Talk:Consciousness/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The nature of the consciousness: a quantum mechanical approach

Has anyone read this interesting article: "Reality in quantum mechanics, Extended Everett Concept, and consciousness" by M. B. Mensky? It has been published in English in "Optics and Spectroscopy" journal on 12 Oct 2006. [1]. This article raises some interesting points on nature of the mind and it's independence on outward things (e.g. our brain).

Below is an Abstract to this article:

"Conceptual problems in quantum mechanics result from the specific quantum concept of reality and require, for their solution, including the observer's consciousness into the quantum theory of measurements. Most naturally, this is achieved in the framework of Everett's "many-world interpretation" of quantum mechanics. According to this interpretation, various classical alternatives are perceived by consciousness separately from each other. In the Extended Everett Concept (EEC) proposed by the present author, the separation of the alternatives is identified with the phenomenon of consciousness. This explains the classical character of the alternatives and unusual manifestations of consciousness arising "at the edge of consciousness" (i.e., in sleep or trance) when its access to "other alternative classical realities" (other Everett's worlds) becomes feasible. Because of reversibility of quantum evolution in EEC, all time moments in the quantum world are equivalent, while the impression of flow of time appears only in consciousness. If it is assumed that consciousness may influence the probabilities of alternatives (which is consistent in case of infinitely many Everett's worlds), EEC explains free will, "probabilistic miracles" (observing low-probability events), and decreasing entropy in the sphere of life."

It would be great if someone could adapt this text for use in article on Consciousness.

Wasn't it David Lindley who said (derisively) that "Consciousness is kind of mysterious and quantum mechanics is kind of mysterious, so why don't we just put all the mysteries is the same place?" ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I tend to think that QM approaches to consciousness just explain one mystery by saying that it's related to some other mystery. We kind of get into that already in the Consciousness#Physical section, and in particular with the wikilinks to topics like the Orch-OR model. However, honestly, this section is little more than a collection of name-dropping and jargon. I don't think the Consciousness#Physical section actually does any explaining, or helps the reader to understand (even at a very vague level) what is being suggested here. I certainly don't think that this particular abstract adds much to that section. Edhubbard (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Edhubbard, "text" means "article". You should have read the article itself, not just the abstract. I cannot paste this article here just because this text is copyrighted. But someone probably can read it and adopt an idea. May be Quantum Mechanic is too mysterious and vague to understand it, but it is based on scientific method much more strictly than, say, Psychology. So much the better is it to investigate. Also I'd like to mention that Mikhail Mensky is a well-respected physicist in a good standing. I have read his popular scientific book "Human and Quantum World" (in Russian) and can say that his hypothesis has good arguments. Another interesting thing is that annotation to this book was written by Vitaly Ginzburg (who is a Nobel Prize winner in physics and arrant materialist) with generally positive feedback. In conclusion, I have to mention that hypothesis about relation between Consciousness and QM is supported by many well-known physicists (Roger Penrose and Henry Stapp are some of them). Only the last reason should be enough to thoroughly work on Consciousness#Physical section.

Hi Charles, if I'm not wrong, that was either Roger Penrose or Henry Stapp who said that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantum Mind (talk • contribs) 06:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Quantum, I'm certainly not saying that we should not have any discussion of QM approaches, and I'm not fundamentally opposed to adding the article you suggest, but simply providing the abstract and no context, you provide us with no rationale to add it. Although my personal feeling is that this is the wrong level of explanation, there are currently a number of very important QM ideas (the Penrose and Hammeroff Orch-OR work being the most fleshed out, as far as I can tell). As you can see in my comments above, I not only say that I don't see why this article should be added, but also that our coverage of things like the Penrose idea is currently not very good. By just linking to the Orch-OR model, but without any context, the current QM section only makes sense to people who already know these models. I do not see how the particular article you are suggesting we add improves this article. As per WP:BURDEN, it is not my job to work through to understand why it belongs, but rather up to you, the person who would like to see it added, to explain in clear language why it should be added. Simply posting an abstract, and saying "it would be great if..." does not tell any of us how or why this addition would improve the article. Now, if you feel qualified, the whole QM section could still use some work, so perhaps before we add this particular article, we should work on the things that have whole book-length treatments, like the Orch-OR model. That needs a sentence or two that clearly and concisely explains the ideas about microtubules, quantum isolation, and how this is thought to give rise to consciousness. Give us a better explanation of what this would add to the article. If you can't do it in a sentence or two, it probably would be better added to one of the daughter pages. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

< A PLAN: The article should contain a section "quantum mechanics and consciousness", which, if properly written, would begin with a short discussion of Nils Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation and a quick description of the Measurement problem (Richard Rhodes' pullitzer prize winning The Making of the Atomic Bomb is an excellent source, partly because he makes the connection between Bohr and Kierkegaard, and shows that phenomenology was always a part of Bohr's thinking.) The next paragraph should state at the top that many thinkers have argued that quantum mechanics indicates that individual consciousness plays a role in measurement, which in turn "creates reality." I would mention Fritjof Capra first, because he wrote some enormously popular books (The Tao of Physics, etc.) on the topic. Other thinkers who agree include Ken Wilber and other new age folks. Then I would have paragraph debunking this idea, quoting David Lindley (physicist) (from his book Where Does the Weirdness Go) and other physicists and critics who think this connection between metaphysical consciousness, eastern philosophy and quantum mechanics is based on a misunderstanding. Next I would take up Roger Penrose's ideas. After this, towards the bottom, there may be room for some truly obscure ideas, like the one mentioned above. I think this is the only way to approach the topic, since we must deal with ideas in the order of their influence and popularity. (See WP:UNDUE to understand why we have to do this.) ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Holy cr--! I just realized Wikipedia already has an article on this topic. See Quantum mind. This article (Consciousness) should, at most, summarize that article (Quantum mind) in a paragraph or two. All material relating to quantum mechanics and consciousness belongs in that article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And there is an article that directly discusses the idea at the top of this section, namely the many minds interpretation. Maybe the paper mentioned above could help that article. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I second your plan, but given your discovery of the Quantum mind article, I think that we should really be selective about what we add here, and push the more detailed and esoteric aspects off to the Quantum mind article, as per Wikipedia:Summary style. In this way, we maintain the balance between length and comprehensiveness on this page, and give the topic more room to grow on the quantum mind page as needed. I think that one consequence of this plan is that we are basically agreed that the article mentioned above will not end up in this article, but may end up in the many minds interpretation article. Charles, you clearly know quite a bit more about this than I do, so let's certainly try to work on this together, with you taking the lead, and me helping out as much as I can. The thing I know best (perhaps unfortunately) is the neuroscientific counter-arguments to the Orch-OR model, like how anesthesia blocks consciousness, but not microtubule function, and vice-versa, how there are microtubules throughout the body, but it seems that the brain is the key to conscious experiences... Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion of Orch-OR is to be balanced, the core argument against quantum consciousness theories is that quantum features would decohere in the brain much too quickly to be of any use in neural processing. The Penrose theory is especially challenged in this respect, as it requires quantum coherence to be sustained for about 25 ms. Tegmark (2000) (Physical Review) is often quoted in this respect, and even Stuart Hameroff, Penrose's collaborator on the neuroscience side of the theory, admits a prima facie problem with decoherence. However, a neutral report should probably avoid the common practise of failing to mention that Physical Review published Hameroff et al's reply to Tegmark. Also in the last few years there has been Engel et al and other papers on quantum coherence in photosynthetic protein, and Prokorny's work on ions and ordered water near the surface of microtubules. I should stress these latter writers are not discussing consciousness or even neuroscience, but only the mechanics of protein. The earlier version of the Orch-OR article had a prolonged neutrality problem partly because it became bogged down in refuting a legion of other objections to the theory and this was seen as advocacy. As far as I could make many of these were in fact not valid and the best thing was to pass over them and concentrate on the decoherence issue. I would suggest the neuroscientific arguments mentioned above fall into this latter class. Hameroff writing in Anesthesiology, 2006 asserts that Franks and Lieb as far back as the 1980s and a preponderance of later evidence points to anaethetic action being in hydrophobic pockets in proteins including those in microtubules. Only 15% of proteins have hydrophobic pockets large enough for anaesthetic molecules hence the selective action of anaethesia. The argument about microtubules through out the body is countered by the much greater density of microtubules in neurons. Persephone19 (talk) 08:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

==

This all very interesting, but it does not explain how some atoms can get together and become self-aware.

This looks seriously WRONG!!!

