What is consciousness?

[The Trendy Wolf]

The most difficult question that has ever faced humanity, and perhaps the most vital key to discovering what life truly is, 'what is consciousness?'

We have the ability to reason, to question, to solve and recall, but why? After all, we are only just a bunch of atoms, right? What makes us different from the non-living?

We live, we breathe, we grow and evolve, and time goes by. What is it, the driving force, that makes us do these things? Is this all just something that results from the system of our bodies, and of all living things?

You tell me. Does our ability to decide in every moment create something that is unique to life and only the living? Or are we simply bound by the forces of science and nature? What is it?

[Kahn]

You tell me. Does our ability to decide in every moment create something that is unique to life and only the living? Or are we simply bound by the forces of science and nature? What is it?

What are you asking here? Is it, is life undetermined and chaotic, or predetermined by the nature of 'being'? That's a hefty question, one the likes of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and many more before and after them have struggled to answer for millenia.

Personally, I feel consciousness is that connection Man has to divinity, define it whichever way you so choose. We draw from an objective reality, via the medium of consciousness, and use what we can discern, or what comes to us, to deal with the physical reality. Pondering "what is life?" and building what will be our life, is partaking in the divine, again, defined in whichever way you please. Rationalization and morality are key to this worldview.

[abc983055235235231a]

When you are using the word "consciousness" up there, you are wrongly conflating all sorts of things, which sort of makes it impossible to answer your question.

Computers make decisions. Computers are (according to most people) not conscious. Consciousness has *absolutely nothing* to do with making decisions.

[xxdrakeTxx]

i believe consciousness is a collective essence people on earth have. some call this a soul and scientist have theorized that it does leave the body after death . and its what gives us the connection to everything on earth . some manage to use this consciousness or chi in crazy ways also many Buddhist can do the same thing and also various other faiths have used it . but basically its the driving force behind all things on earth

[Capto]

Consciousness is the ability to independently, without any stimulus or catalyst, perform an action that may or may not be possible given the state and trend of all cosmos at the time performed, such that that action would modify the state or trend of a local or nonlocal micro or macrocosm in a way that would not be possible given its current state or trend.

Taking into account, of course, the laws of physics both Newtonian and quantum, as well as all other laws, theorems, and axioms that dictate how cosmos behave in time.

[Kahn]

Consciousness is the ability to independently, without any stimulus or catalyst, perform an action that may or may not be possible given the state and trend of all cosmos at the time performed, such that that action would modify the state or trend of a local or nonlocal micro or macrocosm in a way that would not be possible given its current state or trend.

Taking into account, of course, the laws of physics both Newtonian and quantum, as well as all other laws, theorems, and axioms that dictate how cosmos behave in time.

This is interesting. Would you say that consciousness trancends the laws that govern space and time, or is it subject to such forces?

[abc983055235235231a]

Consciousness is the ability to independently, without any stimulus or catalyst, perform an action that may or may not be possible given the state and trend of all cosmos at the time performed, such that that action would modify the state or trend of a local or nonlocal micro or macrocosm in a way that would not be possible given its current state or trend.

Taking into account, of course, the laws of physics both Newtonian and quantum, as well as all other laws, theorems, and axioms that dictate how cosmos behave in time.

I'm having a hard time following. Could you rephrase what you said, please?

[Capto]

This is interesting. Would you say that consciousness trancends the laws that govern space and time, or is it subject to such forces?

I would say that consciousness acts entirely within the bounds of the laws that govern space-time. What I think is that consciousness just modifies certain parameters, let's say, of the cosmos, and thus changes how the trend or position is acting.

I'm having a hard time following. Could you rephrase what you said, please?

Consciousness is the ability to make something happen that could not happen at the state of the cosmos during that time.

[The37thElement]

Vsauce did a video on this. If you have never seen him, I highly recommend you check him out.

[abc983055235235231a]

Consciousness is the ability to make something happen that could not happen at the state of the cosmos during that time.

What would an example of this be? If something could not happen (i.e., is not possible), than such a thing cannot occur.

[Capto]

What would an example of this be? If something could not happen (i.e., is not possible), than such a thing cannot occur.

