[ 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: 29 KB, 250x352, sartre2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4408093 No.4408093[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Where is consciousness located and what is it?

Is it a certain brain pattern always there?

What if every time you wake up, your brain is just spooling up a new instance of your consciousness? Your memories, your behavior, your personality are just whispers from your brain, but *you*, you're just today's version of you.

If someone is dead for 15 minutes but resuscitated is his consciousness restored or did his brain generate a new consciousness that thinks it's the same because it has the same memories?

I don't even know what kind of answer would be preferable.

>> No.4408107

>>4408093
This reminds me of the teleporter question that Dan Simmons explored.

>> No.4408109

Consciousness is our past and our ability to relate our past to others.

A property emergent from sufficiently complex systems.

>> No.4408115

It's located everywhere. Anywhere you sense something, you also sense consciousness.

>> No.4408123

"What happens to us between sleeping and waking? Every night, when the moon rises, we march like sheep into that deep darkness, not knowing what truth mechanizes the spaces between our heartbeats during such long and noble silence. Are we really the same people when we wake up? Or is what rises with the morning merely a carbon copy of the thinking creature that had laid itself down the evening before? What a strange homunculus that thing must be, a golem crafted after the flimsy blueprint of a slumbering soul's final thoughts, that it is no wonder that all of our ambitions, aspirations, and hopes are only residually pursued until the bitter end.
I used to believe in these things. I saw the fall of night like the mistress of death. Dreaming was a threadbare, skittering whisper—like the a flutter of gray wings or the curling legs of an overturned moth after a short and fruitless life of chasing the invisible purpose behind flame. " ~some fanfic

>> No.4408130

>>4408107
The Star Trek teleporter question?

>>4408123
Thanks, now I won't fall asleep

>> No.4408133

Consciousness is not in the brain. That idea is a product of the importance we give to that organ, this is completely ideological because we are paying attention to the analysis of information, rather than in its synthesis.

It is the same as to say that feeling is in the brain. This is such a common notion that it is hard to find anyone that opposes it, it's nonsensical to say it is in the heart, despite the fact that we represent it with the heart. That is so because, information is received through the eyes and ears and so on, processed by the brain, signals are sent to release certain chemicals and so your heart is pumped. But at which step is the feeling felt? Isn't it when you notice your heart is pumping faster? (and this noticing itself entails other brain processes). That's why a lot of other cultures say they think with the heart, because to them thought is connected to the observation of the responses of your body, not in abstract thinking. Not that the heart is independent of the brain, but emotion is felt in spite of the chemicals released. You are able to give a name to what you perceive even if you don't know the chemical language in which your body speaks in itself.

This is just an example regarding emotion, though it should make you aware of how biased it is to think consciousness is in the brain. That is to belief that it is more akin to rationalizations than all else, that the core of you is what you think and not your body, or even, your context.

>> No.4408135

>>4408109

So if at T2 I don't remember T1 then I have a different consciousness?

>> No.4408139 [DELETED] 
File: 36 KB, 198x228, 1384208570817.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4408139

>>4408133
are you a woman or something

>> No.4408140

>>4408133
How does transhumanism tackle this problem?

>> No.4408150
File: 6 KB, 188x231, 1386631034781.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4408150

>>4408133
>Consciousness is not in the brain.
Stopped reading there

>> No.4408151

>>4408135
'you' is a dirty dirty illusion manifest from a particular set of memories.

what's more troubling is that from one dt to the next we cannot know if our existence has flowed uninterrupted, or if we have just been initialized from some dizzying array of parameters forming the full physical description of the observable universe. this is the primary anxiety of the simulation philosophy, though it is an irrational one (as most anxieties tend to be).

>> No.4408155

Consciousness is a universal constant that gets mistaken as a personal constant due to the limited scope of the things measuring it.

>> No.4408158

>>4408133

How does this in any way suggest that consciousness is not in the brain?

Obviously as a human being certain emotional feelings are related to our conscious understanding through physical reactions (I.e. Increasing heart rate), but doesn't this suggest rather that our bodies reveal sub-conscious aspects of our consciousness to our fully conscious selves, rather than our consciousness depending on them to be?