It seems to me the lead-in to this article is seriously flawed. Specifically where it says: "A characteristic of consciousness is that it is reflective, an "awareness of being aware". This "self-awareness" may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, and dreams." I don't mean it's wrong in MY opinion. It looks wrong in terms of the common consensus of current opinion. It doesn't even look consistent with the rest of the article. It appears to be saying that "self-awareness" is a part of consciousness, which seems wrong. I was sure that there was at least a debate that dogs, cats, etc can be conscious but not "self-aware". It's news to me if someone has discovered that dogs and cats are self-aware. I must have missed that in the news. I checked earlier in the history of this page and this quote was not there, which is also what makes me suspicious. Since I just came upon this article for the first time today, I'm reluctant to make this correction myself, but I thought I'd post this to at least start a discussion.BashBrannigan (talk) 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I was on vacation when this comment was made and missed it, but I'll respond now. There are three fundamental things I believe about consciousness: (1) everybody understands the meaning of the word differently; (2) most people think that there is only one correct way to understand the word; and (3) most people believe that the majority of other people understand the word in roughly the same way that they do. These factors make it extraordinarily difficult to keep any sort of consistency in this article. Ideally we would discuss the range of meanings that people use, but factors (2) and (3) mean that attempts to do so always lead to trouble. Looie496 (talk) 00:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, but the problem is that the statement: A characteristic of consciousness is that it is reflective, an "awareness of being aware" is making an assertion which I am convinced is not consensus. I'm no expert on this area, but I feel convinced that the statement is very POV. I'm not saying this because I disagree with it. It's because the statement is being stated as if it's a statement of commonly accepted fact, which I'm sure it is not. BashBrannigan (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and if you edit the article in that way, I'll support you. My problem with this article has always been that too few people watch it, with the result that any attempt I've made to edit it has turned into a one-vs-one dispute -- and on Wikipedia, one-vs-one disputes are intractable. Anyway, the least controversial solution might be to preface the statement with a qualifier like "some writers have argued that...". Looie496 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Before someone changes it, Ostracon rewrote the summary and, again while I'm no expert on this subject, it seems far better to me. This has my vote. BashBrannigan (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Responding to this statement, above:

It seems to me the lead-in to this article is seriously flawed. Specifically where it says: "A characteristic of consciousness is that it is reflective, an "awareness of being aware". This "self-awareness" may involve thoughts, sensations, perceptions, moods, emotions, and dreams." I don't mean it's wrong in MY opinion. It looks wrong in terms of the common consensus of current opinion.

I agree that is wrong, because of what we observe daily about plants and animals. Plants seem to have at least a sensation level of awareness of their environment. They turn towards the light, for example. Animals obviously have that too, but additionally, a higher level of perceptual consciousness. Meaning that they do some interpreting of the sensations they receive. Deer run rapidly away from any sensation, which they perceive as a threat to their own safety. Man has an even higher level of consciousness, which is his ability to conceptualize his perceptions into endless categories. My conjecture is that man's self-awareness is related to, or is a part of, that third higher level of concept formation.

I think some ability to form concepts has to be part of an animal's consciousness, before it can make or use tools. When I was in college, they were still teaching that man is the only tool maker/user. We have long since discarded that idea, since examples of other animals using, and even making, tools are abundant. I now conjecture that some of the higher animals also have some limited ability to conceptualize. Far less and much less complex than man's ability, but nevertheless there are observational examples, which seem to require a conclusion that some animals can form concepts in their minds too. I can give one example, from one of my dogs:

Male Rottweiler/German Shepard mix. One day, I found a bunch of bullet slugs lined up in a straight line, in the middle of my sidewalk. They had been dug out of a bank of earth which we have used as a backstop for many years, while target shooting with our many guns. Berny (the dog) had been digging in that bank and he was able to separate out the various types of spent slugs (380, 45, 357, 9mm, 30-30, etc.) from pebbles of that same size and weight, and then collect them into his own display format on the sidewalk. That obviously required some ability to conceptualize, in the brain that directed that behavior. For those who think someone else did it: We live on a ranch, which has locked gates and electric fencing. No one but my wife and I had access to the bank, or sidewalk where we found that bullet collection. And, I later observed him digging in that bank and collecting even more bullets.

The point being that there obviously are various levels and degrees of consciousness and "awareness of being aware" may be included in some cases, but it is not the sum total of what constitutes "consciousness," nor should it be stated that there can be no consciousness without that highest level of concept formation ability, being present. EditorASC (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why?

But why does consciousness exist? I am self-aware but I don't know how humans happen to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandart (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What is the relevance of this? Should this be undone? We're not supposed to edit talk, can we undo talk? BashBrannigan (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Just ignore it – Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary --David Ludwig (talk) 11:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The article does have a section called "Functions". Dandart, are you suggesting that it's not adequate, or did you not see it, or did you feel that it doesn't address the question? Looie496 (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Charlton article in Further Reading

There's been a back-and-forth on whether the Bruce Charlton article (Evolution and the cognitive neuroscience of awareness, consciousness and language) belongs in Further Reading. My take is that its appropriateness has not been demonstrated. The article gets 10 citations according to Google Scholar, and hardly any of them are from high-quality journals. Charlton is the editor of Medical Hypotheses, a journal that is generally treated as an unreliable source by WikiProject Medicine because it publishes a lot of wild speculation. In short, I am open to being convinced that this article is notable, but haven't seen any evidence of it yet. I would like to remove the article from the list, but don't want to carry on an edit war unless there is support from others. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I fully support removal of this link. As a text on the subject, it is neither notable nor influential. It does not appear to have been published in a reputable journal, and links to "hedweb" are probably not something we need in a serious article on Wikipedia. The author does not appear to be a major authority on the subject, either. A PubMed search brings up quite a few opinions and letters to the editor on a wide array of subjects, not so many influential pieces on consciousness. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, please consider that viewpoints from alternate authors, even if the authors are not a "major authority", can be worthwhile for inclusion on a reading list. Items on the reading list should include items that are just that: items that are worth reading, thus contributing to the topic at hand. A healthy reading list has the courage to show a variety of sources, even if they are not first-tier "major authorities", or "notable" and "influential" sources from the mainstream establishment. The reader of the reading list has the responsibility to compare and contrast the various items which s/he reads. A sterilized reading list does not help the reader in becoming well-informed. Over the long term, an overly-conservative approach to Wikipedia areas that should offer some flexibility (such reading lists) will result in Wikipedia becoming a parrot of the mainstream establishment.

I find the Charlton article to be interesting and well-written. To the author's credit, he works for the Informatics Research Institute at Newcastle University[2], an accredited University. I have no affiliation with the author (Charlton), Newcastle University, nor any other authors or sources in this Wikipedia article.

I fully support including the Charlton article in the reading list. Thank you for your consideration. PolarYukon (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing your reasoning. I respond that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a comprehensive collection of links to every bit of speculation, reliable or not, that individual editors consider interesting. Nor is Wikipedia meant to be a bulwark against a "mainstream establishment". Instead, it is meant to gather and present verifiable information to readers. Insisting on verifiability is not "sterilisation" or acquiescence to some conservative, establishmentarian conspiracy, it is simply what we are tasked with doing here as editors. The current further reading/external list section is, in my opinion, out of all proportion to the rest of the article, and should be pruned considerably to leave only the best links and sources with the most representative sampling of current opinion. A non-reviewed amateur opinion essay, presented by a fringe website promising that "nanotechnology and genetic engineering will eradicate aversive experience in all sentient life" is not an appropriate external link in this context, or, indeed, in any other on Wikipedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with PolarYukon here. You're on a slippery slope towards censorship here. Given the non-consensus nature of the subject you might do well to taken an open minded approach to the reading list. Anybody attempting this subject is likley to be grown up enough to decide what's useful, or they may be a bit mad in which case it doesn't matter. You say the reading list is disproportionate, but the article is in for a rewrite after demotion to C status, and the likely solution is for the article to expand rather than the reading list to shorten. 77.103.4.235 (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the above wasn't signed properly.Persephone19 (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Toward a Rewrite: Two maps on consciousness

I have created a map that aims to present an overview of the most important views (that are subject to disagreement) on consciousness from an academic perspective: Map over views on consciousness

It is my intention that the map could serve as a pathfinder for an article rewrite, which will take us from point C to point B; The article was recently demoted to C-level at the philosophy project and this was the last project to follow suite. I don't expect Wikipedia to cover the whole map, and the map does not cover the basic definitions and other consensus views, which the article will naturally include.

What are your thoughts on this map? Do you think it it representative? Can we use it as a means of direction?

