consciousness

[mir]

our brains have a lot of different areas that react to different things. like pain sensors, a bit that deals with memory, motor control, etc. but there is no place where all of these things meet up and create "consciousness". what causes "consciousness"? it doesn't even make sense in evolution. an ability to learn from mistakes, okay, but there doesn't seem to be much sense in "consciousness" itself - imagination, self-evaluation, thought. is it god, giving us more meaning in life than automated action-and-response? if so, where does it all happen? if there's no bit in the brain where all the input from the different bits come together to creat the independant being that's writing this post, what creates "consciousness"?

okay, rant over. does anyone have any opinions? :p

or if anyone has any other subjects on consciousness that would be cool to discuss, please post those too! it's a really interesting topic.

[Shannanigan]

I researched the topic of dreaming and unconsciousness last semester...come to find out we STILL don't know why we sleep and dream, but there are theories:

1: Our brain is a computer, and all day it takes in a crapload of information, like downloading software, and then just like a computer has to reboot to make the stuff work (so that we remember all the stimuli input and can use it)...unconsciousness is the reboot and dreaming is the simulation and testing of the new programs (possibly explaining why we often dream of things we experienced that day.)

2: Our brain is a computer, and we OVERLOAD it with information coming in every day (think about all the work your eyes, ears, nose, tongue, and nerve endings are doing at the same time as you try to analyze poetry or write short stories!) Just like a computer, when we overload we have to shut down and debug...so unconsciousness is our brain shutting down, sorting through all the information we took in all day, tossing what we don't need (like that we remembered to tie our shoes this morning) and storing what we do (like that we have no more milk). This possibly explains why babies sleep so long and as we get older we need less sleep: to babies, EVERYTHING is new information and so they need to debug longer...too older people seeing similar things every day and things that they understand, less debugging time is needed.

3. Frued thinks all dreams relay sexual fantasies. Period.

4. Jung thinks that our unconscious uses dreams to give our conscious a heads up about changes that need to be made. A great example is one smoker who had a very realistic dream that his doctor was telling him that he had lung cancer. He went through all of the emotion of knowing that he was going to die and was going to have to tell his family...and when he woke up, he was so relieved, and so affected, that he never picked up a cigarrette again.

We process a lot of information unconsciously...like the fact that your feet are pressing against the bottoms of your shoes right now...(you are only consciously aware of it now because I said so)...we even breathe unconsciously.

I know this doesn't answer your question about counsciousness...but sometimes to understand one thing you first need to get to know it's opposite. Maybe this will get some people thinking...

[kathycf]

Interesting. It is a little after 3am my time as I make my post, so let me think ( or dream...) on this topic and get back to you. :) Meanwhile here is a snippet about Freud.


Despite the widely-recognized failure of Freudian psychotherapy to heal disturbed people effectively and the rejection of many of his major theories Freud remains one of the most influential figures of the 20th century.... Freud's basic insight that our minds preserve memories and emotions which are not always consciously available to us has transformed the way humanity views itself ever since. One of Freud's more important discoveries is that emotions buried in the unconscious surface in disguised form during dreaming, and that the remembered fragments of dreams can help uncover the buried feelings. Whether the mechanism is exactly as Freud describes it, many people have derived insights into themselves from studying their dreams, and most modern people consider dreams emotionally significant, unlike our ancestors who often saw them either as divine portents or as the bizarre side-effects of indigestion. Freud argues that dreams are wish-fulfillments, and will ultimately argue that those wishes are the result of repressed or frustrated sexual desires. The anxiety surrounding these desires turns some dreams into nightmares.

[mir]

thanks guys! this is great. : )

about Freud, i don't know a lot . . . but i don't get the whole "repressed sexual feelings" thing. prepubescent kids dream (i'm sure of that; i stil remember some of my third grade nightmares . . . ) and they don't have sexual feelings or anything yet. so it doesn't really make sense.

so . . . what's the underlying meaning of my third grade nightmare where i'm being chased my the little green aliens from Toy Story?? : D

i do actually agree with Freud though that dreams are connected to waking experience and can tell us about ourselves subconsciously. i don't know about sleep though . . . does anyone know if there's a way to measure which areas of the brain function while we are asleep and what they do? that way we could tell what's really going on . . .

[kathycf]

I suppose if one was hooked up to different monitors maybe they could measure brain wave activity or something. Also, though I am not much of a fan of Freud at all, one of his ideas that was so shocking back in that era was that even young children are sexual beings, as supposedly all of us from infant to senior citizen are. I guess it makes a kind of sense, considering the need to reproduce is a primary need in most living things. Whether or not sex is the most important motivating factor for humans? I would like to think that we are a little more sophisticated than that.