Say a ball is rolling along the x-axis, with no object or force about to interfere within a non-finite boundary [discounting, in this case, friction and other less-relevant physical laws and factors]. Say your hand was located next to it, but not moving. At this state, the ball will continue to roll infinitely. In my view, consciousness is what would dictate your hand to intercept the ball, and modify its trajectory, its trend, to make it move, say, 15 degrees above the x-axis, rather than to continue in its current trend.

[abc983055235235231a]

Say a ball is rolling along the x-axis, with no object or force about to interfere within a non-finite boundary [discounting, in this case, friction and other less-relevant physical laws and factors]. Say your hand was located next to it, but not moving. At this state, the ball will continue to roll infinitely. In my view, consciousness is what would dictate your hand to intercept the ball, and modify its trajectory, its trend, to make it move, say, 15 degrees above the x-axis, rather than to continue in its current trend.

That which dictates the motion of my hand, though, is no different than that which causes the ball to roll in the first place, or than that which would cause another mobile ball to collide with the ball in question. My actions, e.g., moving my hand to adjust the direction of a rolling ball, are "allowed by the cosmos" to the same degree that it is allowed that another ball may collide with the first. The reason for this is because my behaviour is governed by physical events in the brain--physical in the same way that a rolling ball is a physical event.

[Capto]

That which dictates the motion of my hand, though, is no different than that which causes the ball to roll in the first place, or than that which would cause another mobile ball to collide with the ball in question. My actions, e.g., moving my hand to adjust the direction of a rolling ball, are "allowed by the cosmos" to the same degree that it is allowed that another ball may collide with the first. The reason for this is because my behaviour is governed by physical events in the brain--physical in the same way that a rolling ball is a physical event.

I don't think you're quite understanding what I mean.

What I mean is that it is consciousness that dictates actions that do change something and that could not happen in a specific, unchanging circumstance. Your aforementioned examples change the circumstance in ways impossible.

[abc983055235235231a]

I don't think you're quite understanding what I mean.

What I mean is that it is consciousness that dictates actions that do change something and that could not happen in a specific, unchanging circumstance. Your aforementioned examples change the circumstance in ways impossible.

What I am saying is that my capacity to move my hand and knock the ball in a different direction is just as much a part of the circumstances of the universe as anything else. If I do happen to move my hand, and move the ball, what does that have to do with consciousness?

[Capto]

What I am saying is that my capacity to move my hand and knock the ball in a different direction is just as much a part of the circumstances of the universe as anything else. If I do happen to move my hand, and move the ball, what does that have to do with consciousness?

The circumstances of the universe at the time are, in this example, that the hand is not moving, nor is it capable of moving given the current status of that which guides the hand [here operating under the assumption that the brain is, in essence, frozen, and that signals of any sort are nonextant]. The ball is moving. What thus compels signals to form, which thus forces the hand to move, which thus intercepts the ball, which thus changes the trend of the universe? What creates these elaborate and intricate, seemingly arbitrary signals. It is certainly not up to chance, nor is it dependent completely upon the status priori of the universe [specifically, the brain; I'd find it highly unlikely that I typed the letter "r" simply because I typed the letter "e" earlier]. What does dictate this is consciousness. Consciousness is what dictates the difference between decision and consequence [as you noted prior, computers do not actually make decisions, they merely calculate a consequence based upon given parameters and various other hard data, or they give heuristics a shot; no decision is being made to specifically, biasedly choose one option over another].

Indeed, it is consciousness that dictates decision.

EDIT: I apologize that this was so incoherent. I'm dead tired right now. I'd be happy to continue in the morning.

[abc983055235235231a]

The circumstances of the universe at the time are, in this example, that the hand is not moving, nor is it capable of moving given the current status of that which guides the hand [here operating under the assumption that the brain is, in essence, frozen, and that signals of any sort are nonextant]. The ball is moving. What thus compels signals to form, which thus forces the hand to move, which thus intercepts the ball, which thus changes the trend of the universe? What creates these elaborate and intricate, seemingly arbitrary signals. It is certainly not up to chance, nor is it dependent completely upon the status priori of the universe [specifically, the brain; I'd find it highly unlikely that I typed the letter "r" simply because I typed the letter "e" earlier]. What does dictate this is consciousness. Consciousness is what dictates the difference between decision and consequence [as you noted prior, computers do not actually make decisions, they merely calculate a consequence based upon given parameters and various other hard data, or they give heuristics a shot; no decision is being made to specifically, biasedly choose one option over another].