>> No.4408162

>>4408151

But we aren't discussing me (or 'you'), we're discussing consciousness

>> No.4408164

>If someone is dead for 15 minutes but resuscitated is his consciousness restored or did his brain generate a new consciousness that thinks it's the same because it has the same memories?

This is only a conumdrum if you hold the belief that you are a continuous conscious being.

It's not as if your consciousness was solid, fully present, and then when you died, it vanished. No, it was never completely alive, but flickering in and out, going in waves. This is true to every aspect of being, awake and asleep, body cells being replaced, particles flickering, etc. So it's not extraordinary for the revived patient to generate new memories, because we always have new memories. Each moment produces completely new memories of a same past. It's not much different from life. This ressucitation experience only stretches the "out" moment, but it is the same out that we experience every second of our living days.

>>4408150
>>4408139
Samefag?
>posting uninteresting chinese cartoons reaction images less than 50kb 300x300
stopped there

>>4408140
I have no idea what transhumanists think of this and I can't say I care.

>> No.4408169

>>4408162
is dis bitch serious

>> No.4408170

What if every time we go to sleep our brain generates a new consciousness? Now I'm fucking scared.

>> No.4408173

>>4408107
If simple questions like this disprove the existence of individual consciousnesses, why is it still the dominant belief?

>> No.4408174

>>4408169

I am serious, what's your objection?

>> No.4408179

>>4408173

It doesn't necessarily do that. Even if we do regenerate constantly we still must be continuous to some degree, or we could never make the mistake of believing that we were. As such we are functionally consistent, so for every day scenarios and people it's not much of a relevant question.

>> No.4408182

>>4408158
The problem is that it is an arbitrary call (okay, not so arbitrary, as said, ideological).

I should say that the crucial matter is not on how the consciousness is in the brain or not, but to take the discussion on why isn't it in the heart. Or even, the eyes, the arms or nowhere, really.

It seems that as we learned more and more about the brain, we turned to think that the body is just a vehicle, and that our brain holds the conscious driver (homunculus, etc). And why is that so? We know our heart is dependent on our brain, but our brain is dependent on our heart as well. Or even, it depends on our eyes to gather visual stimuli, or the ears for the sounds.

I'm merely proposing a more hollistic view on the matter of consciousness. That it is a meaningless concept if you have nothing to be conscious about, you see? So even external phenomena is integral to the process of consciousness. This leaves the matter of trying to locate it, to pin point it, completely useless. It's like peeling an onion looking for the onion.

>> No.4408185

>>4408133
let's say i cut off the blood flow to my brain for 10 seconds. i fall into a state of unconsciousness. however, if i cut off blood flow to other parts of the body--except the heart--for the same amount of time, i remain conscious. what explains this, then, if consciousness is not located in the brain?

this is also putting aside your notion that feeling is what constitutes consciousness. people can feel without being conscious. not even necessarily humans.

>> No.4408188

>>4408179
Then you're just saying consciousness doesn't exist, which isn't what most people believe.

>> No.4408190

>>4408182

I accept that the brain is useless without stimuli, but this is irrelevant when we consider placing a brain in a body that is not its original.

By your considerations, if we place the brain of person A into the body of person B, then both persons are now a mixture of two consciousnesses? That doesn't seem to make much sense

>> No.4408191

>>4408139
Are you a neckbeard or something?

>> No.4408194

>>4408188

I am, but the belief that consciousness exists and the belief that I suggested are would be functionally identical, on an every-day level, so it's not relevant.

>> No.4408195

OP here,

Some comments have given me some insights on this topic already but I am off to bed now. I hope this thread is still alive tomorrow.

Goodnight all.

>> No.4408200

>>4408170
You are only scared because you once thought that you were a flawless stream of events, thoughts, consciousness. It's not only when you go to bed. Every time you look and think of something again, it is something new entirely. Everytime you realize yourself it is a new self.

>>4408185
First, I'm not claiming feeling is consciousness. I'm saying feeling is analogue to consciousness. That to say your arm hurts is a valid sentence, even though you know your arm sends eletricity to the brain and the brain sends resources back. It is still your arm that is hurting. In the same way, when consciousness works, it may be dependent on the rationalization of the brain, but this mysterious abstract concept is not this rationalization itself, but the entire process.

