What you actually mean by 'Consciousness'?

[Polymath257]

The points are axiomatic -- mainly flowing from the definition offered in the OP and are based on Vedantic concept. That much is indicated in the First point itself. I should probably have clarified it better but you missed it. You can re-read the first point.

The case of a dead body not exhibiting consciousness is actually the rebuttal of the chaarvaaka (materialist) claim that consciousness is a property of the body. If consciousness was a property of the body, then it should persist in a dead body too.

Wrong.

The chemistry of a dead body is *very* different than the chemistry of a live one. For example,t he availability of oxygen to the tissues is nill in a dead body but crucial for being alive.

And this gets to a crucial point: the reason we die is because of some *chemical* change that destroys the process of metabolism. Either we are not getting oxygen to the places it needs to be to drive the metabolic reactions, or something (like a poison) prevents those reactions from happening, etc.

A dead body is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being the same chemically as a living one.

Comparing them is sort of like asking why a car won't run without gasoline: the basic chemical reaction needed for the car to run simply cannot happen.

That consciousness links waking, dream, and sleeping states and forms therein, is the basis of the proposal that the forms exist in consciousness and not the other way around. Furthermore, this is the experience of meditative rishis and also of some of us. Existence-consciousness is one term.

If it is so fundamental, then evidence should be widely available for this claim. And, at least, there should be a usable definition of the term 'consciousness' that allows for such connections.

 

[Polymath257]

As per Kristopher Koch “Consciousness is everything you experience.”

What Is Consciousness?

I think the definition is meaningless. Knowing well that 95% of our functioning remain in the unconscious domain, Koch yet defines consciousness as everything that we perceive. How subjective this definition is? The conscious experience of individuals of animal kingdom and plant kingdom may vary diversely. My experience of the same event may not be the same as that of your experience. So, is consciousness different for different people? I may feel elated at a separation while another could die of heartbreak. So, do we have different consciousnesses?

Yes, absolutely. Just like you have different bodies. Your consciousnesses are different: one is yours and the other is someone else's. That seems very clear.

It is a case of confounding the contents of consciousness with consciousness, which, is the competence for knowledge: the ability to know, feel, and imagine. The cognised objects: whether material or mental or even cognition of absence of experience, are all the objects of consciousness and not consciousness itself. Consciousness is that by which the objects are known.
...

So consciousness is the process in the brain that uses sensory and other data to model the world around us? That makes sense to me.

 

[Martin]

My responses to your other points will be useless if you cannot open up to the possibility discussed below in respect of the deep sleep.

Deep sleep could be defined as a state in which thoughts, images, sensations and perceptions are not present. But how do you know of deep sleep if it is not an experience?

You will need to differentiate 'lack of experience' from 'experience of lack' to understand the point. The full sunlight would be pitch dark, if not obstructed by objects. Deep sleep, similarly, hosts no partitions whatsoever, ergo, appears to be unconsciousness -- to mind. But it is not unconsciousness -- it is the experience of the absence of objects of mind-senses. It is the most beautiful experience that we seek day after day. This is the direct experience -- not an interpretation.

We can proceed with other points only if you recognize this basic difference in understanding regarding consciousness in materialism and in advaitic monism.
...

Can you remember your experience of deep sleep when you wake up?

 

[Polymath257]

The full sunlight would be pitch dark, if not obstructed by objects.

I read this the first time and skimmed past it. But this seems to be *obviously wrong*. Why would you say that sunlight would be 'pitch black' unless obstructed?

It is the obstruction of objects that produces shadows, not sunlight.

Deep sleep, similarly, hosts no partitions whatsoever, ergo, appears to be unconsciousness -- to mind. But it is not unconsciousness -- it is the experience of the absence of objects of mind-senses. It is the most beautiful experience that we seek day after day. This is the direct experience -- not an interpretation.

I have NO experience at all from deep sleep. It seems to me to be exactly the lack of experience that defines this state of affairs.

In fact, that you identify deep sleep as an 'experience' just confirms to me that we are talking about *completely* different things when we use the word 'experience'. To 'experience', for me, means I am awake and aware and interacting. That is not what happens when I am asleep.

We can proceed with other points only if you recognize this basic difference in understanding regarding consciousness in materialism and in advaitic monism.
...