Indeed, it is consciousness that dictates decision.

Nothing ever "compels" brain signals to form. Brain states are cased be prior brain states, not by your will.
Of course you didn't type the letter "r" simply because you typed the letter "e". You typed the letter "r" because of brain states. Typing the letter "e" just happened to be one behaviour with the potential to influence brain states. It would be ridiculously over-simplistic to say that any behaviour or and brain state was caused by *one single prior event*.

And, computers do make decisions. There is nothing about human decision making that separates it from computer decision making with the exception of the algorithms we employ. All that we do when we make decisions is calculate a consequence based on given parameters and other data we have. Heuristics may or may not be part of any one particular decision making process, though they tend to be important for most of our decisions.

[Gamma Male]

Well, I don't really believe in free will. We live in a deterministic universe, and everything that has ever been done, thought, or believed, or ever will be done, thought, or believed has already been predetermined by the laws of physics. Our bodies are simply super-complex biological machines just as much bound by the laws of nature as the nonliving universe. We're just along for the ride.

What sets us apart? Emotions. Sensations. The ability to feel. Something still completely unexplainable by science. Oh sure, any decent scientist can tell you that emotions and thoughts are really just electrical signals going off in your brain, but that's not really what they are. Are our thoughts and feelings real? Yes. Are they caused by what goes on in our brains? Yes. Are our brains made of matter? Yes. Are our thoughts and feelings and memories made of matter? No. Then what are they made of? I have no fucking clue. All I know is that my thoughts, feelings, memories, and emotions are most definitely not made up of small bits of matter. Gah! My brains hurts.

[abc983055235235231a]

Well, I don't really believe in free will. We live in a deterministic universe, and everything that has ever been done, thought, or believed, or ever will be done, thought, or believed has already been predetermined by the laws of physics. Our bodies are simply super-complex biological machines just as much bound by the laws of nature as the nonliving universe. We're just along for the ride.

What sets us apart? Emotions. Sensations. The ability to feel. Something still completely unexplainable by science. Oh sure, any decent scientist can tell you that emotions and thoughts are really just electrical signals going off in your brain, but that's not really what they are. Are our thoughts and feelings real? Yes. Are they caused by what goes on in our brains? Yes. Are our brains made of matter? Yes. Are our thoughts and feelings and memories made of matter? No. Then what are they made of? I have no fucking clue. All I know is that my thoughts, feelings, memories, and emotions are most definitely not made up of small bits of matter. Gah! My brains hurts.

Let's be careful with determinism. Determinism (at least in the context of modern physics) doesn't mean that anything has been pre-determined. Back in the day, people would have thought that given perfect knowledge of the laws of physics, and perfect knowledge about the past, you would know everything that would ever happen in the future. Today, however, we think that there is a large degree of randomness in the universe (well, we sort of think that randomness is fundamental to it), so, to that extent, you wouldn't be able to know the future even if you knew the past & the laws of physics, simply because the future has yet to be determined. Everything that happens will happen solely as a result of past states of the universe, but they aren't pre-specified by anything.

Thoughts, feelings, etc, aren't made of matter. They are the product of electrical signals, as you said. The water inside a water bottle is liquid, but the bottle itself is solid. Just because the water is contained in the bottle, that doesn't make the water solid. Just because electrical signals take place inside the brain does not mean that those things are themselves made of matter. They are physical to the extent that they are bound by physical laws.
Thoughts, memories, and emotions, however, are just brain activity.

[Capto]

Nothing ever "compels" brain signals to form. Brain states are cased be prior brain states, not by your will.
Of course you didn't type the letter "r" simply because you typed the letter "e". You typed the letter "r" because of brain states. Typing the letter "e" just happened to be one behaviour with the potential to influence brain states. It would be ridiculously over-simplistic to say that any behaviour or and brain state was caused by *one single prior event*.