Ostracon (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The article certainly could use substantial reorganization. Regarding the picture, I have to say that the parts where it goes into the most detail are precisely the parts I know least about (I'm a neuroscientist), but I don't see why it couldn't serve as a starting point. The main thing it would take to make progress here is to have a group of editors with broad enough familiarity with the range of ideas so as not to get stuck on idiosyncratic notions. Looie496 (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Here is a second map featuring scientific approaches, with an emphasis on neuroscience: Science and Consciousness map

Again, I'm awaiting your thoughts on this second map. Ostracon (talk) 13:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good, I believe you've sketched out the major points appropriately. The trick will be to convert the tree structure from the pictures into the linear structure that prose must have. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments were requested. This might seem unrelated but looking at the way this is developing, including that map, I believe a big concern many editors of this article should have is whether jargon is being over-used without any eye to whether that jargon is assisting in actual communication. For example making this one of the first things said in the article means what? "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives." To me as a native English speaker used to parsing the pseudo poetic it is basically saying that consciousness is awareness, which was already mentioned. Gee, that wouldn't sound academic enough right? And many of the distinctions and connections in this map are similarly just about different words used in different schools and disciplines and so on. People should not be using Wikipedia as a note pad for experiments in being deep, or as a place to get their own thoughts together on a complex subject. We all have the possibility to go get a blog. Keep it simple wherever possible, and please do not introduce issues of academic disciplines and schools if these are side issues. Handle those in specialist articles, but by all means link to them from specialized sub-sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The good thing about the existing article is that it is heavily historical, and very general, which is why it has survived without being a battleground! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.27.98 (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it a good article, or is it an example of a Wikipedia article that quietly accretes disorganized references?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Music Therapy?

Someone added "Music Therapy" to the "See Also" section. I don't know enough about this topic, but is Music Therapy to be taken seriously and should it belong in this article? There is a section in Wikipedia on it, but I always thought of Music Therapy as "hollywood-hippie" stuff. But maybe I'm wrong. BashBrannigan (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Should it be taken seriously? Yes. Is it relevant to this article? No. Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Invisible Landscape be removed?

I had removed the addition of “the novel titled The Invisible Landscape - Mind, Hallucinogens, and I Ching, Terrence McKenna and Dennis McKenna”, but the editor reverted and so it is back in. We need other editors opinions on this. My belief was that it was clearly out of place, mostly due to the quality. The McKenna brothers seem out of place alongside the opinions of George Berkeley and Descartes, but perhaps that’s my opinion. Neither McKenna appears to even have a masters degree and the material itself is based upon a novel. The writing of the material itself seemed inadequate, which made the content dubious. The editor likely means well, but I have suspicions that this material is not appropriate. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The points raised by BashBrannigan are legitimate since neither Terrence or Dennis McKenna is a well known figure, as compared to Descartes and Berkeley. However, their description of consciousness is closest to the current scientific explanation of consciousness (somatotopic and topographic maps), as compared to the descriptions put forth by Descartes or Berkeley. Since it is the philosophical beginning of the current understanding of consciousness, I believe it is important to add this information. (Note: Dennis McKenna received a masters from University of Hawaii and a doctorate from the University of British Columbia, although his field of study was botany). It is important to remember that this section of the article deals with the philosophy of consciousness and not the science behind it. While being well-educated helps, a masters or doctorate is not needed to be a philosopher. The author's lack of a degree should not affect our views about the ideas put forth by them since these are philosophical ideas. BolonYokte (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The question of whether this stays in the article will depend on: 1. is the a fringe theory 2. Is the theory widely known and notable 3. Are the authors (the McKennas) the best representatives of the theory? Has anyone more notable authored of the same theory. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the material again. A novel is simply not an adequate source; the qualifications of the authors are irrelevant. If the novel had received substantial coverage by independent sources in the philosophy literature it might be a different story, but there is no evidence of that. Looie496 (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not Subjective experience

Consciousness is experience. It has nothing to do with subjectiveness and objectiveness. It occurs due to duality. When a being becomes conscious of its self..it experiences everything around it which it is not. It cannot be verified by objective science since it does not fall within the domain of science. when consciousness cease to exist then the being ceases to exist because he can no more experience anything. There is only single..no duality. I suggest one has to remove "subjective" from subjective experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.79.37 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and everything must be referenced from reliable sources. Personal opinions/beliefs of wikipedia editors are irrelevant. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the IP was right to remove it anyway in my opinion, because it's redundant -- "experience" and "subjective experience" are the same thing, aren't they? Looie496 (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Are they? Are no experiences free from subjectivity? I'm fairly sure "the world is round" is regarded as more than a subjective experience. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

As I think about it, having looked at Experience#Types of experience, maybe you're right. Well, partly -- I don't see that "the world is round" is experience of any sort. Looie496 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

"Subjective experience" simply emphasizes that experience is private and thus inaccessible to others - restricted to one subject. Possibly, it could be contrasted with "shared experience". (Subjectivity is merely a characteristic of experience.) The reason of the current use might be to hinder confusing experience-as-lived-experience from experience-as-having-experienced-a-history-of-events, for example work experience - experience in the latter sense may very well be shared by a collective and not being restricted to a subject. Ostracon (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: If 123.238.79.37 is unhappy about the objective-subjective distinction might I suggest intersubjectivity (a special case of subjectivity) as an alternative to objectivity. Regards Ostracon (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor removed "subjective" from the line “Consciousness is subjective experience or awareness or wakefulness or the executive control system of the mind.[1]” which is cited from “Farthing, G. W. (1992). The Psychology of Consciousness.” How can you remove a word from a quoted source without that being POV? If you disagree with “subjective” then you have to remove the entire line not just the word. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Subjective experience seems to make it clearer as to what you are talking about. It is arguable either that experience can be unconscious, or can act on unconscious processing. Damasio has a neat example of an amnesiac patient, who saw two researchers on a particular day. One chatted over a cup of coffee, the other administered boring tests. The next day when the amnesiac comes to the hospital, he has no conscious memory of either researcher, but shows a preference for the one who chatted over coffee.Persephone19 (talk) 11:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

experience as used in reference to 'consciousness' is experience of the physical world by humans through five senses. The receiver of the end result through processing of five senses is the 'experience' or 'consciousness'. To say experience could be subjective and also objective is illogical. 'Earth is round' is not an experience in so far as no human had personally experienced it. Most of us have learned from reading science books. We are supposed to believe what the books says as 'objective' and so fact. Facts are not experienced. Fact is the conclusion drawn from experience. This fact sometimes may be and may not be true. Science deploys so called 'empiricism' and 'evidence' to confirm the conclusions drawn from experience.

On the hand, as some one had pointed out above consciousness is 'purely personal experience.' it is like calling one's anger, love or other experiences as being objective anger and objective love etc. 'Experience' is not a 'physical thing which exists' in terms of physics. So it is illogical to call 'consciousness' subjective experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.71.150 (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Many here are missing the point. The word "subjective" was used here as part of the referenced citation. It's irrelevant what anyone's opinions of this issue are, it is only relevant what the original source stated. Stop debating and giving your personal opinion on the subjectivity of experience. BashBrannigan (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point that whereas you can cite original source one also has to look into self contradiction in the source citation. If a source says "Mount everest is the highest and also the lowest peak in the world" will you include it here without amendment because the source says so?123.238.71.150 (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The above argument is irrelevant and cannot be taken seriously. This is wikipedia, not youtube. Personally, I don't have time now to engage in an editing war or frivolous debates, so this is my last entry on this. I'll let my opinions as they stand and leave to others to take up. BashBrannigan (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This is WP not junkyard where you can dump all garbage with sources in one place. If you do ot have time to engage in meaningful discussion do not edit this article or engage in edit wars. This palce is for those who have lot of time to discuss and understand WP policies.124.124.230.149 (talk) 06:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No one seems to be interested in discussion. I'll leave it here.

124.124.230.149 (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sleep is not unconscious!

From the article:

"...can bring the brain from the awake condition (conscious) to the sleep (unconscious)."

There is a persistent myth that sleep is unconscious. See Physiology of Behavior 10e by Neil R. Carlson.

Quoting from Carlson...

"Although sleep is a period during which we do not respond very much to the environment, it is incorrect to refer to sleep as a state of unconsciousness. Consciousness during sleep certainly differs from waking consciousness, but we are conscious then."

Dreaming is a great example of this. Some may be tempted to say this only shows we are conscious during REM sleep, but remember, dreams also occur in slow wave (especially stage 4) sleep.

Additionally, this sentence, "some philosophers have been tempted by the idea that even consciousness could be explained in purely physical terms." does not look neutral. It seems demeaning towards the materialist point of view.

