[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 708 KB, 1229x1345, saw0618Inno06_d.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12598272 No.12598272 [Reply] [Original]

At what level of consciousness does consciousness asks what is consciousness, babys arent born conscious they develop it through the early years of their life the do not think of themselves as separate beings

>> No.12598294

>>12598272
Why does it matter haha

>> No.12598298

>>12598272
How do you know that babies are not conscious?

>> No.12598317

>>12598272
I would guess babies are conscious but don't link their moments together, so each conscious moment is isolated without a larger framework. Whereas with adults we have memory and our stream of thought creating illusory continuity between moments. This is obvious from day to day- when you wake up one morning, the you from yesterday is only reconstructed as a pattern, but it happens from moment to moment as well, your present moment contains a concept of the immediate past, creating that feeling of seamless merging from one moment to the next.

The actual ontological question of what consciousness even is, taken apart from the paticularities of the representations available to babies and adults, is impossible to answer, you can just speculate.

>> No.12598334

>>12598317
Is consciousnesss seperate from memory?

>> No.12598400

>>12598317
Feels like people expects a well defined and romantic definition of the question what is consciousness, but it cant be answered because consciousness isnt a tangible thing but a representation of something is like asking what is air and expecting some godly answer and feel disappointed at the "air is a mixture of gas that makes up the planet earth atmosphere" answer

>> No.12598435

>>12598334
That would make sense to me. Memory is just the recreation in one moment of a model of past moments(and some framework to arrange them in a model of the world and etc ofcourse).

you can create a plausible version of humans that aren't conscious at all, just biological robots(except for yourself because you know you are awake at least). What consciousness actually does it not clear. Again to speculate, if consciousness is some intrinsic part of reality that accompanies certain physical structures, such as nervous systems, then evolution could have made use of it. For example if such and such a physical structure creates an effect in the 'consciousness world' which world then rebounds causally into the physical world, then you have a feedback mechanism that makes interaction with consciousness-world(or in other words the creation of conscious biological organisms) feasible. Like maybe there is some holistic process whereby 'computations' can be made in a more sophisticated or efficient fashion in Cworld, which helps the organism behave and reproduce, so tapping into it with the structures that reach in it Pworld, becomes beneficial.

But there's really no way to know. It could also just be that awareness accompanies allphysical matter but does absolutely nothing. Or only some physical matter but does nothing. Or it could be any other number of random scenarios

>> No.12598446

>>12598298
They ain’t sucking they own peens

>> No.12598555

>>12598435
Consciousness is just purpose the consequences of a chain of actions and reactions, small things can built up the most complex thing theres no end to what you could build with small peaces the whole universe is built with small peaces

>> No.12599128

>>12598435
>But there's really no way to know
wishful thinking, no evidence, no explanatory power - nonsense.

>>12598555
even more nonsense

>> No.12599150

>>12598334
This doesn't answer your question but the hippocampus doesn't develop--allowing for memory formation--until around the age of 3.

>> No.12599157

>>12598272
>babys arent born conscious
Usually that's a medical emergency not just a grammatic mistake.

>> No.12599176

>>12599157
or rather a spelling mistake...

>> No.12599219

>>12599128
I literally said it's all speculation you annoying faggot. It's not 'nonsense', it's perfectly coherent.

Also has nothing to do with wishful thinking, eat a dick

>> No.12599239

>>12599219
it is wishful thinking. theres absolutely no evidence, not even a suggestion for what you said. what you said adds nothing. there is no plausible reason to add it to any brain models. you entertaining this idea is scientifically like the spaghetti monster. and dors it even solve any consciousness problems? does it tell us finally why red is red or why pain feels like that? you cant even make an operational a definition of consciousness and yet youre proposing a Cworld.

>> No.12599240

>>12599176
Semantics are grammatic

>> No.12599258

>>12599240
no its not and thats not even the problem

>> No.12599263

>>12599239
Wishful thinking implies I want it to be that way you illiterate fuck. I was just going through possible ontological statuses of consciousness, you're not enlightening anybody by pointing out that consciousness has no proper definition and there is no way to measure it or make sense of it in relation to the physical world. I literally pointed that out at the beginning. We know there is at least a conscious world in so far as we are all conscious, I didn't propose a C world except as a speculative answer to why evolution would produce something with consciousness, and I explicitly added a caveat that that was assuming that C even plays a causal role in the physical world.

All I did was list plausible relations between consciousness and physical matter that don't contradict themselves and you sperged out like a fucking retard

>> No.12599264

>>12598272
>babys arent born conscious they develop it through the early years of their life the do not think of themselves as separate beings
Why do people confuse consciousness with self-awareness?