Even a traumatic event like a car crash can leave you unconscious without any damage to the brain. Hell, some people "turn off" their brain when they presence a traumatic event even when it is not physical, just seeing your dad in heels can make people go around like zombies. Context is integral to consciousness. It's not even about blood flow.

>> No.4408201
File: 455 KB, 1029x1001, venn diagram.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4408201

Consciousness doesn't exist. Metaphysics and spirituality belong on /x/. Apply Hitchens' razor.

>> No.4408203

>>4408194
It's relevant in that it's not an adequate explanation for most people.

It seems to me that the brain would have to be hard wired in a way that makes this idea unacceptable in order for you to be right.

>> No.4408204

>>4408174
well i would think that the two are interchangeable. we feel as though we are conscious because we have an internal narrative, and our internal narrative is our past and our identity.

i'm trying to imagine what it would feel like to suddenly come into existence with nothing but the neurocircuitry to keep my body running and start processing sensory data. it doesn't really feel like i'd have the capacity to feel conscious, but maybe that's just me.

>> No.4408206

>>4408190
>By your considerations, if we place the brain of person A into the body of person B, then both persons are now a mixture of two consciousnesses? That doesn't seem to make much sense
Well, some people who had stomach transplants and things like that changed their taste for food. Naturally, each organ has its qualities and hence, its preferences, it will react in a particular way. Wouldn't you say that this person has to deal with a new acquired taste? Wouldn't you say that this taste is now part of who that person is?

>> No.4408207

>>4408203

But we are arguing about what people believe, and most people don't require an adequate explanation.

>>4408204

Whether or not they're interchangeable is indeterminate considering nobody, in the course of this thread, has defined 'consciousness'.

>> No.4408211

>>4408207
>nobody, in the course of this thread, has defined 'consciousness'.
What about mine here
>>4408155

>> No.4408214

>>4408206

I would indeed say that preferences in taste are part of who we are, but it seems to me that we understand taste through our sense organs, but they are not part of the understanding. (Awful phrasing I know) For example, a blind man has no concept of colour of course, but if we transplant someone else's eyes into him, is he a different person?

>> No.4408216 [DELETED] 

>>4408211

'A universal constant' is not a definition adequate for discussion, it tell su an othing.

>> No.4408219

>>4408211

'A universal constant' is not a definition adequate for discussion, it tell us nothing, I could just as easily define morality as 'a universal constant', but they are not the same thing.

>> No.4408220

Le Chinese butterfly dream guy confusions say

>> No.4408221

>>4408211
your definition is not rigorous and too similar to stoner rhetoric to be taken seriously

>> No.4408223

>mfw self-aware substructure of universal substance

Let's all agree with at least this?

>> No.4408226

>>4408219
It proposes an explanation for why the brain says "I'm still me" no matter what changes it undergoes. It's because we have a sense of this thing which is completely unchanging, then mislabel is as "I".

>> No.4408227
File: 1.41 MB, 3000x2275, 1387231324358.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4408227

Philosophers erroneously claiming consciousness as their domain (solely due to the yet uncharted nature of its study as a science) is pitiful and almost analogous to the God of the Gaps arguments from christian apologists.

We have no evidence to suggest consciousness is anything but a product of interactions of natural matter inside the human cranium. That's it. Its just physical. Belief otherwise is almost always just wishful thinking on the part of philosophers.

Say what you will, yell about the problem of induction to me and whatever else, but in 60 years this will be as dead to philosophy as Aether and Forms

>> No.4408228

>>4408223

>Philosophy
>Lets all agree

Someone should've just said that to Socrates and everything woulda turned out fine

>> No.4408231

>>4408227

We aren't arguing that it isn't physical though, I'm sure very few Philosophers would, we're arguing what it means for a consciousness to be the same over time, which isn't something Science can tell us as adequately as Philosophy can.

>> No.4408232

>>4408214
>I would indeed say that preferences in taste are part of who we are, but it seems to me that we understand taste through our sense organs, but they are not part of the understanding.
It's not awful phrasing, I've got you. But that's precisely the point I'm getting at: that we assume quite quickly that consciousness is our "understanding". And so we exclude what is not part of the understanding itself.

