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

[Sy Borg]

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

Good one, Consul. I stand corrected and feel conned. EG has always been referred to as "deaf" when she is actually just hearing-impaired. "Deaf musician" sounds far more impressive than "hearing-impaired musician", and it's far from rare, given the numerous working musicians suffering from profound tinnitus.

In context, the echolocation example in pitch darkness is a better example.

[JackDaydream]

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 experience of one's own voice inside the head is so different from recordings, which are more objective. The nature of vibrations in relation to cavities in the head such as the sinuses, throat and the existence of teeth. I know that if I hear my own voice recorded it seems so different. Of course, even various recordings vary and when I hear myself on some answering machines I think that I sound like a dalek from Dr Who.

The ability to hear sounds through recordings must alter the way we understand ourselves. Recordings like photographs give more 'objective measures of the physical world. Life without recordings and cameras may have given different perceptual frameworks. Paintings preceded photography and may have been useful in the construction of the visual imagination. Also, there were mirrors, but, of course, the pictures are back to front and show aspects of lack of symmetry.

[The Beast]

There is a POV in calling the personal baseline of silence the dream state putting forth content from the unconscious. It is also my opinion that the shadow of Jung exists and comes forth as well in the personal noise baseline. The shadow is constructed from chemical reactions or baseline noise from the peripersonal space. It is possible that a direct connection of the peripersonal and the executive function exists. It will be a stretch to make the shadow an object of the unphilosophical state.

[JackDaydream]

There is a POV in calling the personal baseline of silence the dream state putting forth content from the unconscious. It is also my opinion that the shadow of Jung exists and comes forth as well in the personal noise baseline. The shadow is constructed from chemical reactions or baseline noise from the peripersonal space. It is possible that a direct connection of the peripersonal and the executive function exists. It will be a stretch to make the shadow an object of the unphilosophical state.

Based on my own thinking around the idea of the unconscious and the 'shadow', it could be that all the aspects of life and potential are the baseline noise. These are likely to be interconnected but not necessarily reducible to the body. It does raise the question of materialism, or idealism. But, it may be that the two cannot be separated. Bodies and minds developed as coexistent aspects of reality, with all the opposing aspects, including the shadow, which may be the part of consciousness and the unconscious which many may wish to bury or deny.

[Gertie]

Consul

Gertie wrote: ↑May 17th, 2022, 10:50 am
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.

Yes! This is misleading gobbledegook -

Brian O'Shaughnessy argues that "no hearing occurs when one hears the silence," and that "hearing the silence is logically equivalent to, and indeed is identical with, a sub-variety of hearing that it is silent."

Ugh.

From my reading his actual argument is you can't hear silence, so the experience of silence must be cognitive, not sensory. But it's not one the accepted types of cognition like thinking, imagining or reasoning, he's claiming it's a different type of cognition. And that because other animals can't do cognitive stuff like thinking, imagining and reasoning, they can't cognitively experience silence.

Wellll... maybe.

But more mechanistic processes like attention, focus and noticing don't necessarily have to be what we think of as sensory or cognitive. And noticing change is one of primary driving forces of conscious evolution, change is what requires decisions and action. Species notice change in sounds and respond - the rustle of prey or predator, the mating call of a potential partner, the cries of off-spring, meerkats signalling danger to the group, etc. Why wouldn't this noticing of change include some awareness of the change from silence to sound and vice versa. We can observe our own pets doing this.

We too stop noticing sensory experiences like the noise of a fan in the background until it stops, then notice silence for a while until our attention moves on, until that's interrupted by the change of a new sound. I'd guess that's true of many complex species, who need mechanisms like noticing, focus and attention to 'manage' their complex experiential subsystems, so as not to be over-whelmed by experiencing an incoherent (and evolutionarily useless) cacophany of inputs.

So my guess is Brian's conclusion about other species being unable to experience silence in a noticing way at least, is mistaken.