Do you think one of the criteria for consciousness is self awareness?

*edit* mir, you were afraid of the little green guys from Toy Story? I thought they were a little too...insistent. Or persistent, I don't know. Is that what scared you? I have always thought the clown attacking the little boy in the movie Poltergeist was just the most scary thing. That was one of my nightmares, that some of my toys would come alive and try to kill me...

[Shannanigan]

i do actually agree with Freud though that dreams are connected to waking experience and can tell us about ourselves subconsciously. i don't know about sleep though . . . does anyone know if there's a way to measure which areas of the brain function while we are asleep and what they do? that way we could tell what's really going on . . .


Jung, from what I researched, also believed in the connection between the unconscious and concious states.

We can and have tracked people's brain activity during sleep, if I remember what my professor said correctly...and the areas of the brain that are stimulated are surprisingly the same as when we are awake. If we dream and we see a chair, or a desk...the same areas light up in sleep as in waking time. If we dream of faces, again, the part of the brain that recognizes faces brightens. I think emotions are the same too...the fear, happiness, sadness, etc. regions light up accordingly to the dreams we are having. The only (biological) difference between dreaming and living an experience is that in living it, our body moves and reacts...which it USUALLY doesn't do in sleep (that, and the consequences of our choices in experiences we actually lived through affect us the next day and possibly the rest of our lives...)

So, to our brain, dreaming and experiencing are one and the same...until it (the brain? the person?) realizes we were dreaming...explains why you were so thankful that the nightmares weren't real when you woke up, doesn't it?

[mir]

sorry i didnt respond for a while, im on vacation (which also explains the messed up punctuation in this post, sorry, im using a Portugese keyboard and its pretty different from an american one : )

kathy, i dont know about the little green toy story men. in my dream they were trying to feed me salad . . . and my glasses fell in it. (very sexual of cours : D)

thats really interesting about the areas of the brain being the same . . . but not so surprising, because you do seem to have the same emotions and reactions to things as you would have in life. but it also contributes to the theory that consciousness itself is an illusion, i guess . . . that actually all we are is action and reaction, which seems like consciousness because of the whole cartesian theatre perception.

i actually wanted to introduce a new topic if that would be okay . . . (i get interested in new thingas as i continue reading the book that made me start this thread in the first place and is all about consciousness : )

i wondered what everyone thought about the fact that we dont really know where consciousness is centered in our brains, or if it exists at all. is our "consciousness" really just completely formed by our emotions and experiences? or is there something else that gives us the feeling that we are us? that I am me, looking out of my own eyes, and can do original things and make decisions not just because of a combination of my genetics and experiences, but because there is something in me that "thinks"?

[Maerlook]

Mir,
Thank you for posting the topic. I would like to first say that the reason I come here it to hone my writing skills in clarity and content, so if you see something that could be worded better or something that needs to be expounded feel free to offer suggestions. I am here to learn.

Now to the real stuff.

I think that 'common knowledge' about neurobiology has lead you a little astray. While yes there are specific areas of the brain that correlate to specific function, it is not the case that any one point in the brain processes the whole of any particular mental function. It is true that vision, for example, is received toward the back of the skull in the visual cortex; this fuction does not imply that the ideas associated with the viewed objects are processed in that place.

Let us assume that we are looking at a red tomato. While the direct input of the visual stimuli is the shape and color of the red tomato the only thing that the visual cortex would be able to process is the sensation surrounding the shape and wavelength of reflected light. If we are to know that the object in question is in fact a tomato, we are going to have to look in a very different part of the brain - a specific place in the frontal lobes associated with language and memory. In addition, if we are going to know that the object is the color red, we must access other parts of the frontal lobes. Consciousness is more than sensory reception it is recognition, comparison, differentiation, and a whole host of other processes dependent and independent on the perceived object.

This complexity in cognition suggests that what is called the mind is the convenient name for the sum of the ongoing processes which help us make sense of the world. The reason that there is no specific place in the brain is because the whole brain is required to create the consciousness.

I would like to point out that neurobiology is a ever changing subject and it is entirely possible that some part of my analysis has been proven wrong. Please feel free to correct or add as you see fit.