And, computers do make decisions. There is nothing about human decision making that separates it from computer decision making with the exception of the algorithms we employ. All that we do when we make decisions is calculate a consequence based on given parameters and other data we have. Heuristics may or may not be part of any one particular decision making process, though they tend to be important for most of our decisions.

This is where our opinions differ. Given, however, your statement that "It would be ridiculously over-simplistic to say that any behaviour or and brain state was caused by *one single prior event*." That is simply false. It is by default true that a cause posits an effect.

Memory and thoughts are easy to explain, though.

Graphic imprinting, anyone?

[abc983055235235231a]

This is where our opinions differ. Given, however, your statement that "It would be ridiculously over-simplistic to say that any behaviour or and brain state was caused by *one single prior event*." That is simply false. It is by default true that a cause posits an effect.

Memory and thoughts are easy to explain, though.

Graphic imprinting, anyone?

If I ask a meteorologist why it rained today, they are not going to be able to provide me with a single cause for the rain. It rained because of many interacting factors.
If I ask an evolutionary biologist what causes evolution to occur at the species level, they are not going to be able to provide me with a single cause for it. Evolution occurs as a result of various factors interacting.
If I ask a psychologist why a person suffers from a certain mental illness, they aren't going to be able to give me a single cause. Mental illness occurs as a result of many factors in combination.

Etc.

You would be hard pressed to find anything of any significance that is caused by one single prior event.

[Capto]

If I ask a meteorologist why it rained today, they are not going to be able to provide me with a single cause for the rain. It rained because of many interacting factors.
If I ask an evolutionary biologist what causes evolution to occur at the species level, they are not going to be able to provide me with a single cause for it. Evolution occurs as a result of various factors interacting.
If I ask a psychologist why a person suffers from a certain mental illness, they aren't going to be able to give me a single cause. Mental illness occurs as a result of many factors in combination.

Etc.

You would be hard pressed to find anything of any significance that is caused by one single prior event.

Well no. I never stated that one prior event would dictate everything that followed. Rather, I stated [or at least meant to state, in my tired stupor; if I mistyped, then my greatest apologies] that it was the certain state and trend of the universe at the time that would dictate the entirety of the following state of the universe within the arbitrarily small incalculable amount of time passed after the first frame happened.

[abc983055235235231a]

Well no. I never stated that one prior event would dictate everything that followed. Rather, I stated [or at least meant to state, in my tired stupor; if I mistyped, then my greatest apologies] that it was the certain state and trend of the universe at the time that would dictate the entirety of the following state of the universe within the arbitrarily small incalculable amount of time passed after the first frame happened.

Ignoring randomness, yes: the state of the universe at a given time dictates future states of the universe. But that still doesn't mean that you typed the letter "r" because you typed the letter "e" before it. The letter "e" was never a cause. Your brain states are causes.

[Capto]

Ignoring randomness, yes: the state of the universe at a given time dictates future states of the universe. But that still doesn't mean that you typed the letter "r" because you typed the letter "e" before it. The letter "e" was never a cause. Your brain states are causes.

What causes the "brain state" as you call it, that prompted me to type "r"?

[abc983055235235231a]

What causes the "brain state" as you call it, that prompted me to type "r"?

Prior brain states

[Capto]

Prior brain states

Exactly the difference in our opinions.

This is such a vague subject, that differing theories are perfectly acceptable at the moment.

[abc983055235235231a]

Exactly the difference in our opinions.

This is such a vague subject, that differing theories are perfectly acceptable at the moment.

Consciousness is (arguably) a vague subject. The casual relationship between brain states, however, is as much of a scientific fact as gravity is.

[Capto]

Consciousness is (arguably) a vague subject. The casual relationship between brain states, however, is as much of a scientific fact as gravity is.

True, because both "brain states" and gravitation are so vague, fundamental, and not yet understood fully.

[Miserabilia]

Your question is more like "What is life"?
The driving force of life is life itself; that's what makes it different from non-life.
See this thread for my thoughts on what makes life different from non-life. (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=202508)

Consciousness is a tool of life; that is just biological/social/functional/whateveryouwanttocallit consciousness;
the act of knowing what is happening and knowing you exist.