I see the difference, but I see no reason to accept the advaitic version as true. In fact, it simply doesn't correspond to my 'experiences'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Regarding the exchange between Atanu and Polymath:
Atanu: The full sunlight would be pitch dark, if not obstructed by objects.
Aup.: Which is true, if it were not for the obstructions, the light would have passed without illuminating anything. I suppose that is what Atanu meant.

Atanu: We can proceed with other points only if you recognize this basic difference in understanding regarding consciousness in materialism and in advaitic monism.
Also: Deep sleep, similarly, hosts no partitions whatsoever, ergo, appears to be unconsciousness -- to mind. But it is not unconsciousness -- it is the experience of the absence of objects of mind-senses. It is the most beautiful experience that we seek day after day. This is the direct experience -- not an interpretation.
Polymath: I see the difference, but I see no reason to accept the advaitic version as true. In fact, it simply doesn't correspond to my 'experiences'.
Google Search: The average healthy adult gets roughly 1 to 2 hours of deep sleep per 8 hours of nightly sleep.
Aup.: We do not seek the experience of deep sleep day after day. It is a state of body, physically necessary, but why should it be called 'the most beautiful', if we do not even notice it? Appears to be unconsciousness, but it is certainly not that. The autonomous nervous system is still at its work.

Atanu, please proceed. The problem to me seems to be that you rely too much on mysticism and your books and abandon common-sense.
And Polymath, it is not my 'Advaitic position', it is Atanu's. In my 'Advaitic position', it is very simple:

"Sleep is a naturally recurring state of mind and body, characterized by altered consciousness, relatively inhibited sensory activity, reduced muscle activity and inhibition of nearly all voluntary muscles during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, and reduced interactions with surroundings. It is distinguished from wakefulness by a decreased ability to react to stimuli, but more reactive than a coma or disorders of consciousness, with sleep displaying very different and active brain patterns." More at Sleep - Wikipedia

 

[SalixIncendium]

I still don't get the logic of your points 3 and 5. The fact that consciousness is present in a live body but not in a dead one just shows that consciousness depends on a live body. There is no logical basis here for saying that consciousness is present without a (live) body and mind. It's possible, but I don't see any evidence for your belief.
Basically you just keep repeating your religious beliefs and assumptions about consciousness (your 1-5 list above is very familiar), but this is no basis for a real, open-minded discussion on the philosophy of consciousness. I don't think your beliefs are ever going to change, so it seems like a pointless exercise anyway.

I won't speak for @atanu, but please don't assume beliefs. There are many that have had experiences that support what you are dismissing as mere belief.

 

[Polymath257]

Regarding the exchange between Atanu and Polymath:
Atanu: The full sunlight would be pitch dark, if not obstructed by objects.
Aup.: Which is true, if it were not for the obstructions, the light would have passed without illuminating anything. I suppose that is what Atanu meant.

But we can see the light itself if it enters our eyes. No object has to intervene to see that sunlight is not darkness.

Atanu: We can proceed with other points only if you recognize this basic difference in understanding regarding consciousness in materialism and in advaitic monism.
Also: Deep sleep, similarly, hosts no partitions whatsoever, ergo, appears to be unconsciousness -- to mind. But it is not unconsciousness -- it is the experience of the absence of objects of mind-senses. It is the most beautiful experience that we seek day after day. This is the direct experience -- not an interpretation.
Polymath: I see the difference, but I see no reason to accept the advaitic version as true. In fact, it simply doesn't correspond to my 'experiences'.
Google Search: The average healthy adult gets roughly 1 to 2 hours of deep sleep per 8 hours of nightly sleep.
Aup.: We do not seek the experience of deep sleep day after day. It is a state of body, physically necessary, but why should it be called 'the most beautiful', if we do not even notice it? Appears to be unconsciousness, but it is certainly not that. The autonomous nervous system is still at its work.

And the autonomic nervous system mostly acts unconsciously. Unless, of course, you are using a very different definition of the term 'consciousness'. And, I suspect you are, but it isn't clear to me what definition you use.

Atanu

, please proceed. The problem to me seems to be that you rely too much on mysticism and your books and abandon common-sense.
And Polymath, it is not my 'Advaitic position', it is Atanu's. In my 'Advaitic position', it is very simple:

"Sleep is a naturally recurring state of mind and body, characterized by altered consciousness, relatively inhibited sensory activity, reduced muscle activity and inhibition of nearly all voluntary muscles during rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, and reduced interactions with surroundings. It is distinguished from wakefulness by a decreased ability to react to stimuli, but more reactive than a coma or disorders of consciousness, with sleep displaying very different and active brain patterns." More at Sleep - Wikipedia

A reasonable definition. But is a person *conscious* while asleep?