Thank you again,

Maerlook

[Geoff Shipley]

one of his ideas that was so shocking back in that era was that even young children are sexual beings

I think this is a widely misunderstood theorey of Freud's. People seem to invision hormone rampant todlers walking around, but Freud's early psychosexual stages where characterized by things like oral, and anal fixations. I believe it isnt until his last psychosexual stage that phallic fixation comes in, which would fall postpubescent.

I can't begin to comprehend how the idea of how self works within our own minds so I often think of conciousness in terms of its origin. Why do we posess an idea of 'self' that other animals don't? Is it a devine gift to claim dominion over beast? Is it an implement in fulfilling some purpose we are unaware of? Or is it just random assignment? If the universe is defined by entropy(falling apart) then no matter how unlikely, couldn't things randomly fall together structured enough to create a state of conciousness? Im not even sure what i mean by 'things'.:blush:

[kathycf]

I think this is a widely misunderstood theorey of Freud's. People seem to invision hormone rampant todlers walking around, but Freud's early psychosexual stages where characterized by things like oral, and anal fixations. I believe it isnt until his last psychosexual stage that phallic fixation comes in, which would fall postpubescent.

Well, I never said anything about hormonally rampant toddlers. ;) I meant more of a generalized sexuality, not as engaging in explicity sexual activity. It is my understanding of the three stages is that the child derives pleasure in specific ways. In other words, the first stage of oral, the child engages in and derives pleasure and enjoyment from nursing or other activities with the mouth...thumb sucking and that sort of thing.

At any rate, I don't consider myself to be a Freudian anyway. A lot of his ideas irritate me. :lol:

[billyjack]

i can see a lot of reasons from an evolutionary standpoint for thought and consciousness. firstly, thought is the necessary means for communication amongst people. consciousness on the other hand, could be desribed as many wonderful things, but i'd leave it to kilgore trout: "the purpose of consciousness is to be the eyes and ears of the creator of the universe."

[linz]

Single celled organisms developed complications that led to how it survived. Eventually it perceived to survive and crawled out of the sea. Man began using his reasoning and wonder all sorts of things until that day God separates us divinely from the primordial ooze we came from.

[Bii]

our brains have a lot of different areas that react to different things. like pain sensors, a bit that deals with memory, motor control, etc. but there is no place where all of these things meet up and create "consciousness". what causes "consciousness"?


Is it possible that consciousness is not embodied in one part of the brain (as, for example, motor function would be) but is rather an overall cumulative effect of all parts of the brain ticking along. Perhaps that would explain why, often, thought processes are random and uncontrolled (as we may define our consciousness), and also why you lose active consciousness (or awareness of yourself) when involved in a specific task or project (i.e. 'losing' yourself in a job) . Perhaps consciousness is a by-product of 'downtime' as opposed to being a specific function in itself?

[Unbeliever]

okay, rant over. does anyone have any opinions? :p


I used to think that perhaps the corpus callosum was the seat of conciousness, due to it's role as the communications link between the two cerebral hemispheres. I doubt it's that simple, though - nothing about the brain is simple!



unlike our ancestors who often saw them either as divine portents

I've lately come to think that the origin of religion is related to our having been dreamers who could remember our dreams and, through language, communicate them to others. For weeks after my father died, I dreamt that he was very much alive, and could talk to me. I can imagine a similar scenario in the far past, when humans thought the dream-state was a separate realm, where beings exist that can't normally be seen, but who are real nevertheless.

I've also come to think that the fact that humans can remember their dreams may be what fundamentally differentiates them from non-human animals. Many mammals seem to dream, but I seriously doubt they even remember having dreamt at all, and almost certainly don't remember the content thereof. I don't know how to test the idea, though, so it's sheer speculation.

[MaryLupin]

Here is a good (and only 4 pages long!) essay called "Neuronal Mechanisms of Conscious Awarenesses" (http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/61/7/1017.pdf).

For those of you averse to reading hard core science, the critical sentence is "Consciousness appears to depend on distributed neuronal components acting in a functionally integrated way."

I do urge you to read it though. It has a good number of interesting ideas and references to other theorists.

[PrinceMyshkin]

our brains have a lot of different areas that react to different things. like pain sensors, a bit that deals with memory, motor control, etc. but there is no place where all of these things meet up and create "consciousness". what causes "consciousness"? it doesn't even make sense in evolution. an ability to learn from mistakes, okay, but there doesn't seem to be much sense in "consciousness" itself - imagination, self-evaluation, thought. is it god, giving us more meaning in life than automated action-and-response? if so, where does it all happen? if there's no bit in the brain where all the input from the different bits come together to creat the independant being that's writing this post, what creates "consciousness"?

okay, rant over. does anyone have any opinions? :p

or if anyone has any other subjects on consciousness that would be cool to discuss, please post those too! it's a really interesting topic.

