What you actually mean by 'Consciousness'?

[Martin]

No. Although it depends on what you mean by consciousness. I consider the capacity to think as a requirement, and I haven't come across any evidence that suggests plants think.

Again it's a definition problem. Maybe we could look at a hierarchy of consciousness, eg from the simple awareness of plants to self-awareness in humans. But do we include the "awareness" of atoms, rocks and billiard balls at the bottom of this hierarchy?

As a general observation, is "awareness" a more useful word here than "consciousness"?

 

[Martin]

I recognize a gap because I *don't* have memory for that time. I recall the drift into sleep and the gradual lifting when waking up, but I have no memories of the interval in between. My *memory* has a gap as shown by a comparison with events in the rest of the world (position of sun, light or dark, etc).

I say I slept peacefully if I feel refreshed when I wake up. I have no memory of the sleep itself.

Yes, that's a good description, and I don't see anyone claiming to actually be aware of experiences in deep sleep.
On the other hand, we can be woken from deep sleep by a loud noise, which suggests that some basic function of consciousness is still present, or that consciousness is in "stand-by" mode. As opposed to being under a general anaesthetic, when we are fully unconsciousness.
The question is then about the nature of "consciousness" in deep sleep. Is it a cruder function of awareness than waking consciousness, is it the special undifferentiated consciousness of Advaita belief, or is it something else?

 

[Martin]

It's a theory. A hypothetical, so to speak. If it better suits your sensibilities, you can call it a belief.



Actually, we don't. We really "know" surprisingly little about consciousness.

Perhaps, but then historically humans have had a tendency to fill gaps in knowledge with religious beliefs, and to make the mysterious divine.
And where consciousness is concerned, there could be a strong anthropomorphic tendency, eg "consciousness is a defining feature of humans, so humans assume that the universe is conscious".
Maybe consciousness does pervade the universe, I really don't know. I'm not convinced that anyone else does either, given the inherent subjectivity of "spiritual" experiences, and the diversity of interpretation across myriad religious traditions.

 

[atanu]

I recognize a gap because I *don't* have memory for that time. I recall the drift into sleep and the gradual lifting when waking up, but I have no memories of the interval in between.

Yes. You recognise a gap -- not by inference but by the memory of the gap -- an experience devoid of ego-desire-objects-thoughts. Inference cannot happen without the experience of the gap.

I say I slept peacefully if I feel refreshed when I wake up. I have no memory of the sleep itself.

refreshed

All of say "I knew nothing, I slept like a log." There is an experience of 'not-knowing' and of great peace.

...

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. You recognise a gap -- not by inference but by the memory of the gap -- an experience devoid of ego-desire-objects-thoughts. Inference cannot happen without the experience of the gap.

No, there is no *memory* of the gap, at least that I can see. There is a *lack* of memory during the gap, which is what makes it a gap. it *is* an inference from the times when I do have memory. It isn't an 'experience' devoid of ego-desires-thoughts, but rather a lack of experience altogether.

All of say "I knew nothing, I slept like a log." There is an experience of 'not-knowing' and of great peace.
...

I don't see it like that. In fact, it is precisely the *lack* of experience that defines the situation for me. So, I don't have an 'experience' of 'not-knowing'. I simply have a time period from which I have no memory. There is no 'peace' during the process, only afterwards.

 

[SESMeT]

The whatitslikeness of experience. Also known as qualia. Put simply: I consider consciousness to just be subjective experience. It's the most fundamentally known thing there is. We could be in the Matrix, the whole of the physical world could be illusory, but one thing we would still know for certain is our own subjective experience. And that is all I mean by consciousness.

 

[Polymath257]

The whatitslikeness of experience. Also known as qualia. Put simply: I consider consciousness to just be subjective experience. It's the most fundamentally known thing there is. We could be in the Matrix, the whole of the physical world could be illusory, but one thing we would still know for certain is our own subjective experience. And that is all I mean by consciousness.

I've never been able to understand how a quale differs from a sensation. For example, the phrase 'whatitslike' suggests there is a 'thing' that the experience can be compared to (via a simile). is there any reason to think there is such a thing? Does the 'quale' for 'seeing red' differ from the 'quale' for seeing 'red while happy'? What about the qualia for 3D dot pictures? Is the quale different before I 'see' it than after?