I would say no. What I understand by the word 'consciousness' doesn't exist in deep sleep.

Now, can we react to stimuli in sleep? Yes, of course. But that alone doesn't imply consciousness in my understanding.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But is a person *conscious* while asleep?
I would say no. What I understand by the word 'consciousness' doesn't exist in deep sleep.
Now, can we react to stimuli in sleep? Yes, of course. But that alone doesn't imply consciousness in my understanding.

Part of the person is sure conscious and working diligently and incessantly, the autonomous nervous system.

 

[Polymath257]

Part of the person is sure conscious and working diligently and incessantly, the autonomous nervous system.

Why do you consider what the autonomic nervous system does to be conscious? To me, it is partly defined by being non-conscious.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I consider it conscious because it very finely checks various things happening in the body starting breathing, amount of blood that is needed to pump at that time,. the temperature in various parts of the body separately (sometimes when a hand is outside the quilt, we feel the cold perceived by that part though we may be satisfied with the temperature in other parts of the body and as a consequence, the hand is pulled into the quilt. Which part of the body is not getting good supply of blood, it is asked to turn. If this kind of fine checking is going on in every minute that we sleep, how can you call it unconscious? It is absolutely awake.

 

[Polymath257]

I consider it conscious because it very finely checks various things happening in the body starting breathing, amount of blood that is needed to pump at that time,. the temperature in various parts of the body separately (sometimes when a hand is outside the quilt, we feel the cold perceived by that part though we may be satisfied with the temperature in other parts of the body and as a consequence, the hand is pulled into the quilt. Which part of the body is not getting good supply of blood, it is asked to turn. If this kind of fine checking is going on in every minute that we sleep, how can you call it unconscious? It is absolutely awake.

But it has no experiences associated with it, so by definition it is NOT consciousness. It isn't 'awake', but it *is* reactive. But then, so is a computer.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We do have some remembrance of what happened in the night in periods other than deep sleep. Moreover, since it is not important, the brain disregards most of the inputs for the night, or reconstructs it in various ways, prepares a story out of it. Generally, it would like to start with an unencumbered clean slate.

 

[Martin]

I won't speak for @atanu, but please don't assume beliefs. There are many that have had experiences that support what you are dismissing as mere belief.

I've had meditative experiences too. But meditative experiences are inherently subjective, and they are usually interpreted according to preconceptions and beliefs. Assumptions are made.
For example, the experience of samadhi would be interpreted and understood quite differently by a Hindu, a Buddhist and a Christian.
And confirmation bias is inevitable when people have long-established and deep-seated beliefs, or are expecting a particular result from a particular religious practice.
It's not just meditative experiences, the same is true of "spiritual" experiences generally.

I don't see a problem with people having beliefs (we all have them) the difficulty is when they present those beliefs as "facts", or claim that subjective experiences are "evidence" for their assertions, or appeal to higher authority for validation.

 

[Martin]

But it has no experiences associated with it, so by definition it is NOT consciousness. It isn't 'awake', but it *is* reactive. But then, so is a computer.

I think of it as consciousness in "standby mode", since you can be woken up from deep sleep by a loud noise, or whatever. Though as you say, it's tricky when there is no actual experience in deep sleep, and nothing to remember (unlike dreaming sleep). I've experienced lucid dreaming, but never lucid deep sleep.
It makes sense to me that there are different types or states of consciousness, or maybe different levels of awareness? But it does depend on one's definition of consciousness.

 

[Martin]

Part of the person is sure conscious and working diligently and incessantly, the autonomous nervous system.

Sure, this is running continuously in the background - but we're not aware of it. Again, the difficulty is in how we define "consciousness".

 

[Polymath257]

I think of it as consciousness in "standby mode", since you can be woken up from deep sleep by a loud noise, or whatever. Though as you say, it's tricky when there is no actual experience in deep sleep, and nothing to remember (unlike dreaming sleep). I've experienced lucid dreaming, but never lucid deep sleep.
It makes sense to me that there are different types or states of consciousness, or maybe different levels of awareness? But it does depend on one's definition of consciousness.