The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind, by Julian Jaynes is an interesting book on this subject.

[firefangled]

Here is a good (and only 4 pages long!) essay called "Neuronal Mechanisms of Conscious Awarenesses" (http://archneur.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/61/7/1017.pdf).

For those of you averse to reading hard core science, the critical sentence is "Consciousness appears to depend on distributed neuronal components acting in a functionally integrated way."

I do urge you to read it though. It has a good number of interesting ideas and references to other theorists.


There is another controversial book, written in the mid- seventies, by Julian Jaynes titled The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Jaynes' hypothesis is that consciousness began to appear around 2000-3000 B.C. through the occurance of catastrophic events and events stimulating the beginning of a learned process that is evolving still. He essential postulates that at one time our brains were divided into two separately functioning halves: a human half, and a god half. We operated during that time as humans following distinct internal orders from the god brain.

I have a brother who suffers from schizophrenia and this book came to my attention while researching this terrible disease.

Jaynes combines psychology, neurology, theology, and anthropology to provide support for his thesis. I find fault with some of his assumptions, but it is very interesting reading and thought provoking on the subject of consciousness.

Aside from literature, my educational background is in cultural anthropology, specifically in altered states of consciousness and religious behavior and shamanism, so this was very interesting from that perspective.

[PrinceMyshkin]

There is another controversial book, written in the mid- seventies, by Julian Jaynes titled The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Jaynes' hypothesis is that consciousness began to appear around 2000-3000 B.C. through the occurance of catastrophic events and events stimulating the beginning of a learned process that is evolving still. He essential postulates that at one time our brains were divided into two separately functioning halves: a human half, and a god half. We operated during that time as humans following distinct internal orders from the god brain.

I have a brother who suffers from schizophrenia and this book came to my attention while researching this terrible disease.

Jaynes combines psychology, neurology, theology, and anthropology to provide support for his thesis. I find fault with some of his assumptions, but it is very interesting reading and thought provoking on the subject of consciousness.

Aside from literature, my educational background is in cultural anthropology, specifically in altered states of consciousness and religious behavior and shamanism, so this was very interesting from that perspective.

I too found fault (or was not convinced) aspect of this book, not least that he talks about this "god brain" as if there were an actual God who spoke through it. Nowhere else as far as I remember did he stipulate whether he was a believer writing as scientifically as he could within that framework, or as a scientist who did not feel it was within the scope of his thesis to speculate on the origin of this God-voice.

Apart from that it was a damned good read, wasn't it? I've always intended to look for other work by him and for evaluations of that book.

[MaryLupin]

so . . . what's the underlying meaning of my third grade nightmare where i'm being chased my the little green aliens from Toy Story?? : D

So, mir, were you by any chance unkind to your toys as a child? Or maybe, feel a bit like an alien where you lived at the time?

[jon1jt]

our brains have a lot of different areas that react to different things. like pain sensors, a bit that deals with memory, motor control, etc. but there is no place where all of these things meet up and create "consciousness". what causes "consciousness"? it doesn't even make sense in evolution. an ability to learn from mistakes, okay, but there doesn't seem to be much sense in "consciousness" itself - imagination, self-evaluation, thought. is it god, giving us more meaning in life than automated action-and-response? if so, where does it all happen? if there's no bit in the brain where all the input from the different bits come together to creat the independant being that's writing this post, what creates "consciousness"?

okay, rant over. does anyone have any opinions? :p

or if anyone has any other subjects on consciousness that would be cool to discuss, please post those too! it's a really interesting topic.

there is no consciousness, only language, and "language is the house of being."
--Saint Heidegger :)

[MaryLupin]

There is another controversial book, written in the mid- seventies, by Julian Jaynes titled The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Jaynes' hypothesis is that consciousness began to appear around 2000-3000 B.C. through the occurance of catastrophic events and events stimulating the beginning of a learned process that is evolving still. He essential postulates that at one time our brains were divided into two separately functioning halves: a human half, and a god half. We operated during that time as humans following distinct internal orders from the god brain.

I haven't had a chance to read the book yet. I ordered it from my local library but the librarians have gone out on strike with the rest of the "non-essential" city staff. So no libraries. But I have been researching Jaynes' book and thesis.