>> No.12599299

>>12598272
Object permanence is comprehended around 2-3 years old or so.
The difference between consciousness and unconsciousness probably becomes apparent around the same time.

>> No.12599303

>>12599239
There's absolutely no evidence nor suggestion for anything this whole reality could very well just be my imagination, at some point you gotta accept something as subjectively right under the view point that suits and works for you

>> No.12599313

>>12598272
In Psychoanalyis there are two steps towards it. The first is Lacan's mirror stage, not as a literal event in the toddler's life but rather a designation for how a child develops their definitions of "me" from the "not-me". When they look in the mirror, the presented totality of form, the outline separating the subject from the background, and the frame of the mirror, generates the necessary cognitive contours by which to establish what they are, and in what state of affairs they inhabit.

The second step would be transitional spaces, the fictions of imaginary friends or toys with personalities, a way of learning to navigate the world as a subject amongst other subjects, a subject FOR other subjects.

>> No.12599465

>>12599263
>enlightening anybody
im not trying to enlighten, it was merely pointing out the awkwardness of you positing consciousness as an important part of the physical world when you cant even give it an operational role in that world.

>We know there is at least a conscious world in so far as we are all conscious
disagree

>All I did was list plausible relations between consciousness and physical matter that don't contradict themselves
and i criticised you.. apparently by "sperging out"

>>12599303
>There's absolutely no evidence nor suggestion for anything this whole reality
you really have not one bone of reasonableness in your body do you. just fall back on the infamous "anything is possible" argument - well done.

>> No.12599494

>>12599263
>Wishful thinking implies I want it to be that way you illiterate fuck.
its an idea you put forward as possible. the fact youre putting it forward as a possibility when you have little or no justification is... yes... wishful thinking. its amazing the first part of your reply is to something so irrelevamt.

>> No.12599521

>>12599465
>you really have not one bone of reasonableness in your body do you. just fall back on the infamous "anything is possible" argument - well done.
I'm showing you both sides of the same rope at one side you have to anything is possible at the other side you have the earth is flat prove me wrong you faggot, both sides are flawed

You seem unbalanced to the later side which is why no answer will ever satisfy you, is useless to discuss anything with people like you

>> No.12599541

>>12599465
>disagree
You can't disagree, you are literally conscious

>> No.12599567

>>12599521
>both sides are flawed
flawed but not equal

>you have to anything is possible at the other side you have the earth is flat
i dont get the dichotomy

>no answer will ever satisfy you
a good argument will satisfy me. you havent presented one. infact you havent presented any.

>You can't disagree, you are literally conscious
i can disagree there is some "Cworld" somehow separable from the rest of the physical world.


>>12599541

>> No.12599812

>He thinks mind is the same as consciousness
Never gonna make it

>> No.12599882
File: 513 KB, 800x600, pronounced play-DOH.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12599882

The intellective soul does not descend from the outer Zodiac into the child until around age two. You notice they suddenly acquire the language skills to say a sentence rather than mere words, argumentation logic, chains of questions, "why?" etc.

>> No.12600107

>>12598272
>babys arent born conscious
False.

>> No.12601298

>>12599541
pussyflap

>> No.12601313

>>12599313
>In Psychoanalyis

>> No.12601319

>>12601313
Give an alternative, little bitch. Nothing I've said is particularly inconceivable or implausible

>> No.12601352

>>12598272
babys can't talk but they do have a complete representation akin to animals

>> No.12601531

>>12601319
look up the dynamic system theories of development advocated by the great feminist psychologists esther thelen and linda smith.

that is real science not psychobabble.

>> No.12601543

>>12601531
>The epigenetic process of neural development is grounded in the idea of experience-dependent changes which is development or growth by selectively and simultaneously reinforcing neural pathways.[6] As children, humans are constantly moving and interacting. Visual and kinematic information becomes mapped together in the brain and the pathways are strengthened and retained through every interaction.
Nothing here disproves what I said, if anything it reinforces it. Phenomena can have both scientific explanations and phenomal descriptions, and it’s autistic to deny one over the other. Try again

>> No.12601574

>>12599313
I know, and I think everyone here know psychoanalyis especially lacan suffered from bashing, callout to pseudoscience.
I think that sort of criticism made a reverse reaction, involved the movement in lacanian school to find scientific results of theories of lacan, such as mirror stage.
Was scientific evidence for the mirror stage derived?

>> No.12601583

>>12598334
Which kind of memory? Humans have multiple different types.

Consciousness is definitely tied to working memory, but the other types possibly not.

>> No.12601594

>>12601543
what are you talking about; i didnt mention phenomena... retard.
dynamic systems theory does allow us to dispense with these ridiculous and rather nebulous psychoanalytic notions of internal representations and symbols and subcoscious which are unfalsifiable. this "me"/"not me" thing is ridiculous and untestable... cognitive contours, state of affairs, totality of form... absolute drivel.