Grouphug (talk) 23:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have material with citations, feel free to add it. You'll notice that the section already has material not cited, so anything you add from credible sources would be an improvement. BashBrannigan (talk) 00:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Conscious Awakening?

Whats up with all of the discussion on here dating from 2009 on? Either way I like it, haha.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=consciousness&aq=f -over 14,000 pieces of film concerning the subject ResearchALLwars (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

SUGGESTION TO BREAK UP INTO SMALLER SECTIONS

This article is impossibly overbroad in its conception and thus hopelessly lacking in its execution. The quotable history comprising philosophical doctrines of consciousness, beginning with the Presocratics and evolving (devolving?) through more than 2500 years of thought to the myriad and nuanced theories of today, would literally fill a small library, and if we add the Eastern traditions then we're going to double or triple that content.

The topic 'Consciousness' needs to be a signpost, a broad category leading to more manageable consciousness-related subcategories and subtopics.

--Devala1 (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please clarify. Don't get me wrong: This article could certainly be better, and certainly it looses direction sometimes as it currently stands, but I think there is no justification for saying that the article has to be a mere signpost (singular). If you are saying that the chronological sections for example should be made up of signposts (plural) and not randomly get lost in some and not others, then I would agree. But I would say this article's length is not its issue. It is a typical case of an article that lots of people have added bits to, with no one ever spending time on the whole thing. So the most obvious thing it needs is an editor willing to structure and balance it, and give it a better flow. This would probably involve reducing some bits, but also perhaps lengthening others? Anyway, obviously the current article is not currently anywhere near filling "a small library".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for this article to be a signpost. Encyclopedias are good because they attempt to distill huge topics into something a lay-person can digest. In the case of this topic, that will pose many challenges, but I don't think a signpost is the right direction. Aaron.michels (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Consciousness etc.

Consciousness resides in only the ‘now’. It does not exist in yesterday or in tomorrow. Observer’s ‘I’ is not the same as consciousness because the latter is the duality of the ‘I’ and ‘now’. Union of ‘I’, which is the limit of Nothingness, with the limited by ‘I’ interval of flowing time and creation of a unit of ‘standing time’ ‘now’ is the consciousness of the observer of the existence not only of his ‘self’ but also of all that which he observes in the current ‘now’, including observations made in the past ‘now’. Observation of the outside world, in the ‘now’, is possible because units in the material space time have reflections in the immaterial space time where they are observed by the ‘self’. The current observations are stored in the unit ‘now’ to which observer’s ‘I’ has access. This allows recreation of the unit in the current ‘now’. Animals have similar consciousness and memory but they cannot communicate with their 'self', meaning that they cannot think without motivation from the external world. They also use independent material symbols to communicate meanings. Human soul can be autonomous from the material world and it can think using ‘self motivation’. KK (213.158.199.138 (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC))

Interesting claims. Wikipedia articles have to be based on the published literature, though. Unless you can attribute your arguments to reputable published sources, I'm afraid they are not useful here. Looie496

Improvements to encyclopedias are made all the time. What is more important the Truth or the Lie? KK (213.158.199.139 (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC))

See WP:V (or in this case, see WP:VNT) and WP:RS. What is important is not anyone's personal view of the "Truth", but rather what can be verified through reliable sources. As of now, you are merely presenting your personal observations or theory. It may be true, it may not be. We're not getting into that. But, unless you have have verifiable, reliable sources, it does not belong here. Also, see WP:TALK. Unless this is leading towards a concrete suggestion of how to improve the article, it does not belong on the talk page. Edhubbard (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

How do you verify a new information which does not exist as part of our knowledge? The article will be improved if you add this new point of view after agreeing it with other scholars. KK (213.158.199.138 (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC))

Unless you can name some sources, there is not much to talk about?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Everything exists in the now. Consciousness isn't special in that regard. It follows then that "I" only exists in the now, so there can't be any "duality" of I and now. I can hardly make sense of the remainder of your comment, which uses vague language, makes baseless assertions, and lacks comprehensible grammar to boot. But since your premise is incorrect, I can assume everything that follows from it is equally incorrect. Hey, someone needs to say it.

My dear supporter! You say 'I only existsa in the now', and that is the 'duality'.KK (78.146.68.74 (talk) 09:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC))

Please stop this debate of your own opinions. Wikipedia is not a blog. BashBrannigan (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Please understand that no matter what brilliant ideas we have and discuss elsewhere the project here is just to collect notes from what has been published in the outside world. That project is big enough.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I removed material that had "citation needed" tags from 2007. Surely, three years is long enough for someone to provide citations. I also added "citation needed" to any paragraphs which had none. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also been attempting to find citations where there are none. I'm trying not to add new material, but simply trying to find references to back up what is already present. This is fairly laborious and I'm simply starting at the top and working my way down. BashBrannigan (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No mention of integrated information theory (IIT) of consciousness?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-theory-of-consciousness http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/imaging/can-machines-be-conscious http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2202/5/42/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueTemplar (talk • contribs) 21:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC) BlueTemplar (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a brief description of those ideas would be out of place in this article -- although personally I find Tononi's ideas about sleep much more interesting than his ideas about consciousness. Looie496 (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

comment inserted into article which appears more like a note for the talk page

I removed the following from the article because it looked like a comment more appropriate for the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Neuroscience of free will also seems to provide relevant insights to the understanding of consciousness.

Locke

The information about Locke's position isn't very clear and makes little sense. Viriditas (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Distinction with social consciousness

Reading the Functions section, shouldn't there be a warning that this article is about personal consciousness, not social consciousness? --Chealer (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there a separate article for "social consciousness" or should there perhaps be one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Meaning unclear

These from Consciousness#Evolutionary_psychology don't seem to make sense:

Another theory, proposed by Shaun Nichols and Todd Grantham, proposes that it is unnecessary to trace the exact evolutionary or causal role of phenomenal consciousness because the complexity of phenomenal consciousness alone implies that it is an adaptation.

Konrad Lorenz sees the roots of consciousness in the process of self-exploration of an organism that sees itself acting and learns a lifetime. Behind the Mirror: A Search for a Natural History of Human Knowledge

Isn't pretty much everything an adaptation? The second statement seems to be a sentence fragment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Good points, but apparently based on something in those sources. Sorry, but I don't recall reading any of those and am not quite sure what point was intended. I guess all I can add quickly is that it is better to fix than delete, if possible. Does anyone know what this should be saying?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Not every genetically determined characteristic is an adaptation -- see spandrel (biology) and genetic drift. I suspect that the sentence fragment was intended as a reference. Looie496 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. But I still have no clue what that first statement is saying about the evolution of consciousness. It just seems to be a factoid, free of context. And "and learns a lifetime" must be some kind of accidental transposition. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

In the theory of evolution, characteristics can arise either by natural selection of features that promote the survival of an organism, or by random drift. A general principle is that when a system is complex and highly organized, it's unlikely to result from drift. The sentence is basically saying that consciousness is so complex and organized that it can't be a result of randomness, and therefore must be an adaptation that promotes survival, even if we don't know how. I don't particularly agree with that argument, I'm just trying to explain it. Regarding the second part, it's incomprehensible as well as ungrammatical, and I would fully agree with getting rid of it. Looie496 (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Looie496. I've removed the Konrad Lorenz entry for now. Hopefully, someone will restore it with clearer meaning. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Large insert just made

Below I paste in a large insert that I removed. Basically I think such a large paste job needs looking at to make sure it is fitted in properly. This article already suffers quite a bit from random accretions by people pasting in things without much care. I'll already fix the formatting a bit:

The possible mechanisms of consciousness （Zhongbing XIE）

There are two traditional and competing metaphysical views concerning the nature of consciousness as dualism and materialism (Herbert, 1998), in fact the occurrence of consciousness springs from interactions between subjectiveness and objective world, consciousness links subjectiveness and objective world as a bridge, objective things can enter into subjective world and subjective knowledge will act on objective world all through consciousness.

Drawing attention is a necessary condition for occurrence of consciousness which will induce neural excitation in brain, uncertainty elimination accompanied by new information input is a sufficient condition for occurrence of consciousness. Neural excitation in brain is a neural physiological event whereas consciousness is a psychological event, the occurrence of consciousness involves conversion and realization from a neural physiological event to a psychological event. The phenomenon of consciousness might be a combined effect of low-order-representation function of brain and higher-order-representation (Rosenthal, 1997) function of the brain that induce subjective perspectivalness (Vogeley & Fink, 2003), the occurrence of which might be an outcome of combined activation of relevant low-order-representation brain areas and relevant higher-order-representation brain areas.

