What you actually mean by 'Consciousness'?

[atanu]

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?

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.

...

 

[osgart]

Consciousness is all the experiences a human being is having. It says nothing of what, or whom is having experiences. The brain allows us to have all our experiences. That's not for me to say that my identity does not reside in the brain. It might!

Understandings, and cares about experiences are more than mere emotions. So clearly there is another dimension to being that can't be measured physically. It's just hubris to think it can.

 

[Polymath257]

I think about 90% of the problems people have when discussing consciousness is that they aren't all talking about the same thing. Everyone seems to *think* they know what the word 'consciousness' means, but what they *say* about it shows they all mean different things.

And, of course, there is now so much emotional baggage on the term that no actual, rational discussion about it can happen.

It seems to me that the first step should be to sort out all the *different* notions that have been labeled by the word 'consciousness' and give them all new, technical words. Only then can we start to approach the problems involved.

 

[atanu]

Consciousness is all the experiences a human being is having. It says nothing of what, or whom is having experiences. .....

That I think is an important observation.

Understandings, and cares about experiences are more than mere emotions. So clearly there is another dimension to being that can't be measured physically. It's just hubris to think it can.

I agree.

 

[atanu]

I think about 90% of the problems people have when discussing consciousness is that they aren't all talking about the same thing. Everyone seems to *think* they know what the word 'consciousness' means, but what they *say* about it shows they all mean different things.

And, of course, there is now so much emotional baggage on the term that no actual, rational discussion about it can happen.

It seems to me that the first step should be to sort out all the *different* notions that have been labeled by the word 'consciousness' and give them all new, technical words. Only then can we start to approach the problems involved.

We can try to understand the problem, however.

All experiences happen in consciousness or happen due to consciousness, but consciousness is not necessarily limited by our individual 'conscious experiences'. This is a crucial point that most academicians seem to miss.

The word consciousness is literally built into the word experience. There can be no experience apart from consciousness. Whether we see, hear, smell, taste or touch, or whether we remember, think, understand (or do not understand), desire, or imagine, all these occur in awareness.

The objects of consciousness cannot be experienced apart from consciousness. For experience, consciousness is absolutely mandatory.

Consciousness is the knowing element in every experience pertaining to five senses or mental objects such as thoughts, memories, feelings, and imaginations. These are all the objects of consciousness but consciousness is that which illumines these objects.
...

 

[Heyo]

I think about 90% of the problems people have when discussing consciousness is that they aren't all talking about the same thing. Everyone seems to *think* they know what the word 'consciousness' means, but what they *say* about it shows they all mean different things.

And, of course, there is now so much emotional baggage on the term that no actual, rational discussion about it can happen.

It seems to me that the first step should be to sort out all the *different* notions that have been labeled by the word 'consciousness' and give them all new, technical words. Only then can we start to approach the problems involved.

<Conspiracy Theory>
Like the theologians with "god", philosophers are actively undermining the consistent definition of consciousness. It's called "job security".
</Conspiracy Theory>
I guess it would be difficult if not impossible to find a definition that will be accepted by all factions. Like with other words we will have to go for definitions that are specific to different faculties.

 

[Polymath257]

We can try to understand the problem, however. One point to understand is that all experiences happen in consciousness or happen due to consciousness. But consciousness is not necessarily limited by our individual 'conscious experiences' only. This is a crucial point that most academicians seem to miss.

The word consciousness is literally built into the word experience there can be no experience apart from consciousness. Everything that we experience is always been in our awareness. Whether we see something or hear something or smell or taste or touch, it is all in awareness. Whether we remember something, think of something, understand (or do not understand), desire something, achieve something, all these occur in awareness.

Can the universe be ever experienced apart from consciousness? The objects of consciousness cannot be experienced apart from consciousness. For experience, consciousness is absolutely mandatory. without consciousness no experience is possible. So consciousness is the basis of every experience we have.

Consciousness studies have become very important in the last 20-25 years Consciousness studies is booming. Psychologists, neuroscientists, linguists, philosophers, cosmologists and computer scientists are interested in it. We think that all of these people know what they’re talking about but actually they cannot agree on what they are talking about. But is there a consensual definition of consciousness that is acceptable across the board?