One big problem I have with his theory is the existence of Paleolithic art, evidence of self-awareness 20-30,000 years older than the date Jaynes sets. Now I don't know if he deals with this in his book, but the Venus of Willendorf seems to me to speak of a person carving self-awareness into the stuff of her world. So instead of exploring self as we do now with (say) poetry. S/he did it through carving. Of course this is subjective and it could be that the wo/man who carved that famous statuette did so at the behest of voices.

Another more serious problem with his theory is his combined belief in human evolution and his theory's inability to account for current animal behavior and brain studies. His theory rests on the idea that our brains (until 2-3,000 years ago) operated as separate hemispheres. If we (and all other animals) evolved from some common ancestor then surely non-human animals should have brains that function bicamerally. Are there?

Also, there is the problem of other humans who still here the "voices." Jaynes seems to have suggested that this new awareness that developed (and is still developing) came as a result of historical and cultural forces. Apart from being rather Lamarckian, there is the problem that this would be a local force. It implies that (say) Amazonian natives still operate bicamerally. This could be studied of course, but the implications of it are enormous. In a sense Jaynes is saying we are speciating and that bicameral thinkers represent the human evolutionary past.

Finally, the thing that is the real clincher for me is that Jaynes' time-line would suggest that this break-down of the bicameral mind and the consequent creation of conscious awareness begins (where else) but in the monotheistic heartland of Egypt and the Middle East. It suggests that Siddhartha, who was born well outside this golden area some 2,600 years ago probably lacked the self awareness that comes with the break down of the bicameral mind. Maybe this isn't fair but the coincidence of the flight from the neurological past occurring in the "cradle" of our "civilization" reminds me of the display of Ota Benga as a "missing link" (New York, Bronx Zoo, 1906) and Ishi as a living museum exhibit (Museum of Anthropology, Parnassus, CA, 1911, 1915). It says far more about the prejudices inherent in those who really saw Ms. Benga as sub-human than it does of the humanity of Ota.

But then, I haven't actually read it yet, just been reading about it. So I could be way off base, but it fits a pattern of theorizing about our origins that I have seen over and over. I mean if Jaynes had located the origin of consciouness in Siberia, or Angola, or even Kansas, I would have been more inclined to rethink some of my other objections. Locating it in the Middle East is just too biblical for me despite its intent to pathologize religion.

Sorry...Ranting.


I have a brother who suffers from schizophrenia and this book came to my attention while researching this terrible disease.

I have a cousin...and yes it is a horror.


Aside from literature, my educational background is in cultural anthropology, specifically in altered states of consciousness and religious behavior and shamanism, so this was very interesting from that perspective.

So cool. I have a couple of degrees in Anthropology. I wrote a thesis about the use of a sacred plant and how cultural background effected behaviors around its use. I also have a couple of degrees in literature. Nice coincidence.

[apples of gold]

There is another controversial book, written in the mid- seventies, by Julian Jaynes titled The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind. Jaynes' hypothesis is that consciousness began to appear around 2000-3000 B.C. through the occurance of catastrophic events and events stimulating the beginning of a learned process that is evolving still. He essential postulates that at one time our brains were divided into two separately functioning halves: a human half, and a god half. We operated during that time as humans following distinct internal orders from the god brain.

I have a brother who suffers from schizophrenia and this book came to my attention while researching this terrible disease.

Jaynes combines psychology, neurology, theology, and anthropology to provide support for his thesis. I find fault with some of his assumptions, but it is very interesting reading and thought provoking on the subject of consciousness.

Aside from literature, my educational background is in cultural anthropology, specifically in altered states of consciousness and religious behavior and shamanism, so this was very interesting from that perspective.

From Jayne's book I've learned that I can discover a new thread, read the posts, assimilate them, and post a few comments, all without being conscious. I find that amusing and a bit of a stretch.

But it's interesting to consider consciousness (which according to Jaynes, is one of the few mental activities that requires one to actually be conscious) from a new perspective. That is, that it's not what we think, not the vast and mysterious unknown that we've been conditioned to imagine it to be. He asserts that consciousness is not necessary for thinking, learning, or reason. He has deconstructed our notions of consciousness on the basis of it having been manufactured as a construct through language and metaphor. What remains is a capacity that has evolved biologically - not entirely what I wanted to hear. But these are interesting concepts.

[amanda_isabel]

freud is a good place to start. jung too. i would love to discuss but i'm not too certain about the concepts so i'd rather not take the risk.