The Experience and Evolution of Consciousness: What are 'Levels' of Awareness?

[The Beast]

Sure. It all connects. From the soundless POV it might be an interesting concept if not NDE. The soundless. In watching the war videos, it is silent. Explosions, anger, death. I can hear the silence. I am not sure an animal could. I am sure as well that I can only hear a little sound not too far from silence.

[Sy Borg]

Interestingly, O'Shaughnessy denies that (nonhuman) animals can hear silence, because he thinks they lack the cognitive ability to hear that it is silent. If, as I say above, hearing that it is silent involves introspective awareness, then animals incapable of introspection are indeed incapable of acquiring the (propositional) knowledge that it is silent.

Noticing or thinking to myself that I'm not hearing anything, or detecting sonar, isn't a variety of hearing something or detecting sonar. This is basic stuff. Brian is indulging in word play.

A bat doesn't have the neural kit to think to itself ''I am/I am not detecting sonar waves right now'', but my guess would be that there's a noticing of change, including noticing the stopping of all detection of sonar waves in a big open space.

Humans are also primed to notice change, it's a useful aspect of our neural kit too. For example we can stop noticing the background noise of a fan until the fan stops. It's a feature of attention/focus/filtering mechanisms (McGinn talks about this, can't find a link now, sorry).

Then we notice the silence for a while, and the thinky voice in our human heads gives its contemporaneous running commentary explaining what's going on in our world model (''the fan just stopped''), doing its job of updating that model and keeping it comprensible, coherent (and there-by useful) to us.

O'Shaugnessy isn't "indulging in word play" insofar as he is right when he says that hearing silence = hearing that it is silent "is something," because "it is something more than simply not hearing anything, for the permanently deaf do not hear anything and yet generally fail to hear any of the silences which may be surrounding them."

If hearing silence/that it is silent is something rather than nothing, then what is it? Of course, it's not a positive case of auditory perception with phenomenal sounds as its experiential content. To hear silence/that it is silent is to focus on one's sense of hearing and to notice that there is no input of acoustic data, and thereby to become aware that it is silent.

By saying that "hearing that it is silent involves introspective awareness" I don't mean to say that it involves conscious thoughts about the presence of absence of auditory experiences. Introspective awareness in the minimal sense doesn't require deliberate, intentional acts of inner observation, because it can take place automatically by means of cognitive (attentional) mechanisms which are (selectively) monitoring or scanning the field of phenomenal consciousness.

Consul is correct. Consider deaf virtuoso musician Evelyn Glennie, who not only perceives music though the vibrations of sound passing through her feet, but perceives its beauty. Good vibrations, if you will :)

[Pattern-chaser]

Dame Evelyn Glennie is a superb and accomplished percussionist, long a favourite of mine. Her work with all different kinds of artists, such as Fred Frith (originally from Henry Cow), is interesting too.

[Gertie]

Consul

If hearing silence/that it is silent is something rather than nothing, then what is it? Of course, it's not a positive case of auditory perception with phenomenal sounds as its experiential content. To hear silence/that it is silent is to focus on one's sense of hearing and to notice that there is no input of acoustic data, and thereby to become aware that it is silent.

This part is correct about the ''something''. If you are aware of what sound is, you can notice the absence of sound, but that noticing isn't itself hearing a sound - as you say here. It is experiencing noticing something's absence. I can notice my absence of bat sonar experience too, in a more abstract way which isn't supplemented by memory or prompted by a change in stimuli. In both cases being aware of an absence of the sensory experience isn't having that sensory experience.

It might result in other types of experience like noticing change, feeling a bit eerie, or on alert, higher activation of other sensory systems, and so on. But to say the absence of a something is a type of presence of that something is an oxymoron.

[Gertie]

Interestingly, O'Shaughnessy denies that (nonhuman) animals can hear silence, because he thinks they lack the cognitive ability to hear that it is silent. If, as I say above, hearing that it is silent involves introspective awareness, then animals incapable of introspection are indeed incapable of acquiring the (propositional) knowledge that it is silent.

Noticing or thinking to myself that I'm not hearing anything, or detecting sonar, isn't a variety of hearing something or detecting sonar. This is basic stuff. Brian is indulging in word play.

A bat doesn't have the neural kit to think to itself ''I am/I am not detecting sonar waves right now'', but my guess would be that there's a noticing of change, including noticing the stopping of all detection of sonar waves in a big open space.

Humans are also primed to notice change, it's a useful aspect of our neural kit too. For example we can stop noticing the background noise of a fan until the fan stops. It's a feature of attention/focus/filtering mechanisms (McGinn talks about this, can't find a link now, sorry).