The first point to understand is that anything that we are aware of, pertaining to five senses, or of mind such as memories, thoughts, feelings, and imaginations, are objects of consciousness. We are aware of them and that which is aware of them is consciousness. Consciousness is the knowing element in every experience pertaining to five senses or mental objects such as thoughts, memories, feelings, and imaginations. These are all the objects of consciousness but consciousness is that illumines these objects.

...

Nice description. But several questions immediately arise:

1. While we 'allow' for consciousness not to be limited to an individual, is there any *evidence* it is not?

2. How is 'experience' different than 'sensation'? How does it compare to 'awareness'?

3. You asked if the universe can be experienced apart from consciousness, but then defined consciousness as all experience. Doesn't the answer follow directly?

4. Does the universe exist apart from experience?

5. Why do you think it is the *same* thing that underlies (illuminates) all experiences? Could there not be *different* faculties for each type of experience, so different 'consciousnesses'?

I think the key is the last one, actually. This is likely why there are so many disagreements: some people are lumpers and others are splitters. You see one background phenomenon, while others see many different phenomena.

 

[atanu]

Nice description. But several questions immediately arise:

1. While we 'allow' for consciousness not to be limited to an individual, is there any *evidence* it is not?

2. How is 'experience' different than 'sensation'? How does it compare to 'awareness'?

3. You asked if the universe can be experienced apart from consciousness, but then defined consciousness as all experience. Doesn't the answer follow directly?

4. Does the universe exist apart from experience?

5. Why do you think it is the *same* thing that underlies (illuminates) all experiences? Could there not be *different* faculties for each type of experience, so different 'consciousnesses'?

I think the key is the last one, actually. This is likely why there are so many disagreements: some people are lumpers and others are splitters. You see one background phenomenon, while others see many different phenomena.

Nice questions. Before answering them we must examine the five essential characteristics of consciousness that flow from the definition that consciousness is the enabler of knowing, feeling, thinking and imagining and is the abode of all experiences. The crucial point is that consciousness is not the same as the experiences, which are the objects of consciousness. The five other defining points are:

First. Consciousness, chit, is not the mind or the body. Although we feel that consciousness is a property of the body, Consciousness actually is distinct and illumines the mind and the body and all organs within the mind. Consciousness is not a part of our body or our mind. On this point, the teaching of Vedanta is different from that of science, which says that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of bodily processes.

Second. Consciousness pervades and illumines the mind and body enabling the body-mind to function.

Third. Consciousness is not limited by the mind and body. It exists apart from the mind and body. it is not limited to this particular brain or by the body. Consciousness is not an intrinsic property of brain-body as evident from fact that a dead body has no competence for awareness.

Fourth. Consciousness is known in the functioning of the mind and body. Through the functioning of the mind and body, we can know consciousness

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

 

[Tambourine]

As far as I can tell, "consciousness" can be a way for philosophers to talk about Souls without having to tangle with the metaphysics of an individual's immaterial essence.

 

[Martin]

Nice questions. Before answering them we must examine the five essential characteristics of consciousness that flow from the definition that consciousness is the enabler of knowing, feeling, thinking and imagining and is the abode of all experiences. The crucial point is that consciousness is not the same as the experiences, which are the objects of consciousness. The five other defining points are:

First. Consciousness, chit, is not the mind or the body. Although we feel that consciousness is a property of the body, Consciousness actually is distinct and illumines the mind and the body and all organs within the mind. Consciousness is not a part of our body or our mind. On this point, the teaching of Vedanta is different from that of science, which says that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of bodily processes.

Second. Consciousness pervades and illumines the mind and body enabling the body-mind to function.

Third. Consciousness is not limited by the mind and body. It exists apart from the mind and body. it is not limited to this particular brain or by the body. Consciousness is not an intrinsic property of brain-body as evident from fact that a dead body has no competence for awareness.

Fourth. Consciousness is known in the functioning of the mind and body. Through the functioning of the mind and body, we can know consciousness

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

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.