 

[SESMeT]

I'd just define consciousness as subjective experience and subjective experience as something that you know from a first person point of view if you have it but not something you can really prove to anybody but yourself. And even to yourself it's more axiomatic and self-evident than "proof" per say. That's what I think but everybody is welcome to disagree

ETA: Whoops. I already posted on this topic but somehow forgot! Apologies for repeating myself.

I've never been able to understand how a quale differs from a sensation. For example, the phrase 'whatitslike' suggests there is a 'thing' that the experience can be compared to (via a simile). is there any reason to think there is such a thing? Does the 'quale' for 'seeing red' differ from the 'quale' for seeing 'red while happy'? What about the qualia for 3D dot pictures? Is the quale different before I 'see' it than after?

I'd say that sensation is a subset of qualia. All sensation is qualia but not all qualia is sensation. Unless you include things like the subjective experience of cognition and absolutely all kinds of experience to be sorts of sensation in which case I'd say that they're then one and the same. And here it seems that you're talking about different sorts of quales or different sorts of conscious experiences but they'd still, for me, all fall under conscious experience and I use "consciousness" and "conscious experience" interchangeably along with "subjective experience" and "qualia" as well.

ETA 2: The quale is different before you see it than after only if after you see it your subjective experience *of* it thereby changes. Two distinct quales are just the same thing as two distinct subjective experiences, as far as I'm concerned. And whether they're actually distinct experientially or not is just a matter of whether they seem different to you or not. That's what I think.

 

[atanu]

I'd just define consciousness as subjective experience and subjective experience as something that you know from a first person point of view ...

I agree.

This thread was made to highlight the difference in understanding the term 'consciousness' in science and in contemplative traditions. Some scientists and philosophers have noted that there may be value in evaluating consciousness in a phenomenological term of reference.

According to the Indian yogic traditions, which broadly constructed include Buddhism, consciousness is that which is luminous and has the capacity for knowing. “Luminous” means having the power to reveal, like a light.” Without consciousness, the world can’t appear to perception, the past can’t appear to memory, and the future can’t appear to hope or anticipation. Without consciousness, there’s no observation, and without observation, there are no data. “Knowing” means having the ability to apprehend whatever appears. An effect is how we experience some of these contents of awareness as “I” or “Me” or “Mine.” So, the Consciousness is that which is luminous, knowing, and reflexive — is self-appearing and pre-reflectively self-aware.

Neuroscientists, on the other hand, try to define consciousness as that which disappears in deep sleep. As neuroscientists, Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch write, “When you fall asleep … the level of consciousness decreases to the point that you become virtually unconscious—the degree to which you are conscious (of anything) becomes progressively less and less but the fact that we have no memory of some period of time doesn’t necessarily imply that we lacked all consciousness during that time. Neuroscience data seems to uphold this point.

 

[Polymath257]

I'd say that sensation is a subset of qualia. All sensation is qualia but not all qualia is sensation. Unless you include things like the subjective experience of cognition and absolutely all kinds of experience to be sorts of sensation in which case I'd say that they're then one and the same. And here it seems that you're talking about different sorts of quales or different sorts of conscious experiences but they'd still, for me, all fall under conscious experience and I use "consciousness" and "conscious experience" interchangeably along with "subjective experience" and "qualia" as well.

ETA 2: The quale is different before you see it than after only if after you see it your subjective experience *of* it thereby changes. Two distinct quales are just the same thing as two distinct subjective experiences, as far as I'm concerned. And whether they're actually distinct experientially or not is just a matter of whether they seem different to you or not. That's what I think.

What is included in a 'subjective experience'? Is it the whole set of things I am experiencing at that point? Or is it subdivided into the different pieces that I am experiencing? Can I have multiple 'subjective experiences' at the same time? How do emotions enter into this? is the emotional response to a sensation part of the subjective experience? Or are there two subjective experiences here that are experienced together? If I both see and hear a bird, is that one experience or two? Or multiple?

A quale is typically defined as a 'unit of subjective experience'. What does *that* mean?

So, it seems from what you said that if I am looking at an optical illusion, say of a sequence of lines that appears to be curved but is actually straight, that I am having a 'subjective experience' that is demonstrably inaccurate. At the very least, one 'subjective experience' conflicts with another such 'subjective experience'.