And it is clear from the evidence that there are different levels. For example, the state of 'conscious sedation', where a person can respond to directions but has no memories. I don't know to what extent a person in that state actually has 'experiences' and I have been in that state. I would tend to say it is not 'consciousness' as I would define the term, though.

I would tend to think in terms of a spectrum, with 'responsiveness' at one end and 'consciousness' at the other end. The problem being that computers, for example, are 'responsive' but, at least currently, are not conscious. Even more, a rock 'responds' to its environment by changing temperature and expanding or contracting. That is well below the level of responsiveness of bacteria, which are well below that of a comatose person, etc.

I see consciousness as the *top* rung of this ladder. it appears that some see it as a middle rung or even an early rung. Where do you draw the line?

I can agree that the universe is made of interacting matter. But does that make it 'conscious'? Given how I define 'conscious', I would say not. But maybe someone who draws the line in a different place would say yes.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I can agree that the universe is made of interacting matter. But does that make it 'conscious'? Given how I define 'conscious', I would say not. But maybe someone who draws the line in a different place would say yes.

This is precisely the point.The mystics would say that the universe is conscious. Probably Atanu too. I would agree with them, till they conflate this consciousness to human consciousness. These two are very different things, apples and oranges, as they say. Consciousness of physical matter and consciousness of a living being. Though both are based on electricity and chemistry (forces of nature), whether it is the universe or the human brain.

 

[Martin]

This is precisely the point.The mystics would say that the universe is conscious. Probably Atanu too. I would agree with them, till they conflate this consciousness to human consciousness. These two are very different things, apples and oranges, as they say. Consciousness of physical matter and consciousness of a living being. Though both are based on electricity and chemistry (forces of nature), whether it is the universe or the human brain.

So what would the "consciousness" of a rock be like, for example? And how would the consciousness of a rock be accessible to our human consciousness? Does it make sense apply the word "consciousness" to inanimate objects? Does a rock respond in a deliberate way, and does a rock have "experiences"? Again there is the problem of defining consciousness.

 

[Martin]

And it is clear from the evidence that there are different levels. For example, the state of 'conscious sedation', where a person can respond to directions but has no memories. I don't know to what extent a person in that state actually has 'experiences' and I have been in that state. I would tend to say it is not 'consciousness' as I would define the term, though.

I would tend to think in terms of a spectrum, with 'responsiveness' at one end and 'consciousness' at the other end. The problem being that computers, for example, are 'responsive' but, at least currently, are not conscious. Even more, a rock 'responds' to its environment by changing temperature and expanding or contracting. That is well below the level of responsiveness of bacteria, which are well below that of a comatose person, etc.

I see consciousness as the *top* rung of this ladder. it appears that some see it as a middle rung or even an early rung. Where do you draw the line?

I can agree that the universe is made of interacting matter. But does that make it 'conscious'? Given how I define 'conscious', I would say not. But maybe someone who draws the line in a different place would say yes.

It seems like all biogical life forms have some awareness of their environment, and that this awareness is most developed in higher mammals. I don't think a rock is aware in that sense, because rocks don't exhibit deliberate responses. Rocks don't have a purpose in the way that biological organisms do, eg the instinct to survive, or reproduce. A rock doesn't benefit from expanding in the sun.

I was reflecting on the example of being woken up from deep sleep by a loud noise. This shows that sense-consciousness is still present during deep sleep, though in "passive mode". So clearly sense-consciousness isn't an "on-off" thing, it's a sliding scale. The degree of responsiveness is one way of looking at it, alternatively you could look at the level of sensitivity - like the setting on a motion detector.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So what would the "consciousness" of a rock be like, for example? And how would the consciousness of a rock be accessible to our human consciousness? Does it make sense apply the word "consciousness" to inanimate objects? Does a rock respond in a deliberate way, and does a rock have "experiences"? Again there is the problem of defining consciousness.

That is quite simple Meercat. In an in-animate object, each atom is conscious, though the object as a whole does not have any consciousness. In Living beings, the individual atoms has its own consciousness, but the being as a whole also has its own different consciousness. The consciousness of atom is the universal consciousness, the consciousness of the being is not, it wallows in 'maya'. Take a rock and put it in a reaction, and see the reaction begin. The rock responds in its own way. Why do you want a rock to respond in a human way? Should it talk to you?
Yes, it talks, if you can hear it. I was a geology student. Each stone or rock talks, tells its own history. How it was ground down and came to lie in a sediment or how it was given the hell treatment to turn it into granite, basalt or obsidian.