There were studies of cognition and consciousness from point of view of dynamic system (Freeman, 1987; Robertson, et al., 1993; Van Gelder & Port, 1995; Edelman & Tononi, 2000). From dynamic system point of view we can see, cognitive space of one's mind consists of numerous stable cognitive states, one point in this cognitive phase space represents a kind of stable cognitive state in mind, one kind of stable cognitive state in mind corresponds to a stable neural excitation pattern in brain, a stable cognitive state in mind or a stable neural excitation pattern in brain can be taken as a stable attractor in neural dynamic system (Battaglia & Treves, 1998), a stable attractor corresponds to human cognition of the world as a pattern, a stable attractor will come into being through the process of attraction and contraction of phase space which is characterized by dimensionality reduction (Durbin & Mitchison,1990). There were studies indicated that brain states exhibited dynamic features of chaotic attractors (Nunez & Freeman, 1999; Freeman, 2001), so the process of awareness and identification in mind can be described as a process of attraction, resonance, matching, coupling and eventual activation of the stable neural excitation pattern or attractor in brain. The occurrence of consciousness also involves a process of contraction of cognitive state space which is characterized by dimensionality reduction and the coming into being or activation of neural excitation patterns or attractors in brain, it might provide us a possible pathway to depict and describe the process of occurrence of consciousness through utilization of some terminologies from dynamic system.

Drawing attention is a different process or event from occurrence of consciousness, it might be helpful to distinguish drawing attention from occurrence of consciousness from ergodic theory point of view. The core of ergodic hypothesis is that every allowable point in phase space will be visited by an ergodic system after a sufficiently long time, when an ergodic state is broken, then the system will be in a freezing state (Palmer, 1982). Possibly the same is true for consciousness, the occurrence of consciousness might also be taken as a state of ergodicity breaking; New information input will induce ergodicity in phase space, uncertainty elimination and occurrence of consciousness will be a consequent result of ergodicity breaking that follows new information input. If there is no breakdown of ergodic state after passing through the whole phase state, then it will induce a kind of background-level excitability. The ergodic theory might provide a possible mechanism to distinguish attention from consciousness and provide a possible explanation to occurrence of consciousness from dynamic system point of view.

Comments please. Where does this come from and how can it be fitted in?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Scientific Approaches to Consciousness

The article says there are 2 scientific approaches to consciousness - asking humans questions and studying non verbal behaviour and so can include animals but also there is looking at physiological correlates of consciousness such as rapid eye movements during dreaming or different EEG patterns when awake and when asleep. I would like to add something about this. Any thoughts on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxford73 (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that first sentence had so many "and", "or" and "buts" that it is too much work for a lazy Sunday afternoon to figure it out! BashBrannigan (talk) 14:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The section in question is material that I wrote recently, and it is really work in progress. What I was trying to say there is that there are two general ways of identifying the presence of consciousness. Studying the physiological correlates of consciousness is of course extremely important, but one must have some way of recognizing the presence of consciousness before one can study its physiological correlates. In any case, this article needs a lot of improvement in many ways, and if you feel that you can make it better, I encourage you to work on it. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Starting slowly I have just added one word to the first sentence so it clarifies the point you make above. But it now says 2 approaches to identifying consciousness but then there are 5 sub sections - so that is really unclear. When I have a little more time I will have a look at it.Oxford73 (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

In the Vedanta section there is a description of different states of consciousness from a spiritual perspective. But sleeping, dreaming and waking can be distinguished by specific physiological parameters and I would like to add something on that. Any cooments from any editors? Oxford73 (talk) 05:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that more information about sleep states and their relationship to consciousness would improve the article. Looie496 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we are in need of a reorganization of the scientific approaches section? razorbelle (talk) 16:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I added in a brief section with a couple of references. As someone new to wiki and not an expert in the field overall I don't feel confident enough to reorganize the whole section. Oxford73 (talk) 05:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the edit in light of it failing verification. Moreover, we should attempt to integrate the subject elsewhere in the article; I don't think it deserves its own section yet. razorbelle (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair point about not deserving its own section. I wasn't sure where to put it without it appearing awkward. Any suggestions? Re verification what was the problem with each of the references. I wondered about the first one as I gave a ref to a web page which cited a series of scientific papers about the differences between states of consciousness. Should I have cited the papers directly? The second ref was to a book edited by a Harvard Professor and published by Oxord University Press so I thought I was on safe ground with that one. As I am new to wiki can you please explain where I went wrong. Thanks. Oxford73 (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I will try and locate better sources for the distinction between dreaming and sleeping and will then repost unleass I hear back.Oxford73 (talk) 09:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see a problem with having a separate section right now -- it seems reasonable to me to let the article develop organically and reorganize it as the need becomes apparent. The sentence regarding Vedanta did not seem useful, but the main issue is with the sources: one was a list of articles where a pointer to a single comprehensive review would have been better; the other (the book on human development) does not seem like the right sort of source for such a statement. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

deleted mention of Vedanta and provided new references. Oxford73 (talk) 09:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that seems reasonable. I have done a bit of copy-editing and reformatted the references in the style used by the rest of this article. The Alexander and Langer reference really needs a page number, otherwise the reader will find it impossible to figure out how the book supports the statement in the article. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Should be able to find page references but maybe after the holidays Oxford73 (talk) 19:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC) page refs added Oxford73 (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Spiritual Approaches

In this section there is no mention made of the scientific research that has accumulated since the 1930's correlating spiritual approaches with physiological changes. It would seem to merit at least a sentence. Oxford73 (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Addition to "Is it a valid concept"

I recently posted an addition to section 2.1 "Is it a valid concept," as follows: The Objectivist position on this problem, however is that the concept "consciousness" cannot be defined or even discussed without circularity precisely because it is an axiomatic concept, implicit in any act of cognition, and therefore a base of all further knowledge: "An attempt to “prove” [axiomatic concepts] is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness."

I have received a suggestion from someone who was generous enough not to delete or change what I wrote, before confronting me. He had two points of contention. 1)He was not sure that Ayn Rand's ideas were authoritative enough to merit inclusion. 2)He felt that my contribution was not quite clear, that Ayn Rand's views on the validity of the concept "consciousness" are not revealed by what I wrote.

Regarding the first point I can only state that since Ayn Rand was a philosopher who dealt explicitly with the subject of the validity of concepts, and in fact formulated a new theory of concept-formation, her input is more than relevant to the material. As to the second point, I can see the confusion and will try to amend this. Since I state that "consciousness" is an axiomatic concept, and is therefore implicit in all other concepts, I was assuming that one would grasp that this renders the concept "validity" dependent on the preceding, and implicit concept "consciousness." This was imprecise of me and I will fix it.

Since Wikipedia has a clearly defined COI policy, I feel compelled to make a further statement in regard to this issue. I am an Objectivist, and am concerned with the advocacy of Ayn Rand's ideas. I am not, however in any way affiliated with any organization concerned with Objectivism. Ayn Rand has received some resistance from Wikipedia in the past, but I am proud of what we have been able to accomplish on this cite. I hope that we will continue to receive at least the opportunity, if not to convince you, then to be heard.

Finally, I recognize that economy in writing is a virtue and I have tried to make my contribution as succinct as possible. I welcome any edits to my post, that those knowledgeable of Objectivism have to make, so long as the material of the argument remains intact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew3024 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Re Sheldrake

I am removing the following passage, added by Oliver9909 (talk · contribs), removed by BashBrannigan (talk · contribs), then re-added by an IP who is probably the editor who originally added it.

Empirical studies have repeatedly shown direct communication between different conscious subjects, not mediated by social interaction <ref>Sheldrake, R. (2003) The Sense Of Being Stared At And Other Aspects Of The Extended Mind, Crown Publishers, New York </ref>. This is evidence in favour of theories proposing the existence of a fundamental physical field of consciousness with which the consciousness of the individual interacts.