You tell me. Does our ability to decide in every moment create something that is unique to life and only the living? Or are we simply bound by the forces of science and nature? What is it?
We are made of the same things that make up non-life, and even though life is very different from non-life, according to ME it doesn't have the ability to change the linearity of time;

for our human point of view we have free will, but I think it's very unlikely that our free will actualy possesses some unknown force that allows us to split time into different paths everytime.
The fact that we feel like our choises do this is just a beautiful example of how great our consciousness is.

True, because both "brain states" and gravitation are so vague, fundamental, and not yet understood fully.

Exactly, and we both know for a scientific fact that they exist. Flexography makes perfect sense here with a comparison with gravity. THey are both observed things and we know they exist, even if we don't know everything about them.

[Capto]

Exactly, and we both know for a scientific fact that they exist. Flexography makes perfect sense here with a comparison with gravity. THey are both observed things and we know they exist, even if we don't know everything about them.

Unfortunately, this is not yet the case. We shall wait and see until we can unlock the secret of "brain states" if they even exist, and the secrets of the brain, which, judging by the rate at which research and funding for such research is going, will not be elucidated in any way, shape, or form within our brief lifetimes.

[Miserabilia]

Unfortunately, this is not yet the case. We shall wait and see until we can unlock the secret of "brain states" if they even exist, and the secrets of the brain, which, judging by the rate at which research and funding for such research is going, will not be elucidated in any way, shape, or form within our brief lifetimes.

... We do know they exist, because we have brain scans, and many other researches... "Brain states"is not something mythical and magical, it's an existing thing, just like gravity.

[Mushin]

I believe consciousness is the static connection of all living things, it's what animates our otherwise inert bodies. I think it's a lot more fundamental though in terms of whether or not it decides what actions you make, or how you think.

Emotions and thoughts come and go, but your consciousness is always present, so long as you're conscious. So in a sense consciousness would be the house you reside in, while the thoughts and observations you perceive are just visitors to your metaphorical house. Consciousness is what connects us to the universe and all other beings at a truly intrinsic scale. It's not affected by our perceptions, because it extends beyond perception. Therefore it really can't guide our actions. It's just an awareness of being able to observe.

A lot of the time I think people confuse sentience with consciousness. Sentience is the ability to feel, while consciousness is the ability to observe and decipher reality through an individualistic perspective. However, as humans we're usually too concerned with our emotions and desires, and so we get masked by our self illusion of entitlement. As if we deserve something past what we really are, like we're some kind of higher power to other organisms on a conscious level. Really the only thing separating us is intelligence and linguistics, aside from DNA and everything else that's obvious.

My inner Buddhist believes that consciousness even extends past the physical realm, but I think that's for another debate.

Unfortunately, this is not yet the case. We shall wait and see until we can unlock the secret of "brain states" if they even exist, and the secrets of the brain, which, judging by the rate at which research and funding for such research is going, will not be elucidated in any way, shape, or form within our brief lifetimes.

Believe it or not, neuroscience has made exponential progression within in the last decade. We've come really far in terms of discovering individual neurons and how they effect us. In fact, you can even help map the brain by 'playing' EyeWire. (https://eyewire.org/signup)

[abc983055235235231a]

Unfortunately, this is not yet the case. We shall wait and see until we can unlock the secret of "brain states" if they even exist, and the secrets of the brain, which, judging by the rate at which research and funding for such research is going, will not be elucidated in any way, shape, or form within our brief lifetimes.

I believe consciousness is the static connection of all living things, it's what animates our otherwise inert bodies. I think it's a lot more fundamental though in terms of whether or not it decides what actions you make, or how you think.

Emotions and thoughts come and go, but your consciousness is always present, so long as you're conscious. So in a sense consciousness would be the house you reside in, while the thoughts and observations you perceive are just visitors to your metaphorical house. Consciousness is what connects us to the universe and all other beings at a truly intrinsic scale. It's not affected by our perceptions, because it extends beyond perception. Therefore it really can't guide our actions. It's just an awareness of being able to observe.