 

[Martin]

Nice description. But several questions immediately arise:

1. While we 'allow' for consciousness not to be limited to an individual, is there any *evidence* it is not?

2. How is 'experience' different than 'sensation'? How does it compare to 'awareness'?

3. You asked if the universe can be experienced apart from consciousness, but then defined consciousness as all experience. Doesn't the answer follow directly?

4. Does the universe exist apart from experience?

5. Why do you think it is the *same* thing that underlies (illuminates) all experiences? Could there not be *different* faculties for each type of experience, so different 'consciousnesses'?

I think the key is the last one, actually. This is likely why there are so many disagreements: some people are lumpers and others are splitters. You see one background phenomenon, while others see many different phenomena.

Yes, some good questions here. IMO all we can say for sure is that while we're alive we're aware of stuff, or that we experience stuff.
The rest of it seems like theory, speculation and belief. "Consciousness" is a can of worms. .

 

[Thief]

So, is consciousness different for different people?

if we use the word.....aware

then I work along side people that deliberately refuse to be aware
they seem unable....and unwilling to learn from their mistakes

to be conscious......and at the same time refusing to be aware

hmmmmm

 

[atanu]

if we use the word.....aware

then I work along side people that deliberately refuse to be aware
they seem unable....and unwilling to learn from their mistakes

to be conscious......and at the same time refusing to be aware

hmmmmm

I agree.

 

[rational experiences]

Science and the use of words to want to own description of everything to have it forced changed by artificial conditions of their own theorising/design of and then built and controlled by, males and cult groups.

First told self, I thought about historic Earth interactive reactions, and the names I gave the articles of my descriptions, did not in any word usage own my self description.

Such as when I say Holy Dust/nuclear chemicals ground fission.....that is the exact information that a living human being is expressing as a study of.

Only a living human owns speaking and storytelling, yet what they inferred information to, they did not own presence, were not living, did not own self form, self awareness or any conditions human. For a human cannot exist before their own person as consciousness.

Yet if you designed a condition to ANTI self, self removal, would you have encoded feed back to infer a sub conscious subliminal cause, that emulates what you did....but cannot exactly be you, or everything you own......yet because of what you naturally lost from self presence, total human bio body life form....as water mass removal, you give feed back of advice that is not equals to your natural self and it truly interferes with you just being natural and normal.

As a male group cult science mentality as its inventor....whilst everyone else...who was never the DNA owners group male self purpose wonder at what you keep wanting our life destroyed for, making it more and more difficult to live on a planet that you keep atmospherically irradiating attacking as a lying occult Satanic male group self of scientists.

Who own every human problem ever caused to a human because you non stop coerce unnatural information.

For a natural human origin to self owned by science references 2 human being adult parents who were the same parents for all humanity. Science irradiated the national life by UFO ground landings...science. Life changed and has never lived the same since due to occult practices owned and applied by human being males in human group control.

What is natural consciousness......the answer is not a scientist.

 

[atanu]

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.

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.

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.

Currently, I agree that discussion with you is pointless (I do not know of the future). I have not forced you to this exercise anyway. I remember that you asked about Advaita and I had offered some opinions. That is all.

...

 

[atanu]

Nice description. But several questions immediately arise:
1. While we 'allow' for consciousness not to be limited to an individual, is there any *evidence* it is not?

From which perspective you are asking? You are asking from the point of view of an individual body or from the point of view of 'the awareness'. It is important to grasp this point. A mirror does not know whether a man representing an image on it exists or not. Similarly, an electric bulb has no knowledge of electricity.

The body is a product of consciousness in consciousness. To imagine that a product (which is not intrinsically conscious) can learn of existence of the source consciousness is not logical, in my opinion. And, time and again, I have referred to Godel's own inferences regarding this. Let me repeat: either … the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the power of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems.

On the other hand, when you are open to the fact that all objects and experiences appear and disappear in consciousness, you will see that our own waking, dream, and sleep states and forms thereof are linked by consciousness -- objects are in consciousness. But again, this is not any confirmatory evidence, which can come from personal experience alone. In this regard, I have faith in the testimonies of countless sages and also my own experience.