I am removing it because, as a scientific assertion, this would need to be supported by reputable published scientific sources, which the Sheldrake book is not; see WP:RS. It is possible that the passage would work if explicitly worded as Sheldrake's personal opinion, but I actually don't believe it belongs in the article even so. Looie496 (talk) 20:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Added original references as recommended by Looie496. Oliver9909 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I was struck immediately in the phrase "Empirical studies have repeatedly shown" by the use of "repeatedly". Using "repeatedly" in a scientific article has the meaning of tests which can be performed with absolutely predictable results. If that would be the case with "direct communication between different conscious subjects, not mediated by social interaction" then I don't know why I haven't heard of it. Sarcasm aside, psychic research (telepathy, etc.) is generally regarded as "pseudo-science" and I see no context in the article for it at the moment. Even if there were some way to get it in the article, "repeatedly shown" is spurious. BashBrannigan (talk) 02:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It

Since referring to consciousness as an "it" is a seriously flawed concept (it's incoherent), the titles of the sections should say "consciousness" instead. BlueMist (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's awkward. Policy is generally that we should avoid repeating the title of an article in section titles, but maybe this is a case where it would be better to do so. Unless somebody can think of a clever way of finessing the problem, that is. Looie496 (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We should have references that "it" cannot refer to consciousness. BashBrannigan (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm merely suggesting that the titles of sections should avoid referring to consciousness as an "it". Titles are editorial in nature. In my newspaper: page 1 caption: 40% favor closing of nuclear plant; page 15 continuation caption: 48% oppose closing of nuclear plant. BlueMist (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What specifically is the editorializing danger? Why is referring to consciousness as an "it" incoherent? Isn't the use of "it" in the title (not the body) simply a grammatical placeholder? BashBrannigan (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It could be, depending on it's context. BlueMist (talk) 10:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Field-hypothesis for Consciousness

Consciousness may be a 'balanced-electrostatic-field' as proposed in an article "A hypothesis for consciousness" by Hasmukh K. Tank, published in a journal of National Bio-Medical Society. Re-print of this article is accessible from: http://sites.google.com/site/theultimaterealitysite. The information-processing-part of even a human-brain is inert and insentient; whereas 'balanced-electrostatic-field' is present even in an infant's brain; according to Hasmukh K. Tank. 122.170.83.64 (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Individuals' theories about consciousness should not be inserted into the entry's main text but added to the list of external references. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad 13:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Not even there, unless the theories are particularly notable: we have to guard against a constant creeping tendency for Wikipedia articles to morph into mere link pages -- it's so much easier to add a link than to add text to an article properly. Looie496 (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But then this paper should not be cited at all, rather than to devote more text to describing its contents: It's one of many, many speculations about consciousness. Does not belong in a generic Wikipedia entry. harnad (talk) Stevan Harnad 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Harnad. Skip it. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Problems with "Spiritual approaches" section

Currently the article contains material on Vedic and Buddhist ideas about consciousness. I think it is very probable that material of this sort is appropriate for this article, but the existing material is nothing but jibber-jabber -- lists of terms with no useful explanation of what they mean. I hereby announce that unless something is done to make these sections more accessible to a non-expert reader, I intend sometime in the not-too-distant future to boldly remove them from the article. I am now going to tag the section accordingly. Looie496 (talk) 17:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Done. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:ATY.logo5.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ATY.logo5.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 24 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Defining consciousness

Rocordman (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Roc OrdmanRocordman (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC) April 1; I would like to edit the Defining Consciousness section in the science section, noting the importance of having an operational definition, and recommending one my consciousness class has developed that is preferable to the mirror test. Here is what I propose to add soon: PUT WHERE IT NOW STATES "Neuroscientists are not ready to define consciousness according ..." For how scientists may define consciousness, see below at Defining consciousness.

[edit] Defining consciousness

"The evolution of the capacity to simulate seems to have culminated in subjective consciousness. Why this should have happened is, to me, the most profound mystery facing modern biology" Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Since 1976, it has remained so. In 2004, some scientists felt it was too soon for a definition. In their 1144 page book "Human Brain Function"[1] by 8 neuroscientists, on page 269 is the authors' apology:

"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature."

But perhaps it is not premature. In contrast to philosophical definitions, an operational definition can be tested experimentally, and is useful for current research. A current definition for self awareness, proposed in the 1970s by Gordon Gallup, is known as the mirror test. An operational definition proposed in 2012 [2] states "consciousness is the sum of the electrical discharges occurring throughout the nervous system of a being at any given instant". This operational definition is based on Dennett's theory of the Multiple Drafts Model of Consciousness, arising from the Buddha's pluripotent model of consciousness. What many consider consciousness may simply be the personal awareness of all the neurons delivering messages to the mind, but operational consciousness can include all neuronal activity. Extending this concept to all sentient beings, one can measure a range of consciousness based on how many and how powerfuly neurons are actually firing, varying from worms to humans. One can answer the question, is someone asleep less conscious than someone thinking about a difficult problem. Although technology does not exist currently to measure this, it can be estimated by determining oxygen consumption by the brain.

^ Human Brain Function, by Richard Frackowiak and 7 other neuroscientists, page 269 in chapter 16 "The Neural Correlates of Consciousness" (consisting of 32 pages), published 2004 ^ What Consciousness is Roc Ordman's Consciousness class, Beloit College, 2012,

Interesting ideas, but material in Wikipedia articles needs to be based on reputable published sources, not on original thinking. This is especially important when the diversity of views is as great as it is for this topic. For what it's worth, the material that you propose to replace is not material I'm especially happy with either. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I would propose that this section, "Defining consciousness", be removed, and any salvageable material in it reintegrated elsewhere. It is not as though the question of whether consciousness can be defined, and what various ostensible authorities, including scientists, have had to say about it, has not already been brought up; on the contrary, that is largely what this article is about. This small section appears to have been dropped in almost arbitrarily, and reads like one out of a series of posts in a debate on some message board. It irrelevantly cites the number of the book's pages and authors, noting for us that the latter are all neuroscientists -- the ultimate authorities on the subject? -- as if to trump an opponent by saying, "Look here, a whole team of people who know more about this subject than you do, and who deal with it for a living and have considered it exhaustively, disagree with you; so give it up, already!"
I ask the forgiveness of anyone who is offended by my tone; all I am really trying to say is, I see the material as redundant, arbitrarily placed, tendentious/disputatious, and in general, not in good encyclopedic form. I'll ask anyone with whom my observations don't resonate to examine the section for points of contact with Argument from authority, the informal fallacy well-known to logicians (taking particular note of comments pertaining to consensus); and, of course, I'll ask you to consider whether the subject declared in the section's heading is not in fact the subject of a much larger part of the article; and then I'll reiterate my question: Who's with me on taking this out? IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I basically agree with you. I've been hesitant to do anything because I'm sort of biased -- I wrote most of the material in the article, but not that section. Looie496 (talk) 01:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Well then, don't be shy, let's take it out. You, Looie496, having worked with the article a great deal and being more intimate with its structure, would appear to me to be the right person to make the adjustment, and if you want to do it I say "Go for it".

Oh, I see now (missed it before) that above, in the section "Is consciousness a valid concept?", essentially the same material appears (right down to how many pages and authors the book has), so (1) I guess there's no need to salvage any of this occurrence; and (2) What do you think, maybe the important-sounding statistics about "Richard Frackowiak and 7 other neuroscientists who published a 1144 page book" (and more...) could be dispensed with up there, as well...? IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am the person who initially added the quote and reference to the book by Frackowiak etc. and I am just as uncomfortable with what his neuroscientists said as you are. I would be happy if those who are experts on consciousness would define consciousness clearly and in detail for the rest of us. Unfortunately, those who are the most familiar with the neural correlates of consciousness seem unable to do so. But they are reliable sources and we should report their inability to define consciousness since that is their expert opinion. That should not prevent us from reporting what other reliable sources also say, such as Chris Koch, who are acknowledged experts and think they have a clearer understanding than the neuroscientists. But every book on the subject I have read, seems as muddled as those written half a century ago. Some scientific diciplines stall for decades without much progress being made. How often have we heard that the next mars lander will discover if mars has life or not? Such lack of progress or verrrrrry slow progress should also be reported in Wiki as unpleasant facts and cite reliable sources. Greensburger (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems all of the above comments suggest someone should bite the bullet and change this. As a biochemistry professor who has taught consciousness for several years, even spoken with Richie Davidson, Daniel Dennett and others, I will post my revision and watch what happens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocordman (talk • contribs) 16:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Scientific Approaches

It seems that the scientific approaches section mainly deals with self-awareness. Currently, Bernard Baars' global workspace theory is one of the more influential theories to have inspired empirical research (e.g. Stanislas Dehaene's extention of the model). I suggest extending the Scientific Approaches section to include empirical approaches to awareness.

I also think that heterophenomenology and the Turing-test are theoretical approaches, and rarely applied, in contrast to say Baars' contrastive phenomenology, the frameworks of David Chalmers and Owen Flanagan, Crick and Koch's neurobiological 40Hz hypothesis, or Don Idhe's perhaps less rigorous experimental phenomenology.

Ostracon (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why you say that the section deals mainly with self-awareness -- it seems to me to cover a much broader range. But in any case I agree with you that the things you mention are notable enough to justify more coverage -- with the possible exception of Idhe, who I haven't heard of. We do have to be careful, though, to keep a rough balance of weight between science and philosophy. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Somehow, I must have stopped reading after the Measurements section, and did not notice the sections ahead.