A lot of the time I think people confuse sentience with consciousness. Sentience is the ability to feel, while consciousness is the ability to observe and decipher reality through an individualistic perspective. However, as humans we're usually too concerned with our emotions and desires, and so we get masked by our self illusion of entitlement. As if we deserve something past what we really are, like we're some kind of higher power to other organisms on a conscious level. Really the only thing separating us is intelligence and linguistics, aside from DNA and everything else that's obvious.

My inner Buddhist believes that consciousness even extends past the physical realm, but I think that's for another debate.



Believe it or not, neuroscience has made exponential progression within in the last decade. We've come really far in terms of discovering individual neurons and how they effect us. In fact, you can even help map the brain by 'playing' EyeWire. (https://eyewire.org/signup)

In fact, it's been very real science since before neuroscience was a big deal.

[Capto]

It's almost as if no person really keeps up with modern science.

[abc983055235235231a]

It's almost as if no person really keeps up with modern science.

...it's a pretty integral part of modern neuroscience and psychology.
Like, the existence of brain states / mental states isn't even a remotely contentious issue in science.

[Capto]

...it's a pretty integral part of modern neuroscience and psychology.
Like, the existence of brain states / mental states isn't even a remotely contentious issue in science.

If we're discussing that theory of brain states, then the discipline of psychology is pretty sparse with references to the theory. Neuroscience is a different story, naturally, as the theory is one of the integral ideas placed forward.

[abc983055235235231a]

If we're discussing that theory of brain states, then the discipline of psychology is pretty sparse with references to the theory. Neuroscience is a different story, naturally, as the theory is one of the integral ideas placed forward.

What alternatives exist within psychology, neuroscience, or any related discipline?

[Capto]

What alternatives exist within psychology, neuroscience, or any related discipline?

First thing that comes to mind is Pribram's theory, notably similar to brain states but distinct in its application of holograms as information loci. In addition, Piagetian stages are inherently counterintuitive to brain states due to its incredibly smooth and straightforwards cookie-cutter manner, though its veracity indeed, as mentioned, has been challenged. Next, MCC challenges the simplicity and sheer overgeneralization of brain states by tying behavior and action to a variety of time-independent varyingly independent molecular cellular [as stated quite clearly in its name] variables as opposed to clear-cut states in which the brain is active or present at a specific time. There are others, of course, but I can't be bothered to look them up right now.

Of course, what you are saying could just be is that these so-called brain states are merely an overgeneralization of linked Gestalt qualities that form isomorphic imagery in the brain. If so, then I apologize for my failure to catch the misnomer.

[abc983055235235231a]

First thing that comes to mind is Pribram's theory, notably similar to brain states but distinct in its application of holograms as information loci. In addition, Piagetian stages are inherently counterintuitive to brain states due to its incredibly smooth and straightforwards cookie-cutter manner, though its veracity indeed, as mentioned, has been challenged. Next, MCC challenges the simplicity and sheer overgeneralization of brain states by tying behavior and action to a variety of time-independent varyingly independent molecular cellular [as stated quite clearly in its name] variables as opposed to clear-cut states in which the brain is active or present at a specific time. There are others, of course, but I can't be bothered to look them up right now.

Of course, what you are saying could just be is that these so-called brain states are merely an overgeneralization of linked Gestalt qualities that form isomorphic imagery in the brain. If so, then I apologize for my failure to catch the misnomer.

First off, I don't think Piaget's stages of development are at all relevant to this. It's a (vague) model of development, and perhaps plasticity. And it's not in any way inconsistent with any ideas about brain states.

In regards to Primbam's ideas about cognition, his ideas are radical ones, with little scientific credibility. Moreover, any credibility that they do have does not extend beyond mere theory. I would even argue that we have experimental evidence (in particular, pertaining to perception and memory) that illustrates how implausible his theories are. Also, our achievements in artificial intelligence give even further credence to conventional theories.
There are always going to be fringe scientists, but their mere existence doesn't give us any reason to question a well-founded scientific mainstream. If Primbamian followers (or people with similarly radical views) can make any experimental progress, then maybe we'll have some reason to consider their theories.

I have no idea who MCC is, or what theory that's specifically referring to, but (assuming I am interpreting your description correctly) it almost sounds like we are getting back into quantum aspects of the brain, to which I will again say that such models are radical and radically implausible.