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

As I sit here, I listen. I hear Youn Sun Nah singing, playing on the stereo. But if the music isn't on, I hear nothing: silence. The result of my active attempt to hear what is there to be heard, is that I hear nothing. When I listen, but detect nothing, I am 'hearing' silence. That's not a contradiction, I don't think.

[Pattern-chaser]

From my reading his actual argument is you can't hear silence, so the experience of silence must be cognitive, not sensory.

But hearing, and sight (etc) too, cannot be experienced as a sensory thing. We only become aware of whatever our senses detect when we have completed the (wholly unconscious, and pre-conscious) process of perception. In that sense, there is no such thing as a purely sensory experience. The experience of hearing nothing - when we cannot detect any sound - is the experience of 'hearing' silence.

[The Beast]

There is a POV in calling the personal baseline of silence the dream state putting forth content from the unconscious. It is also my opinion that the shadow of Jung exists and comes forth as well in the personal noise baseline. The shadow is constructed from chemical reactions or baseline noise from the peripersonal space. It is possible that a direct connection of the peripersonal and the executive function exists. It will be a stretch to make the shadow an object of the unphilosophical state.

Based on my own thinking around the idea of the unconscious and the 'shadow', it could be that all the aspects of life and potential are the baseline noise. These are likely to be interconnected but not necessarily reducible to the body. It does raise the question of materialism, or idealism. But, it may be that the two cannot be separated. Bodies and minds developed as coexistent aspects of reality, with all the opposing aspects, including the shadow, which may be the part of consciousness and the unconscious which many may wish to bury or deny.

Well said.
I would muse that the contents put forth by the shadow and the unconscious are the basis for the archetypes and we have a collective history by which we define a deeper level of unconscious that Jung termed the personal unconscious associated with the collective. As we try to pin down the essence of a definition among the many instances provided, I found one that said: “The archetype is essentially an unconscious content that is altered by becoming conscious and by being perceived, and it takes its color from the individual consciousness in which it happens to appear” In a method of mind I could correlate with content passing from the peripersonal space to the personal space. This content may not be rational but could be subject to dialectical procedures (a priori or posteriori). In a synchronistic level I thought of the archetype of the Trickster from which to draw the good and evil inquiry. It is a fact that these personified reflections do exist in psychology in the making of compensatory or complementary content. Also, there is a difference in the content allowed to pass as in filtering from the peripersonal space from innate chemical reactions of archetypes in the evolution of the peripersonal spaces. If consciousness could be metaphorically and mathematically possibly a manifold, then the preferential for one or another archetype may be written in the DNA and carry forth.

[The Beast]

In addition
Kant: “All philosophy is either cognition on the basis of pure reason or the cognition of reason on the basis of empirical principles”
Kant who favored empirical knowledge said that ideas often appear as mere sources of error and illusion. The idea of the practical reason can be one from the pure reason state to the empirical as the cognition of reason engages the concept. How pure reason produces archetypical ideas from the personal unconscious (collective) is evolving to consider the incipient. To produced practical and empirical knowledge one must know the limitations if not experience of the owned nature.

[JackDaydream]

There is a POV in calling the personal baseline of silence the dream state putting forth content from the unconscious. It is also my opinion that the shadow of Jung exists and comes forth as well in the personal noise baseline. The shadow is constructed from chemical reactions or baseline noise from the peripersonal space. It is possible that a direct connection of the peripersonal and the executive function exists. It will be a stretch to make the shadow an object of the unphilosophical state.

Based on my own thinking around the idea of the unconscious and the 'shadow', it could be that all the aspects of life and potential are the baseline noise. These are likely to be interconnected but not necessarily reducible to the body. It does raise the question of materialism, or idealism. But, it may be that the two cannot be separated. Bodies and minds developed as coexistent aspects of reality, with all the opposing aspects, including the shadow, which may be the part of consciousness and the unconscious which many may wish to bury or deny.