>> No.12601666

>>12601594
Literally all your argument is
>unfalsifiable nonsense
But I’ll repeat myself, where is the conflict if one is about the phenomenological experience of development, and the other is about the way in which the mind forms neurological pathways? It seems like you have a predisposition to rejecting psychoanalysis, but you have literally no evidence to show why it would be in conflict with DST. If anything the idea that the neural connections form over time and experience is demonstrative of how the mirror stage and transitional spaces work from the perspective of rain function, it doesn’t deal with any kind of phenomenological approach whatsoever. That’s the trouble with you reductionists - always eager to dismiss anything that doesn’t fit with your model, all the while ignoring the fact that there is no real contradiction or conflict between the two. Your contention is an ideological one, not an evidential one.

>> No.12601669

>>12601666
>rain function
That should be brain function, apologies

>> No.12601677

>>12601594
Also, state of affairs is literally a term borrowed from Wittgenstein. If you want to take up beef with the father of analytic philosophy then good luck to you.

>> No.12601686

God made us from dust and breathed into us life and the soul.

Science accounts for the first part - what of the second?

>> No.12601722

>>12598272

There is no 'level' of consciousness, consciousness is eternal, infinite, unchanging, homogenous and all-pervading like ether. The material world emanates out of and is dissolved back into this same infinite consciousness. Mind and the mental faculty are separate from consciousness. When a localized field of consciousness suffers the illusion of regarding itself as an embodied separate entity (despite being part of the homogenous consciousness in reality), it is attracted to an inert host delineated by the limiting adjunct of form. When the material basis for the mind (the brain) develops in a fetus this same consciousness enables the mind and the mental capacity to function by witnessing it. This inert mind acts like a mirror and this leads to a reflection of conciousness in the individual intellect. In the same way that one might mistakenly identify with the surface of the mirror rather than with the entity being reflected, people mistakenly identify themselves with the intellect that reflects consciousness without realizing that they are in reality the pure undifferentiated spotless consciousness being reflected. When misguided views regarding the nature of one's true self are removed, the truth of one's identity as pure consciousness shines forth of its own accord like the sun after the clouds covering it have passed away.

>> No.12601736

>>12601722
By that logic everything is potential a mirror, which is true but irrelevant

>> No.12601805

>>12601666
>phenomenological experience of development, and the other is about the way in which the mind forms neurological pathways?
i'll repeat myself; nothing ive said has anything to do with this.

>literally no evidence to show why it would be in conflict with DST
the whole point of DST is that it dispenses with views of development being about internalized representations that have rigid developmental pathways. For instance knowledge of object permaneance is a long standing concept in developmental psychology but DST contends whether object permaneance is a necessary concept and seems to be able to better explain behaviour without the concept.

a problem with psychoanalysis is there is a lack of standard to judge its theories and even if interpretations might be helpful from a therapeutic standpoint, that doesnt make a good explanation of psychology or the brain necessarily. when they apply their theories to things like the brain they often make it more complicated than it should be and hold on too hard to potentially outdated ideas.

>> No.12601850

>>12598298
the moving ball test

>> No.12601899

>>12601736
It is the intellect and mental faculty which acts as the mirror for conciousness, not everything has an intellect, e.g. rocks

>> No.12602119

>>12598272
Intresting you say this as i was just reading freud who discussed similar things. It is my belief, and its not closed to cristism, that many people go through their whole lifes not evening questioning their own existance. Ive met many people who are terrified to think about such things. But to contradict myself here: it dosnt seem that way woth teenagers, maybe my experience is this way because i am convering with adults, as teenagers are famously existential, and just because someone wont talk about deeper subjects at the time dosnt mean they didnt earlier in life. But i believe this just change much, and to ask a question of oneself means to venture to find an answer, most teenagers dont look for the answer nor think deeply on their existance (which is clearly shown by a conversation with them) but instead it seems in their confusion to find themselves (material selves) they are lead to question why they exist (almost unintenionally.) Im sorry for how convulaluted this post is but im not the type to put to much effort on 4chan. What im trying to say is i dont think self awareness is a human necessity but is an attribute of intelligence.

>> No.12602130
File: 2.21 MB, 1105x1456, Axioms_and_postulates_of_integrated_information_theory.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12602130

>> No.12602457

>>12602130
hogwash

>> No.12602465

>>12599128
Jesus, what a retarded.

>> No.12602527

>>12598272
>the understanding of self as self didn't arise for most humans until the 17th century

>> No.12603362

>>12602465
>what a retarded.
>retarded.