And what does it mean to understand something anyway? Instead of thinking in organs, if you allow me, let us think in verbs. Is consciousness about understanding, perceiving, thinking, rationalizing, feeling, relating, signifying? Which is closer to the concept? I'm saying that the current ideology will always favour one over the other and that we are fast to judge consciousness as a process akin to thinking, an electrical process inside our skulls. Because we identify with that motions, we think they are us and think the rest of the body is disposable, merely attached to us. We believe we have bodies, rather than being bodies. We believe we are our brains, rather than borrowing them.

I don't quite get the blind man example. Are the new eyes functional? Can he see? I'd say that guy is a different person, yes.

>> No.4408234

>>4408226

It may very well do that, but it doesn't explain what we mean when we say 'Consciousness'. At his point I suggest that we alter our topic of discussion to personhood, because it's a topic much plainer, more relevant, and less prone to bullshit.

>> No.4408240

>>4408232

You're suggesting that an eye replacement changes who you are? Furthermore are you suggesting that an operation to surgically attach someone else's finger to your sel changes who you are?

>> No.4408242

>>4408227
The debate is around definitions. If you define it in your own terms, it is certainly going to be whatever you say. Much like the word "energy" existed before science existed, though when it defined energy in physical terms it denied other ideas of the concept. So now you can say lightning provides energy, but words carry no energy according to science.

>> No.4408259

>>4408240
Of course. Are you suggesting otherwise? Don't you think that changing your wardrobe changes who you are? Don't you think that changing an attitude changes who you are?

It solely depends on how you define yourself and this definition relies on the importance you give to certain things. An athlete who loses a leg changes who he is more drastically than a computer nerd, because to the athlete, the use of his legs say more about who he is.

And that's why we lose an arm but we still feel as ourselves. We don't identify ourselves with our own body as much.(I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't, anyway, just saying) On the other hand, we think of our mind as a complete continuous stream, believing that ourselves as kids are the same as ourselves today and therefore losing it would be losing ourselves.

I'm not claiming that we are this, or are that and I certainly wouldn't feel much different about myself if I lost a little toe. But my point is that we are never the same no matter what. That this notion of self or of consciousness is not addressing a "thing" that remains when you... (lose a finger, die and revive, etc), but the very continuous transformation.

To go full Heraclitus here, the word "river" is not about its waters, but it's course. The water is always different. The man who enters it is always different.

>> No.4408263

>>4408259

Then what we are talking about is fruitless anyway, I was never speaking of identity, and apparently you were not either.

>> No.4408267

>>4408259
feels like you backtracked pretty hard there

>> No.4408269

>>4408263
But we go back to:
>Is consciousness about understanding, perceiving, thinking, rationalizing, feeling, relating, signifying? Which is closer to the concept?
To add: is consciousness what we identify ourselves with?
Or even, is consciousness what we are? Or is it a thing that we do when we are?

The matter changed to identity because we started talking about what we are, etc.

>> No.4408274

>>4408234
>it doesn't explain what we mean when we say 'Consciousness'
Of course not, that's the job of science. This is just a model that adequately explains common perception without being untestable.

>> No.4408278

>>4408269

But consciousness is no clear thing. There is no reason to define it, that also is fruitless. We could, I'm sure, define it with due deliberation, but what would we be attempting to achieve with such a thing? It wouldn't reveal anything new.

>> No.4408281

>>4408278
I completely agree, that's why my initial argument was that trying to look for consciousness as if it was a thing to be found holds no meaning whatsoever.

>> No.4408282

>>4408274

>of course not

So, I suggested we define 'Consciousness', you say 'what about this?', but the post to which you directed me was no a definition of consciousness?

>> No.4408286

>>4408195
yeah but it won't be the same person checking the thread. pleasant dreams anon

>> No.4408287

>>4408281

In future you should say something along the lines of

'Consciousness is no relevant thing, the idea holds no meaning, here is a more appropriate idea that we could attempt to define: ...'

I mean no condescension but your initial post was confusing

>> No.4408288

>>4408274
Science has no issue in talking about the meaning of things when it comes to an abstract concept. Just as much as you can find a new animal and compare it to others, defining it for its qualities like mammal, feline, etc. But then to name it you can be completely arbitrary and just call it Bob.