And that tells me the subjective experiences can be wrong and unreliable. And *that* means I have to guard against taking anything I experience too seriously because it is easy to fool my senses. At some level, we only can learn by having such experiences, but those experiences are also known to be faulty. And this means that we need to find a different standard than simple subjective experience to analyze the world.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree.

This thread was made to highlight the difference in understanding the term 'consciousness' in science and in contemplative traditions. Some scientists and philosophers have noted that there may be value in evaluating consciousness in a phenomenological term of reference.

According to the Indian yogic traditions, which broadly constructed include Buddhism, consciousness is that which is luminous and has the capacity for knowing. “Luminous” means having the power to reveal, like a light.” Without consciousness, the world can’t appear to perception, the past can’t appear to memory, and the future can’t appear to hope or anticipation. Without consciousness, there’s no observation, and without observation, there are no data. “Knowing” means having the ability to apprehend whatever appears. An effect is how we experience some of these contents of awareness as “I” or “Me” or “Mine.” So, the Consciousness is that which is luminous, knowing, and reflexive — is self-appearing and pre-reflectively self-aware.

But we also know, through experience, that our experiences can give faulty impressions. Take any optical illusion as a demonstration of that. So while 'we are forced to learn about the world through our senses, those senses are demonstrably inaccurate at times. Our experiences can gives us the wrong impression of how things are.

This means we have to be *very* careful about concluding things about 'reality' merely from first person experiences. Something in addition is required, even though we are limited to using our senses. This is why 'objective reality' has a better standing than 'first person experiences'. Things that can be tested through multiple methods and through different senses are more reliable than those from just one. Those things that multiple people can agree to are more reliable than those experienced by just one. Those things with *public* evidence are more reliable than those with only personal data.

Neuroscientists, on the other hand, try to define consciousness as that which disappears in deep sleep. As neuroscientists, Giulio Tononi and Christof Koch write, “When you fall asleep … the level of consciousness decreases to the point that you become virtually unconscious—the degree to which you are conscious (of anything) becomes progressively less and less but the fact that we have no memory of some period of time doesn’t necessarily imply that we lacked all consciousness during that time. Neuroscience data seems to uphold this point.

Well, the brain is certainly active during sleep. But that just means that we have *two* phenomena to discuss: one involving what is lost when we sleep and another involving what is kept when we sleep. In my usage, we lose consciousness when we sleep but maintain sensitivity. This is, to some extent, a matter of definitions and which words to use for which phenomena.

I don't see how we have a first person experience while we are asleep.

 

[rational experiences]

Why?

Every human is just one self.

We know that it takes 3 people to claim evolution beyond self, a baby.

A Father is a male with his own life/body and mind/chemistry.
A Mother is a female with her own life/body and mind/chemistry.
A baby is a completely different sense of being, involved in evolution from materials of substances that form into a human.

Therefore a human is affected by 3 living conditions of its owned self in one self.

If you were just ONE, seeing the fundamental human spiritual conscious teaching is about SELF and being ONE, what would studying the concept consciousness gain self as a self?

In reality.

In my life I would ask why science is subjecting studies to the stance of consciousness after they studied and cloned cellular activity? For what purpose would you be so intent on claiming a data inferred human self reasoning about consciousness in reality for science?

Science said as a scientist in cosmological reasoning that science seems like it is trying to give our life to AI machine situations. And this circumstance would claim in reality seeking to ANTI our ownership of everything in a bio Nature.

ONE historically begins with the presence of stone. SainT One he said.

Ain meaning the state of zero.

Zero in teaching means nothing, so stone owns no consciousness.

If stone did not exist, then nor would our life exist. If science is trying to find conscious identification in the statements of science, they surely are mistaken.

Being aware already proves it does not produce consciousness, when consciousness expected the ONE self to be supportive of self in natural creation, as a status to be conscious of, and not to be a Destroyer.

Hence human self in conscious equating states, do as little change as possible.

Science does not own that concept.

 

[shunyadragon]

Fifth. Without the mind and body, consciousness although present is not reflected, due to lack of contrast. ...

This one needs clarification. IT would be theological claim that consciousness exists without the mind and body (brain?)..

Consciousness is the relationship between the brain (mind) and our existence out side the brain. Most if not all higher animals with a complex experience consciousness.