Maybe we should separate scientific approaches from philosophical ones? Phenomenology could end up in either category, depending on the approach. On a side note "Ihde is Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Stony Brook" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Ihde), but I guess Husserlian phenomenology, psychological phenomenology (Amedeo Giorgio), and neurophenomenology (Varela) are the main priorities for the phen. subsection. The Turing-test fits well under a more philosophical heading - although it is a problem for cognitive science, an initial presentation of the topic fits better within the scope of philosophy of mind IMHO.

Regards,Ostracon (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

First sentence of lede.

I reverted the previous edit of the lede because no references were provided. However, I also noticed that the existing sentence prior to the edit also didn't seem to be supported by the existing citation. I added what I judged to be a generic statement of consciousness with a citation. I also left in the existing citation. For this topic, because it can be so contaversial, it seems best if the first sentence of the lede was something accessible to the general public like a dictionary definition. Opinions? BashBrannigan (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This is a very difficult problem. Awareness is basically synonymous with consciousness, so any definition of consciousness in terms of awareness is meaningless. That's not a big problem for a dictionary, but for an encyclopedia I think it ought to be avoided. I tried to handle the problem by using a statement that is nonspecific but at least means something. But really there is no canonical way of handling this: the literature is so diverse that it would be possible to come up with sources supporting pretty much anything one can imagine saying. It's a situation where, in my view, we have no choice but to synthesize if we hope to say anything meaningful, but where our aim should be to synthesize in a way that minimizes disagreement. Looie496 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Universal Consciousness

What about the idea that we all share the same universal consciousness, a consciousness which is at the base of all existence, it flows through all things and although we share this one single phenomenon, we are given an illusion of separateness and individual consciousness due to our separate bodies/brains, would this idea be worth noting somewhere in the article?

Also, a thought experiment I would like to propose: Imagine you are laying down, you cannot see as you've lost your sight, and the feeling in your body is completely gone, your hearing is gone, you cannot taste or smell or move, all external stimuli is gone and all you have to go on are your memories (which i believe come from the hippo-campus) Stuck in a state without any motor control, or external sensory perception you are still aware and still conscious(thus consciousness has nothing to do with external stimuli) Now imagine your hippo-campus being severed, your source of past experiences gone, your ability to create new experiences gone. What you are, still has a conscious aware energy which lives in-the-moment, flowing with time, even if you cannot form new memories or experience any external stimuli, there is an essence of consciousness. True, there are many ideas and definitions of what Consciousness is, but that is what I believe it is. Freegen (talk) 12:05, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Our article needs to stick to ideas that have gained broad attention in the literature. What you are describing is essentially a mystical concept of consciousness, similar if not identical to pantheism, and could be covered in the section on spiritual approaches if we could attribute the ideas to specific well-known sources. Except for a part about memory, your thought experiment is basically describing consciousness without an object. Looie496 (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your view that what I explain is mystical, it can certainly be seen as a physical process or indeed mystical as well. All life can be seen as mystical and even the physical reality we see every day can be seen as non-physical when Quantum Science is applied and when we understand all things are made of energy. It depends on who is interpreting the ideas and from what view point. Why should only what has a broad attention in literature be what is considered true and factual? In the past, it was well understood that the earth is in fact flat and that the sun revolved around the earth, just because a lot of people gave that notion credit didn't make it true. The article reads as fact "Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself." But I strongly disagree with this psudo-factual statement, and believe it should read as "is believed by many to be..." The statement as it is in the article claims with authority what consciousness is, with a factual tone when it is not really fact. Freegen (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't like that sentence either -- it was added over my objections. But I don't think that adding "is believed by" would make it any better -- the meaning of a word is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of how the word is used by people. Regarding your other points, it is important to emphasize that Wikipedia policy is that articles must be based entirely on reputable published literature, and must focus on the views that have the greatest mainstream acceptance. This does mean that sometimes our articles will be wrong -- but any other approach would make them wrong more often. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

CN tag added to lead

An editor has added a cn tag to the lead, in the sentence "Perhaps the thorniest issue[citation needed] is whether consciousness can be understood in a way that does not require a dualistic distinction between mental and physical states or properties.". I would like to remove the tag, partly on the ground that we should minimize citations in the lead, partly on the ground that giving a reference for a generalization like this is not really helpful in an article like this, where there is no such thing as a universally accepted authority. I would like to remove the tag, but I am open to suggestions for alternate wording. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the thorniest issue is not very encyclopedic, so why not just rephrase like this: "Issues of concern in the philosophy of consciousness include whether the concept is fundamentally valid; whether consciousness can ever be explained mechanistically; whether non-human consciousness exists and if so how it can be recognized; how consciousness relates to language; whether consciousness can be understood in a way that does not require a dualistic distinction between mental and physical states or properties; and whether it may ever be possible for computers or robots to be conscious." (I put the computers and robots last because they must be a relative new issue of concern) Lova Falk talk 08:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Lova, your suggestions look good. Hope you can find a RS for it. Greensburger (talk) 19:44, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I cannot! This was just a CE of an unsourced text. The cn tag is specifically for the phrase "perhaps the thorniest issue". But I have no idea where the text comes from! Lova Falk talk 19:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I've followed Lova's suggestion for rewording, and then removed the tag. A source should not be needed here, because the article is following the standard Wikipedia practice of minimizing references in the lead. References can be found where dualism is discussed in the article body. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Problematic edit -- Hindu mythology

An IP editor has inserted a bit of Hindu mythology into the "Could a machine ever be conscious?" section, without explanation or edit summary. I reverted, explaining why; the IP reverted back, with no explanation. My practice is never to multi-revert without support from other editors -- could some helpful talk page watcher take a look at this, please? Looie496 (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I did it before I saw your comment. I'm about to turn off my computer, so now it's your turn again. Lova Falk talk 19:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Two additions to Scientific Approaches that I think are inappropriate

Two sentences have recently been added to the top of the section, by different editors:

1. Deikman suggested that consciousness is not a product of neural circuits, but rather complements and organizes these.
2. Jeremy Griffith argues that the subject of consciousness is not of itself impenetrably complex, rather consciousness raises the psychologically unbearably depressing issue of the human condition, and that is a subject that humans are loath to address.

I don't believe that either of those carries information that is useful to readers of this article, and in any case they don't belong where they are placed -- therefore I propose to remove them. Any comments? Looie496 (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I am with you when it comes to Griffith, because he doesn't say anything about consciousness - he says what thinking about(?) consciousness does with us humans. When it comes to Deikman I don't know. He wrote this in 1974 - if he inspired many others he should be in the article, but if not, it would be a case of undue weight. Lova Falk talk 18:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I deleted both sentences. They do not really add helpful information to readers and neither Deikman's nor Griffith' paper qualify as important classics in philosophy of mind or cognitive science. --David Ludwig (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Consciousness and Awareness

For English spoken people meaning of Consciousness and Awareness maybe is clear enough by itself. But for alien it would be useful to have conceptual comparing among the concepts to make more understandable how these terms differ. Thank You All --- Jovis, Lithuania — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.219.64.32 (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it would be very useful. If there is any distinction, it is so subtle and inconsistent that an attempt to explain it would only be confusing. The best that could be said is that to many people the two words mean nearly the same thing. Looie496 (talk) 01:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Fine distinctions are often made in a scientific context that are usually not made in ordinary conversation. For example in physics there is a clear distinction between force and pressure, between energy and velocity, between gas and air, etc. Likewise, in ordinary conversation, awareness and consciousness are synonyms, but blindsight experiments demonstrate that part of your your brain can be aware of a visual image or a perceived sound, but you are not conscious of it. Notice I am also using "perceived" narrowly to mean what the auditory cortex does. This is simply using words more narrowly to make fine distinctions. Both usages are useful in this article and should be explained when fine distinctions are being made. To define consciousness as awareness, like dictionaries do, is to blur narrow distinctions and confuse the reader. Greensburger (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If you're refering to the opening paragraph, the opening sentence of the lede should be widely accepted, strongly referenced and accessible to the average Wikipedia reader which a dictionary definition serves. The body of the article can deal with any shortcomings. BashBrannigan (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Searle writes that the terms do not mean the same: awareness is more associated with knowledge than consciousness. He also refers to blindsight. Another case in point is the development of consciousness in infants. In this regard, consciousness is not awareness. When speaking of animals, or organisms in general, consciousness can be regarded as both wakefulness and awareness. Several experts in the field - including Chalmers, Farthing, Güzeldere, Koch, Revonsuo, Varela, and Shear - agree that "consciousness" can have a multitude of meanings. "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic..." (Wikipedia:Lead_section). Several aspects are indeed addressed in the lede. However, I am curious as to why only the first MW definition is represented in the first sentence. Indeed, consciousness in everyday conversation often represents the OED entry #1: "Internal knowledge or conviction; the state or fact of being mentally conscious or aware of something". However, the article places the overall emphasis on the second OED entry: "The faculty or capacity from which awareness of thought, feeling, and volition and of the external world arises". The common use of the term predates the philosophical and scientific use. If the first definition qualifies for an encyclopaedia, the consequence would be, according to Wikipedia principles, that the lede should emphasise the common use in language. Ostracon (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The development of consciousness