Furthermore, Quantum mechanics has indicated that 'Realism' is dead. Quantum mechanics points to an indivisible reality which functions on information exchange. You may wish to read the post: Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism

There are many other pieces of empirical evidence that point to consciousness first ontology. Some of those are noted in posts 81 onwards in Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism

2. How is 'experience' different than 'sensation'? How does it c.ompare to 'awareness'?

I am using 'experience' as an all-inclusive term here.

3. You asked if the universe can be experienced apart from consciousness, but then defined consciousness as all experience. Doesn't the answer follow directly?

I do not understand this question. I did not define consciousness as all experience.

4. Does the universe exist apart from experience?

Does the universe exist when we experience a lack of objects as in deep sleep?

5. Why do you think it is the *same* thing that underlies (illuminates) all experiences? Could there not be *different* faculties for each type of experience, so different 'consciousnesses'?

I think the key is the last one, actually. This is likely why there are so many disagreements: some people are lumpers and others are splitters. You see one background phenomenon, while others see many different phenomena.

I agree. Some eminent philosophers compare consciousness to 'mongrel' sort of mixed thingy but will you disagree that discernment is common to these functions?
...

 

[Polymath257]

From which perspective you are asking? You are asking from the point of view of an individual body or from the point of view of 'the awareness'. It is important to grasp this point. A mirror does not know whether a man representing an image on it exists or not. Similarly, an electric bulb has no knowledge of electricity.

Mirrors and electric bulbs 'know' nothing at all. Humans do.

You make a claim that consciousness is more than just an individual thing: give evidence for this claim. Why should I think the claim is true?

I *know* individuals have consciousness. So that isn't something that takes a lot of testing (although, again, actually *defining* the concept of consciousness is one of the big issue---does a person lose consciousness when asleep? Some say yes, others say no---probably just talking about different things).

The body is a product of consciousness in consciousness.

That's a pretty extreme claim. What evidence do you have for it? it seems to me that the body is a physical thing that is produced by consuming other physical things (food and drink) via a process of metabolism, which is a chemical process. Do you have any evidence that this is NOT what is going on/.

To imagine that a product (which is not intrinsically conscious) can learn of existence of the source consciousness is not logical, in my opinion. And, time and again, I have referred to Godel's own inferences regarding this. Let me repeat: either … the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the power of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems.

Godel's results and claims are often mischaracterized. And, we *know* that there are unsolvable diophantine problems. So there really isn't a problem.

The main conclusion from Godel's results is that we cannot know that the mechanisms of our brains is consistent. But that is hardly surprising: we know it isn't by loads of data.

On the other hand, when you are open to the fact that all objects and experiences appear and disappear in consciousness, you will see that our own waking, dream, and sleep states and forms thereof are linked by consciousness -- objects are in consciousness.

No, objects are NOT 'in consciousness': they are perceived in consciousness. We are aware of them because of consciousness. But they do not reside in consciousness.

Consciousness is the information processing capability and not a place where things reside.

But again, this is not any confirmatory evidence, which can come from personal experience alone. In this regard, I have faith in the testimonies of countless sages and also my own experience.

And why should I believe that they have the capability to know about it more than I do? What evidence do they present? What tests have they done?

Furthermore, Quantum mechanics has indicated that 'Realism' is dead. Quantum mechanics points to an indivisible reality which functions on information exchange. You may wish to read the post: Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism

There are many other pieces of empirical evidence that point to consciousness first ontology. Some of those are notted in posts 81 onwards in Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism

Well, I happen to disagree with that post and the way it characterizes materialism. yes, QM shows that *realism* is wrong in many ways, but that doesn't mean that materialism (more appropriately, physicalism) is wrong.

And yes, I do think that what we experience is an internal 'copy' of the world, constructed from the sensory data, and continually updated by the brain. I'm not sure why you see that as so implausible, especially when ALL the evidence points in that direction.

I am using 'experience' as an all-inclusive term here.

I'm not sure if this is an answer or not. So, do you see sensation and awareness as being aspects of consciousness?

I do not understand this question. I did not define consciousness as all experience.

No, but you said that all experience is in consciousness. That means that *any* experience of the universe is because of consciousness. So your question makes no sense to me.

Does the universe exist when we experience a lack of objects as in deep sleep?