Then we notice the silence for a while, and the thinky voice in our human heads gives its contemporaneous running commentary explaining what's going on in our world model (''the fan just stopped''), doing its job of updating that model and keeping it comprensible, coherent (and there-by useful) to us.

O'Shaugnessy isn't "indulging in word play" insofar as he is right when he says that hearing silence = hearing that it is silent "is something," because "it is something more than simply not hearing anything, for the permanently deaf do not hear anything and yet generally fail to hear any of the silences which may be surrounding them."

If hearing silence/that it is silent is something rather than nothing, then what is it? Of course, it's not a positive case of auditory perception with phenomenal sounds as its experiential content. To hear silence/that it is silent is to focus on one's sense of hearing and to notice that there is no input of acoustic data, and thereby to become aware that it is silent.

By saying that "hearing that it is silent involves introspective awareness" I don't mean to say that it involves conscious thoughts about the presence of absence of auditory experiences. Introspective awareness in the minimal sense doesn't require deliberate, intentional acts of inner observation, because it can take place automatically by means of cognitive (attentional) mechanisms which are (selectively) monitoring or scanning the field of phenomenal consciousness.

Consul is correct. Consider deaf virtuoso musician Evelyn Glennie, who not only perceives music though the vibrations of sound passing through her feet, but perceives its beauty. Good vibrations, if you will

She's amazing, but Evelyn's touch sensory system is feeling the vibrations, not her hearing system. The experience of sound isn't out there, it somehow happens in us when certain air movements interact with our auditory system.

[Pattern-chaser]

The experience of sound isn't out there, it somehow happens in us when certain air movements interact with our auditory system.

Given that sound is movements in the air, detected by us, I think it is reasonable to say that every part of a human that detects this sound, in some/any way, forms part of our sense of hearing. Dame Evelyn does 'hear', I think, albeit not with her ears (any more - she wasn't born deaf).

[Gertie]

The experience of sound isn't out there, it somehow happens in us when certain air movements interact with our auditory system.

Given that sound is movements in the air, detected by us, I think it is reasonable to say that every part of a human that detects this sound, in some/any way, forms part of our sense of hearing. Dame Evelyn does 'hear', I think, albeit not with her ears (any more - she wasn't born deaf).

As I said, I don't believe the experience of hearing sound exists 'out there' to be detected, we somehow manifest it when certain air movements interact with our auditory system. (A tree doesn't make a noise in the forrest if there are no ear drums interacting with the air movements it causes). Not with our tactile/touch sensory system, or our visual system, or tastebuds, or olfactory system. Only our auditory system. That's what neural correlation suggests, tho of course we don't know all the details.

If Evelyn's auditory system isn't working at all, then she's not hearing the music. I assume she's experiencing tactile vibrations through solid substances, supplemented by memory, a sense of rhythm, emotions and so on. Or maybe some neurons have been co-opted in novel ways which are akin to hearing in some way.

But if she's not hearing sounds, then she isn't hearing some type of sound called 'silence'', because silence is the word we use to denote the absence of sound.

Saying that the absence of a something is a type of presence of that something is nonsensical and misleading.

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't believe the experience of hearing sound exists 'out there' to be detected, we somehow manifest it when certain air movements interact with our auditory system. (A tree doesn't make a noise in the forrest if there are no ear drums interacting with the air movements it causes). Not with our tactile/touch sensory system, or our visual system, or tastebuds, or olfactory system. Only our auditory system.

Low frequencies are detected, in part, by the resonant cavities in our bodies (most notably inside our heads, and our lungs), and also by our skin, as a sort of pressure-sensation. Without this, our ability to 'hear' low frequencies is severely curtailed. Hearing is not wholly confined to the ears, or "auditory system", as you call it. Then there's what's commonly called 'bone conduction', which Glennie may also make use of, but let's leave that for now.

[The Beast]

If sketchy and informal my muse is that the conscious human brain is exposed to external stimuli or task demands. It is modality specific. I am not aware of a practical baseline condition since one could not be determined by research due to the different states of mental neutrality exhibited by the researched subjects. What it is observed is that stimulus independent thoughts arise from the cognitive neutrality state. One variable of this mental neutrality is acoustic. However, there is a sensory functional theory. It pertains to the relationship between the input modality and the process of semantic retrieval. In the acoustic complexity of the sample individual other factors like preserved knowledge of musical instruments should be considered together with the rerouting of (tactile) inputs to the cochlea.

[Gertie]

I don't believe the experience of hearing sound exists 'out there' to be detected, we somehow manifest it when certain air movements interact with our auditory system. (A tree doesn't make a noise in the forrest if there are no ear drums interacting with the air movements it causes). Not with our tactile/touch sensory system, or our visual system, or tastebuds, or olfactory system. Only our auditory system.