[Capto]

I have no idea who MCC is, or what theory that's specifically referring to, but (assuming I am interpreting your description correctly) it almost sounds like we are getting back into quantum aspects of the brain, to which I will again say that such models are radical and radically implausible.

Well ain't that cute. Self-contradiction works in funny ways sometimes, doesn't it?

[abc983055235235231a]

Well ain't that cute. Self-contradiction works in funny ways sometimes, doesn't it?

If you'd point out the contradiction, I could actually address it...

[Miserabilia]

I believe consciousness is the static connection of all living things, it's what animates our otherwise inert bodies. I think it's a lot more fundamental though in terms of whether or not it decides what actions you make, or how you think.

Emotions and thoughts come and go, but your consciousness is always present, so long as you're conscious. So in a sense consciousness would be the house you reside in, while the thoughts and observations you perceive are just visitors to your metaphorical house. Consciousness is what connects us to the universe and all other beings at a truly intrinsic scale. It's not affected by our perceptions, because it extends beyond perception. Therefore it really can't guide our actions. It's just an awareness of being able to observe.

A lot of the time I think people confuse sentience with consciousness. Sentience is the ability to feel, while consciousness is the ability to observe and decipher reality through an individualistic perspective. However, as humans we're usually too concerned with our emotions and desires, and so we get masked by our self illusion of entitlement. As if we deserve something past what we really are, like we're some kind of higher power to other organisms on a conscious level. Really the only thing separating us is intelligence and linguistics, aside from DNA and everything else that's obvious.

My inner Buddhist believes that consciousness even extends past the physical realm, but I think that's for another debate.


THat's a really good description, very close to what I think.

Our consciousness can have no possible influence on this world, as it is only an observer. Our choices can not be guided by it, and it cannot affect our brains.
We are however conscious, but we can't even proove it because the consciousness does not seem to exist in this world.

So in that way, it doesn't extend past the physical realm, it isn't in the physical realm at all.
(But it does exist, atleast for me, I don't even know if anyone or anything else is consciouss) (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=203113)

[darthearth]

THat's a really good description, very close to what I think.

Our consciousness can have no possible influence on this world, as it is only an observer. Our choices can not be guided by it, and it cannot affect our brains.
We are however conscious, but we can't even proove it because the consciousness does not seem to exist in this world.

So in that way, it doesn't extend past the physical realm, it isn't in the physical realm at all.
(But it does exist, atleast for me, I don't even know if anyone or anything else is consciouss) (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?t=203113)

Your consciousness influenced the world such that you wrote a sentence talking about it.

[Miserabilia]

Your consciousness influenced the world such that you wrote a sentence talking about it.

Sigh...
No, that was a part of my brain that controlls consciousness as in my brain allowing other parts of the brain to know these things that let me write it, I am talking about the "observing" consciousness, or whatever I should call it.

[darthearth]

The core question I think is p-consciousness (phenomenal consciousness). One of the primary reasons to believe we are immaterial spirits at our core is that we have the ability to perceive things and there is no way that material particles or fields can perceive anything (given their very nature).

I've written so much on this forum on this topic, I yield. I'm looking to move away from these forums really, here is my lazy link that might provide others the start I had on all of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

I would encourage anyone to study the problem, like the OP indicated it is very important in understanding what we are.

[Miserabilia]

The core question I think is p-consciousness (phenomenal consciousness). One of the primary reasons to believe we are immaterial spirits at our core is that we have the ability to perceive things and there is no way that material particles or fields can perceive anything (given their very nature).

I've written so much on this forum on this topic, I yield. I'm looking to move away from these forums really, here is my lazy link that might provide others the start I had on all of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

I would encourage anyone to study the problem, like the OP indicated it is very important in understanding what we are.

Well seperate particles cannot perceive, but a whole collection of them can give the illusion to perceive as a whole, if you know what I mean?
I aggree that p-consciousness doesn't exist physicaly, but that's all it means;
it doesn't exist physicaly, but in general the existence of it is not nescecary, if nobody had p-consciousness the world would go on exactly as it would normally; so does it really matter?