will ever experience. So the subject-object relation is in the nucleus of reality.

[Woodart]

I think the reason why it is so difficult to explain or define consciousness is that we see it as a phenomenon among other phenomena. But phenomena present themselves to the subject (i.e. to me, to us) and consciousness is the way phenomena present themselves to us. Therefore consciousness is ontologically closer to us than other phenomena, and there is no conceptual bridge between consciousness and the material world, which means that consciousness cannot be explained or defined by scientific concepts. There are only correlations between those two levels of being.

Since we are using consciousness to search for consciousness, it's a bit like getting into your car, to go look for your car.
It's just not possible to step outside of ourselves, because everywhere we go, THERE we are. We do not HAVE a consciousness, we ARE a consciousness.

I would say that the problem of consciousness is not difficult, if it is a problem at all. Even Descartes had a hunch of this, although he interpreted consciousness as substance, which led him astray. Consciousness is the starting point of philosophy because it is the precondition of all being, and by studying the structure of consciousness we will get closer to the meaning of the world, matter and time, for example. This is, of course, a strong ontological view and differs very much from the present main stream of thought among scientists.

I like your comments, but I don’t quite agree with some of your conclusions. I think consciousness is the bridge between us and the material world. We use consciousness to see over the horizon. Remember – philosophy is the first science. Well what is science? Actually, science is science fiction – or at least it should be considered that way. What is science for? It is a bridge to tomorrow. We are not satisfied with today. Why – because we want something better. Ask yourself – what is the first scientific instrument? It is a club or rock used as a basher. I can’t forget the movie – Quest for Fire – in the beginning an Ape throws a club up in the air. He sees for the first time he can use an object outside of his body to do something. That’s what science is - seeing a connection. It doesn’t have to be real or right – it is an experiment.

Well, why aren’t we satisfied with today? Because, as I am sitting under a banana tree with my buddy, feeling full and happy – he points and says - what’s that? I say – I don’t know, but someone told me it’s a mountain. What’s a mountain? Imagination – it’s actually a drug like heroin. Some addictions are better than others.

Science is our quest for fire. My motto is – beam me up Scotty, I am tired of this planet. Philosophy is the first science – so what are we doing here? We are investigating a mountain – it is called consciousness. Philosophy is the first tool of investigation – it is our club. As we bash and stumble around with our magnificent clubs – we sometimes dislodge some rocks from the mountain of consciousness. I think we have a way to go before we reach the top of this mountain. As a matter of fact – I am not sure there is a top. I think emotion is the bedrock of the mountain of consciousness.

[Felix]

Consul: In the fantasy world of psychedelia and spiritualism people are dancing with angels. I'm talking about the real world. Nevertheless, I'm a curious person, so if you can explain how it's possible for me to (directly) experience or perceive your experiences, please do so!

One man's fantasy is anothers reality. Not everything has a rational explanation and even what does can't necessarily be taught. If you do not possess a faculty or have little or no aptitude for it, explanations will not help you acquire it.

In the case of transpersonal awareness, you could think of it as a spectrum of empathy: on one end of the scale are those who have little or no capacity to empathize with others, and on the other end are those who can empathize completely with another individual, to the point where they can totally identify psychologically with them. It could be compared to the difference between possessing an average memory and having a photographic memory.