Low frequencies are detected, in part, by the resonant cavities in our bodies (most notably inside our heads, and our lungs), and also by our skin, as a sort of pressure-sensation. Without this, our ability to 'hear' low frequencies is severely curtailed. Hearing is not wholly confined to the ears, or "auditory system", as you call it. Then there's what's commonly called 'bone conduction', which Glennie may also make use of, but let's leave that for now.

You're missing my point. Brian and Consul claim that silence, an absence of hearing anything, is a type of hearing something. I say that's a self-contradiction which can't be true. It's stretching the meaning of the word ''silence'' to mean its opposite. It's poor philosophy.

Whether lungs or bones play some part in the way our hearing (auditory) system works doesn't affect my point. I said it in the part of the post you didn't quote -

But if she's not hearing sounds, then she isn't hearing some type of sound called 'silence'', because silence is the word we use to denote the absence of sound.

Saying that the absence of a something is a type of presence of that something is nonsensical and misleading.

[Consul]

This part is correct about the ''something''. If you are aware of what sound is, you can notice the absence of sound, but that noticing isn't itself hearing a sound - as you say here. It is experiencing noticing something's absence. I can notice my absence of bat sonar experience too, in a more abstract way which isn't supplemented by memory or prompted by a change in stimuli. In both cases being aware of an absence of the sensory experience isn't having that sensory experience.

Of course not. O'Shaughnessy writes that "no hearing occurs when one hears the silence," but the phrase "hearing (the) silence" suggests misleadingly that some hearing does occur. But your introspective perception that there currently is no acoustic input to your (well-functioning) sense of hearing isn't a case of hearing, since there is no auditory introspection (as opposed to auditory extrospection). That is, you don't become innerly aware of your auditory sensations by means of "inner ears". You have auditory sensations, but you don't hear them. You hear things or events by means of the auditory sensations you have (or undergo).

[Sy Borg]

The experience of sound isn't out there, it somehow happens in us when certain air movements interact with our auditory system.

Given that sound is movements in the air, detected by us, I think it is reasonable to say that every part of a human that detects this sound, in some/any way, forms part of our sense of hearing. Dame Evelyn does 'hear', I think, albeit not with her ears (any more - she wasn't born deaf).

As I said, I don't believe the experience of hearing sound exists 'out there' to be detected, we somehow manifest it when certain air movements interact with our auditory system. (A tree doesn't make a noise in the forrest if there are no ear drums interacting with the air movements it causes). Not with our tactile/touch sensory system, or our visual system, or tastebuds, or olfactory system. Only our auditory system. That's what neural correlation suggests, tho of course we don't know all the details.

If Evelyn's auditory system isn't working at all, then she's not hearing the music. I assume she's experiencing tactile vibrations through solid substances, supplemented by memory, a sense of rhythm, emotions and so on. Or maybe some neurons have been co-opted in novel ways which are akin to hearing in some way.

But if she's not hearing sounds, then she isn't hearing some type of sound called 'silence'', because silence is the word we use to denote the absence of sound.

Saying that the absence of a something is a type of presence of that something is nonsensical and misleading.

She is not hearing sounds, but she is sensing them. She seems to live in a silent world, enriched by vibrations that she senses through other body parts. Consider a bat in the pitch dark. It navigates by echolocation but it's not "seeing" as such - the environment is still pitch black.

If this is not quite on point, feel free to ignore.

[The Beast]

As a paradigm Silence could be a philosophical position from the Platonic realism. That is: it exists objectively and outside of human minds. This way it could be construct as a mind independent abstract object and the relations are copies in the mind as a baseline condition. So, the unphilosophical state Kant alluded to.

[The Beast]

senses are supported by areas in the brain. One more instance of fluidity. From tactile and acoustic in a hybrid method.

[Consul]

She is not hearing sounds, but she is sensing them. She seems to live in a silent world, enriched by vibrations that she senses through other body parts.

QUOTE>
"How can you be a musician if you are deaf?

[Evelyn Glennie:] It is worth pointing out at this stage that I am not totally deaf, I am profoundly deaf. Profound deafness covers a wide range of symptoms, although it is commonly taken to mean that the quality of the sound heard is not sufficient to be able to understand thespoken word from sound alone. With no other sound interfering, I can usually hear someone speaking although I cannot understand them without the additional input of lip-reading. Deafness is poorly understood in general. For instance, there is a common misconception that deaf people live in a world of silence. To understand the nature of deafness, first one has to understand the nature of hearing. Deafness does not mean that you can’t hear, only that there is something wrong with the ears. Even someone who is totally deaf can still hear/feel sounds. Read Evelyn’s hearing essay if you wish to explore this question further."

Source: https://www.evelyn.co.uk/wp-content/upl ... stions.pdf
<QUOTE