"What we mean when we say things" is not a scientific problem.

>> No.4408298

>>4408287
But I did not say it has no meaning, just that this meaning is relative to the speaker. It is an abstract and subjective term, but a meaningful term. My claim is not to objectify it, or else it is not consciousness we are talking about anymore.

Sorry for being a bit confusing all the way through.

>> No.4408311

>>4408298

But to say it is subjective is essentially to say that it has no meaning. We can subjectively 'define' things but this is erroneous because language is dependent on universal consensus on definition, this 'definition' one constructs for oneself therefore is no definition at all.

>> No.4408316

literally arguing semantics...

>> No.4408318

>>4408311
Meaning only occurs when there is a subject involved. Nothing has meaning on itself, without subjectivity.

It is constructed, sure. "Consciousness" is a term we invented to describe some thing we perceive/think/feel/what-was-it-again?. If you try to analyze it as a scientist would to an object, you lose it. It is only coherent when there is a subject.

>> No.4408335

>>4408318

None of this changes the fact that language is part of a consensus of the people who speak that language

Therefore, if there is no consensus at all on a thing, in that every individual person has a separate individual conception of it, it has no real meaning. For example, 'the sexiest thing ever' means nothing unless applied to specific scenarios.

>> No.4408337

>>4408318
>If you try to analyze it as a scientist would to an object, you lose it
seems like you're romanticizing things quite a bit. granted, analyzing what sadness is is not the same as actually feeling it, but the former can still be useful and productive.

>> No.4408362

>>4408335
Sure, but I don't see how that makes it a "not real meaning" and what could that possibly be. Some girl is drooling over the "sexiest man alive". It may mean nothing to you or me, but isn't that a real meaning to her? Is something only real when it's real to everyone? Or isn't something real when it is cause for a real effect? The sexiest man alive is making some vagina wet afterall.

>>4408337
The thing is, you could go completely solipsist with this. I know you have a body because I can see it, I know you have a brain and that you think because I can see your brain sparkling up like a christmas tree under a scan. But if consciousness is my "mind's eye", my "camera", the one that sees the life before my eyes, then why do I even expect others to have it? Someone's death means nothing to me other than this flesh becoming motionless. But we speak of our death as if it was the ultimate ride of consciousness, around which the whole world revolves.

Which neurons sparkle when we feel sad is different from analyzing what combination of words give us greater sadness. There is this and that kind of analysis, the former needs to pick up a definition to guide it and go with it, takes the discussion for granted, the other analyzes the process of signifying it and doesn't care much about if neuron x or neuron y is firing.

>> No.4408366

>>4408362

Real meaning to her yes! But irrelevant to philosophical discussion! Why do you think Nietzsche did go just compile a list of all the different moral perspectives? It's useless! Tells us nothing!

>> No.4408373

>>4408366

*didn't

>> No.4408387

>>4408366
B-but okay.

I'm not claiming we are having a fruitful discussion here. It's true we are just arguing semantics.

Maybe it's not about addressing to every moral perspective, but to observe the way we signify our world tells us something about ourselves. If the girl is trying to explain to me why that guy is the sexiest man alive, it won't make him any more meaningful to me, but I would gather insight on what the girl defines as sexy. What a stupid example I gave anyway.

Sorry for wasting your time with all this nonsense.

>> No.4408407

>>4408093
>Where is consciousness located
Everywhere
>what is it?
Everything.

Whoa.

>> No.4408429

>>4408093
>If someone is dead for 15 minutes but resuscitated
We'd have to assume that's possible, first.

>> No.4408437
File: 142 KB, 877x960, this venn diagram.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4408437

>>4408201

>> No.4408447

>>4408201
Voodoo, as a religion, should just be in the religion circle. The magical tradition is hoodoo.

>> No.4408449

>>4408429
No, that's not necessary. OP could have said 5 minutes, 3 hours, 5 seconds, it wouldn't change his premise. Stop derailing the subject, skeptic.

>> No.4408486

>>4408362
i just don't think you're thinking critically about this at all.

>> No.4409942

>>4408449
OP here again,

I am not a medic but I remember reading that it's possible without brain damage within 10 minutes. But mostly in avalanche victims whose brain is cooled down.