I don't know if I missed it but I scanned through this page and there seems to be no mention of how it develops. For example the fist signs of a baby using judgement usually occurs at 16 weeks when it judges where to move it's arms to to block out external light. http://www.paternityangel.com/Preg_info_zone/WeekByWeek/Weekly16.htm Robo37 (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you cite any notable authors who equate that sort of judgement with consciousness? Generally speaking, attempts to study the early development of consciousness run into the same difficulties that apply to studying consciousness in non-human animals. The basic difficulty, to be explicit, is that it is impossible to ask babies questions about what they are experiencing. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment moved here from article text

The following comment was placed into the article just above the paragraph that begins, "Introspectively, the world of conscious experience seems . . .":

(The following should be edited, because it is NOT about phenomenolgy, but instead about the hard problem of consciousness, which is a metaphysical question. It has nothing to do with the study of structures of consciousness)

The paragraph in question was not intended to be about metaphysics, it was intended to be about the way that people describe their experiences, which is an empirical question. So I don't think the objection is correct -- but if the article is written unclearly, I would be interested in making it better if I could understand the problem. Looie496 (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Prefer a better citation under animal consciousness

"Most people have a strong intuition that some animals, such as dogs, are conscious, while others, such as insects, are not; but the sources of this intuition are not obvious."

Could we link it to a specific study that proves this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CXUD (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to have a source, but I wonder, do you doubt that the statement is true? Looie496 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Moths and flies are clearly aware that I am swatting at them and they instinctively react by flying away. Roaches are clearly aware of my attempts to squash them with my foot and they instinctive react by running to a dark place and hide. But to call them conscious because they have awareness, blurs an important distinction between awareness and consciousness. Consciousness requires many more brain cells that provide hundreds of cognitive modules for functions such as episodic memory, planning, reasoning, mind reading, modeling of the perceived world (including self), belief formation and modification, concept formation and modification, language understanding and formation, benefit-cost-risk analysis, motivation, judging and revising importance and priorities, prediction, inference, creating and testing hypotheses, detection and resolving of inconsistencies and enigmas, detecting, anticipating, avoiding, and resolving conflicts, procedure creation, monitoring, and modification, learning new procedures by imitation or instruction, etc that are all much more complex than mere awareness. Peter Carruthers in The Architecture of the Mind describes some of these modules. The present article should focus on the structure of consciousness and avoid obsolete and simplistic dictionary definitions of consciousness. Greensburger (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• The statement that seems to bother you says in part, "Most people have a strong intuition that some animals, such as ... insects, are not [conscious]". You then seem to argue that moths, flies and roaches are not conscious. So where exactly is the issue? If there is an issue, perhaps it belongs more appropriately with the article animal consciousness. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think that is what is really bothering Greensburger. The article is written in a way that avoids making an assumption that the word "consciousness" has a definite, objective meaning. But Greensburger, like many people, thinks that it does and that he basically understands the meaning, so the article has a sort of weasely feel to him. Looie496 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Looie, I think you hit the nail on the head. Consciousness clearly has both objective and subjective aspects. Of course, there are both qualitative and quantitative differences in the degree of consciosuness (as well as awareness), which likely diminish as you go down the evolutionary scale. To experience consciousness does not require that the entire list of functions Greenburger lists is satisfied. Josophie (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree and I did not imply that all or most of the examples of conscious functions I listed must all be conscious at the same time. I do suggest that this article make a clear distinction between the primative brain functions termed awareness and the complex system of many brain functions termed consciousness, not all of which are active at the same time. Unconscious awareness such as blindsight should also be mentioned as an example of the distinction between awareness and conscious functions. Greensburger (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Attempts to define consciousness in a few words fails to make fine distinctions for the same reasons that defining "digestion" as "food processing" fails. "Food processing" includes manual cutting of fruit into slices which is not digestion. Adding qualifying words such as "chemical food processing" also fails to define digestion by suggesting irrelivancies such as pesticides. To properly define digestion, it is necessary to describe its componant parts such as the stomach, small intestine, bile duct, etc. and chemical components and processes of digestion such as gastric enzymes, bile, intestinal bacteria, etc. and this is done in the Wikipedia article on Digestion. Likewise, to properly define consciousness, it is necessary to describe functions of different brain areas and their interactions. Greensburger (talk) 13:28, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Definition

DEFINE CONSCIOUSNESS CLEARLY? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.55.110.23 (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

It isn't possible to give a single simple definition of consciousness that is accepted by everybody. Different people understand the term in different ways, and it isn't Wikipedia's job to decide who is correct. We have to discuss the issue, but we can't pick a winner. Looie496 (talk) 16:02, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request - Change Definition

"Consciousness is reality". This is a vague, metaphorical definition that doesn't address what consciousness actually is. No dictionary defines it as such; no philosophers or philosophy departments at universities define it as such either.. If I hadn't checked the talk page, I would have thought that this was the result vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDiala (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That definition was only added to the article yesterday, and I have reverted back to the old version, which hopefully is more acceptable. Thanks for pointing out the problem. Looie496 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Addition called "advertisement"

I added an update after reviewing a presentation at Stanford University and it was deleted as an advertisement. It seemed a relevant and important addition to me. Was this deleted Looie because it is out of Stanford and not Berkeley? :-)

I'm not at UC Berkeley, I only live there. In an article on such a broad topic as this, material only belongs if it has drawn substantial attention from large numbers of people. For that book, I can't even find any evidence that it has been published, much less noticed. And in any case that information wouldn't belong in the lead. I apologize for calling it an "advertisement", but lots of articles are plagued by people who edit them solely in order to insert references to their own work, with no regard to the value of the article for readers, and the result usually looks a lot like your edit. Looie496 (talk) 19:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I understand. Been following this author for awhile and you are right, the book is not published yet. Only a preview is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.244.174 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Very vague introduction

The first sentence reads:

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself."

Someone commented on this Talk page that there is no one definition of "consciousness" that will be "accepted" by everybody. This is a confused comment. Anyone familiar with English would know that the problem isn't that people disagree about the meaning of "consciousness". Rather, the problem is that this word in English means several different things — no one of which is "right". There are just several different meaning, period.

The definition from the article that I quoted above is, in fact, the aspect of consciousness that most interests me. This is very different from what the word "cognition" means in English: its meaning is the process of thinking. Our experience of our own thinking is of course one aspect of conscious awareness (a phrase I vastly prefer to the use of the ambiguous word "consciousness", because "conscious awareness" is unambiguous). But in general conscious awareness is not the same as cognition.

On the current disambiguation page for the word "consciousness", this page is disambiguated by calling it "cognition" — but this is a huge error for the reason I mention in the last paragraph.

I propose that this article be renamed "Conscious awareness" (or another similarly unambiguous term), and that this be just one of the disambiguations of the word "consciousness" in Wikipedia.

Probably the best use of some article that might be named "Consciousness" is to explain the various uses of the word. Once again: There is no debate or disagreement about the "meaning" of the word among those familiar with English. It is simply a word that has many closely related — but different — meanings.Daqu (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

History of thinking about consciousness grossly inadequate

The article gives the impression that serious thinking about consciousness began with the likes of Descartes, in other words with European thinkers. Cf. "Philosophers since the time of Descartes and Locke have struggled to comprehend the nature of consciousness and pin down its essential properties." There is not one mention of the Upanishadic explorations and understanding of the nature of consciousness. Even the Buddhist references are inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antinatter (talk • contribs) 08:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

There are two difficulties here. First, "consciousness" is an English language word with a rather complex range of meanings, and any time we deal with something written in a different language, there will be a question about whether the English language word is properly used for it. What this comes down to in practice is that we have to rely on reputable sources to tell us the answer. In other words, we need good academic sources that explicitly discuss what the Upanishads say about consciousness. The second difficulty is that somebody who knows the material has to actually do it. I myself would not even know where to begin. Looie496 (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)