Well said.
I would muse that the contents put forth by the shadow and the unconscious are the basis for the archetypes and we have a collective history by which we define a deeper level of unconscious that Jung termed the personal unconscious associated with the collective. As we try to pin down the essence of a definition among the many instances provided, I found one that said: “The archetype is essentially an unconscious content that is altered by becoming conscious and by being perceived, and it takes its color from the individual consciousness in which it happens to appear” In a method of mind I could correlate with content passing from the peripersonal space to the personal space. This content may not be rational but could be subject to dialectical procedures (a priori or posteriori). In a synchronistic level I thought of the archetype of the Trickster from which to draw the good and evil inquiry. It is a fact that these personified reflections do exist in psychology in the making of compensatory or complementary content. Also, there is a difference in the content allowed to pass as in filtering from the peripersonal space from innate chemical reactions of archetypes in the evolution of the peripersonal spaces. If consciousness could be metaphorically and mathematically possibly a manifold, then the preferential for one or another archetype may be written in the DNA and carry forth.

I agree with what you are saying. Generally, in some discussions of consciousness the role of the unconscious is often not given significant attention. It is as if the unconscious is seen as nothingness. What Jung's view of the unconscious does imply is that there is hidden depth and potential within the unconscious. Many see the idea of the unconscious as lacking any scientific credibility, but the problem may simply be that it's not possible to put the unconscious into the laboratory or measure it according to the scientific method. But, the concept of the unconscious rather than representing mere nothingness may be the underlying source of consciousness, as both mind and matter as linked aspects of existence and experience.

[Pattern-chaser]

But, the concept of the unconscious rather than representing mere nothingness may be the underlying source of consciousness, as both mind and matter as linked aspects of existence and experience.

You write here as though conscious and unconscious minds are two quite different things. They are both parts of our minds; you might say they're 'made of the same stuff'. So, as conscious and unconscious are both 'mind', they are the same (-ish), and we could reasonably see one as emerging from the other, although that's not strictly accurate. It's more like the unconscious is historically the older partner, and since it was there first, we sort of assume that consciousness grew out of it.

[JackDaydream]

But, the concept of the unconscious rather than representing mere nothingness may be the underlying source of consciousness, as both mind and matter as linked aspects of existence and experience.

You write here as though conscious and unconscious minds are two quite different things. They are both parts of our minds; you might say they're 'made of the same stuff'. So, as conscious and unconscious are both 'mind', they are the same (-ish), and we could reasonably see one as emerging from the other, although that's not strictly accurate. It's more like the unconscious is historically the older partner, and since it was there first, we sort of assume that consciousness grew out of it.

It is not so much that the conscious and subconscious can be seen as separate, but that the conscious mind represents the tip of the iceberg within the spectrum of consciousness.

[JackDaydream]

But, the concept of the unconscious rather than representing mere nothingness may be the underlying source of consciousness, as both mind and matter as linked aspects of existence and experience.

You write here as though conscious and unconscious minds are two quite different things. They are both parts of our minds; you might say they're 'made of the same stuff'. So, as conscious and unconscious are both 'mind', they are the same (-ish), and we could reasonably see one as emerging from the other, although that's not strictly accurate. It's more like the unconscious is historically the older partner, and since it was there first, we sort of assume that consciousness grew out of it.

It is not so much that the conscious and subconscious can be seen as separate, but that the conscious mind represents the tip of the iceberg within the spectrum of consciousness. It is only possible to think or focus on so much time and the rest is almost shelved and some aspects more easily retrievable than others.

For example, when I wake up in the morning the events of the previous day usually are my first thoughts. The more significant ones and the thoughts about the experiences usually come first. But, there are several other streams of thought, including what is possible today and where to start. As I get up, go to the bathroom and prepare my breakfast other memories of yesterday or previous days may intrude. Or, I may get a phone call or letter, for example, which may be so significant that I begin to stop thinking about the memories of the previous day. Also, as I go about getting ready and go out there is a whole bombardment of experiences, competing for attention. In this way, it is as if consciousness is like an assortment of radio channels which can be tuned into individually, but, not all at the same time because there would be a clash of all the different noises.