Absolutely. We are just not conscious of it. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would classify deep sleep as an 'experience': could you elaborate on that point?

I agree. Some eminent philosophers compare consciousness to 'mongrel' sort of mixed thingy but will you disagree that discernment is common to these mongrel sorts of functions?
...

The commonality seems to be awareness, not just discernment. A thermostat discerns the differences in temperature to take action. But few people would claim a thermostat is conscious (although I have seen the claim made).

 

[Polymath257]

The body is a product of consciousness in consciousness. To imagine that a product (which is not intrinsically conscious) can learn of existence of the source consciousness is not logical, in my opinion. And, time and again, I have referred to Godel's own inferences regarding this. Let me repeat: either … the human mind (even within the realm of pure mathematics) infinitely surpasses the power of any finite machine, or else there exist absolutely unsolvable diophantine problems.

I'd also point out a followup comment by Godel from the same talk:

"However, one has to be careful in order to understand clearly the meaning
of this state of affairs. Does it mean that no well-defined system of correct
axioms can contain all of mathematics proper? It does, if by mathematics
proper is understood the system of all true mathematical propositions; it
does not, however, if one understands by it the system of all demonstra-
ble mathematical propositions ... As to subjective mathematics, it is not
precluded that there should exist a finite rule producing all its evident
axioms. However, if such a rule exists, we with our human understanding
could certainly never know it to be such, that is, we could never know with
mathematical certainty that all propositions it produces are correct."


And, in terms of a more modern accounting, I quote from the book 'There's
something about Godel' by Francesco Berto:

"In other words, either the mind actually has a non-algorithmic and not
fully “mechanizable” nature, or else there exist absolutely undecidable
mathematical problems. But G1 and G2 don’t allow us to go further
and conclude that the true disjunct is the first one. According to Gödel,
then, what follows from G1, and especially from G2, is that if our mind
is a computing machine, it is one such that it “is unable to understand
completely its own functioning.” If we are indeed just Turing machines,
then we cannot know exactly which Turing machines we are – and
this is altogether a most suggestive conclusion. As Paul Benacerraf said
in “God, the Devil, and Gödel”: “If I am a Turing machine, then I am
barred by my very nature from obeying Socrates’ profound philosophi-
cal injunction: KNOW THYSELF.” "

In talking about the Godelian arguments against AI, the same source says

"
These arguments certainly warm people’s hearts. Unfortunately, most
commentators agree that there is a mistake in them. The fault has to
do with our seeing that the Gödel sentence is true. What (the first half
of) the First Incompleteness Theorem states is that if TNT is consistent,
then γ is unprovable in it. Now if γ is unprovable, then γ certainly is what
it “claims” (via arithmetization) to be, so it is true. But to “see” that the
Gödel sentence of the system is true, one has to “see” that TNT is consist-
ent to begin with (or better still, sound). If TNT turned out to be incon-
sistent, then γ would be a false statement, since it claims to be unprovable
in TNT, but TNT proves it: being an inconsistent system, it proves any-
thing whatsoever, as usual, because of Scotus’ Law. To conclude (“see”)
that γ is true, we need to prove the antecedent of the conditional claim
“if Typographical Number Theory is consistent, then γ is not provable in
it” which (the fi rst half of) Gödel’s First Theorem consists in: we need to
recognize that TNT is consistent (or better still, sound)."


As far as I have seen, *ALL* arguments about consciousness using Godel's
results fall into this trap.

 

[atanu]

Absolutely. We are just not conscious of it. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would classify deep sleep as an 'experience': could you elaborate on that point?
...

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.
...

 

[Polymath257]

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?

By waking up afterwards. By having others notice that I am asleep. By experiencing the end of the process of waking up. I recognize that there was a gap in consciousness.

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.

I fail to see how it is an experience at all. It isn't just that I am 'experiencing a lack', but that I actually 'lack an experience' at all. I am *unconscious*.

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 you are claiming, but it doesn't correspond to my experiences.

And, once again, we come back to definitions. You claim a type of monism, but without evidence or any reason to do so that I can see. I claim a *different* type of monism (physicalism), but based on a whole host of evidence.