Also, how much a person is able to select what to bury into the deeper layers of consciousness is variable. I find that I am able to recall so many experiences, whether they are pleasant or horrible. I am amazed at the way some people seem able to block out the unpleasant ones. The other day I met a woman who I knew from working with her in two different jobs. We stopped and chatted but when I spoke about the second place where we had worked together she said that she wasn't aware that I had worked there too. She went on to say that this was because she had more or less blocked out all her memories of that particular place of work, because she was so unhappy there. I was also very unhappy there but I can remember all the details so vividly.

I am not able to block out and forget horrible memories very much at all. It may come down to the processes of the defense mechanisms. But, the point which I am trying to make in this post is that the conscious and subconscious are not clearly separated, like by a wall, but that it is like a river with different debris flowing ashore or being able to dive in and find hidden contents when necessary. Dreams can be harder to recall though and may get buried in a many cases, or it is even possible to not be entirely sure if something happened in reality or in a dream, although I have only had that query on a couple of occasions. But, it is here that the line between the conscious and unconscious can become blurred.

[Gertie]

From my reading his actual argument is you can't hear silence, so the experience of silence must be cognitive, not sensory.

But hearing, and sight (etc) too, cannot be experienced as a sensory thing. We only become aware of whatever our senses detect when we have completed the (wholly unconscious, and pre-conscious) process of perception. In that sense, there is no such thing as a purely sensory experience. The experience of hearing nothing - when we cannot detect any sound - is the experience of 'hearing' silence.

Well it's true that when we're not experiencing hearing anything we are still having all sorts of phenomenal experience, but to call what's being experienced when we're not hearing anything ''hearing silence'' is just an ugly oxymoron.

But hearing, and sight (etc) too, cannot be experienced as a sensory thing

''Hearing'' and ''sight'' are our words for the sensory experience of sounds and visions! So I don't understand what you mean?

Are you suggesting that hearing isn't itself an experience, there's rather the experience of being aware of hearing?

I'd say there are mechanisms like attention, focus and noticing which filter which processes are experienced from moment to moment, otherwise we'd be over-whelmed by a simultaneous cacophany of hearing, flickering visions, experiencing every nerve nerve-ending touching something, and then thoughts jumbling about, sensations, memories, imagininings etc popping in and out of experience whenever a neural connection sparks. We'd be paralysed by confusion.

A very simple critter with only one or two subsystems is unlikely to need such filters and focus, so I'd guess they just hear or feel. So I think there isn't a separate thing which is ''awareness'' which ''hears'', rather that when the processes involved in hearing and every other experience are in a particular combination which will correlate with evolved brain filtering mechanisms, then this or that experience manifests.

But who knows.

[Pattern-chaser]

From my reading his actual argument is you can't hear silence, so the experience of silence must be cognitive, not sensory.

But hearing, and sight (etc) too, cannot be experienced as a sensory thing. We only become aware of whatever our senses detect when we have completed the (wholly unconscious, and pre-conscious) process of perception. In that sense, there is no such thing as a purely sensory experience. The experience of hearing nothing - when we cannot detect any sound - is the experience of 'hearing' silence.

Well it's true that when we're not experiencing hearing anything we are still having all sorts of phenomenal experience, but to call what's being experienced when we're not hearing anything ''hearing silence'' is just an ugly oxymoron.

If I am actively listening, but detect nothing, I am 'hearing' silence.

But hearing, and sight (etc) too, cannot be experienced as a sensory thing.

''Hearing'' and ''sight'' are our words for the sensory experience of sounds and visions! So I don't understand what you mean?

Perhaps because you deleted the text which follows, which explains what I mean?

But hearing, and sight (etc) too, cannot be experienced as a sensory thing. We only become aware of whatever our senses detect when we have completed the (wholly unconscious, and pre-conscious) process of perception. In that sense, there is no such thing as a purely sensory experience.