Then what would consciousness be? Would it be synergistic? The whole being greater than its parts?
He’s been criticized for fallacy of composition. Dennet’s stance seems to be part of a triangle with Fodor and Churchland when it comes to computational fucntionalism. They all agree with certain aspects of each other… but disagree as well.
Mind: An introduction by John Searle gives a fair overlook on the whole mind body problem (I really enjoyed this book) even though I don’t personally agree with his chinese room argument. - I’ll argue this later when I’m not… extremely hung over 
I’ve read Searle’s What is Consciousness book. but thanks for the reference anyways.
In cognitive psychology Dennet takes a stance that is like The Modular theory of brain activity. That means that different sections of the brain handle their information specialties and then assemble them in a central location.
That means that “consciousness†is actually a processes kind of like a computer program.
what causes the mind to develop opinions? other than experiance
What makes you think that the many components are themselves unconscious?
Conscious means to be alert or attentive. Any form of matter is able to have these properties whether ‘alive’ or not. All forms of matter are not aware, though.
The conscious components in the brain come together to form a higher form of consciousness called awareness. Awareness is synergistic.
That implies a explanatory gap Murdoc,
For instance if the conponants of the brain come together to form consciousness as a synergistic concept, then by that very definition consciousness is a duality, most likely to be regarded as like… epiphenomenalism or something of the like.
If consciousness is greater than the sum of its parts it can be criticized for fallacy of composition, logically something cannot be greater than the sum of its parts without getting into a metaphysical concept.
Functionality (What Dennet argues) tries to get away from this, describing consciousness as functional brain states.
This is of course prone to argument as well… because if mental states are functional, then it seems like we shouldn’t be aware in the way that we are… Searle’s chinese room argument addresses this… though not overly well in my eyes.
The brain has several different sites that we know what they do, although we aren’t sure how they do it. There are two different sections of the brain that handle speech. If one goes due to a stroke or injury then you can’t and won’t ever be able to produce words. In another zone you won’t be able to understand words. So, how might that affect consciousness?
It would greatly change it, so consciousness is dependant on the modules of the brain, and that implies that humans are more mechanism than free spirit.
Yes dualism as like pure consciousness and awareness. I don’t believe there is a such thing as unconscious. It is either conscious and/or aware. All parts of your brain are conscious. These then come together to form awareness. My point here is that instead of the unconscious and conscious mind, we should consider it the conscious and aware mind. Unconscious should not be part of the picture.
What is meant by the term “consciousness” is that activity that does not occupy time or space, but is instead the point from which existence in time and space is experienced. It is, and will always be, the original Cartesian cogito as exemplified and expanded upon by Sartre. Which is to say, nothing more can be said about consciousness that Sartre has not already countered sufficiently or demonstrated sufficiently following Descartes lead.
Neuro-science can not account for solipsistic experience (view the ‘portable detrop’ in the essays forum). Dennet has merely framed a classic epiphenominalism into a model which ignores Descartes starting point and takes for granted that only the empirical exists- that is, only the sensible exists, and so speculates that consciousness is also a quantifiable event like the sensible. This move is monistic and certainly reasonable, but it is no conclusion to the issue of dualism in ontology. It is always possible that spirit, the ‘rational,’ does exists independent from the causal empirical world, and therefore is certainly not an ‘emergent property of the nervous system.’
This possibility is founded on the logical proof that the only thing certain is what one finds themself aware of, that awareness itself, and not the item of experience. This common mistake is the origin of the argument against the concept of the ‘ego’ or the ‘I’ which is a circular premise in the proposition made by Descartes. This was remedied by Sartre in his conception of the methodological doubt and the spontaneous doubt- the ‘I’ is as much an object as the world- it is a bodily perspective which requires methodological process to conceptualize and is not the actual ‘act’ of consciousness, which is a spontaneous freedom removed from causalty. It is impossible to locate consciousness in the nervous system because it is not something that can be observed in the second person.
“Consciousness is what it is not and not what it is” is an appropriate riddle said by Sartre. It is as close to the inexpressible as one can come regarding this issue.
I wouldn’t say that Sartre has said everything that can be said…
Turinng and Functionalism offers at least a new perspective on consciousness because functionalism tries to reduce consciousnes to a view that perhaps comes across at epiphenomenalistic when you really break it down but it deserves some discussion.
As neurobiology advances I think we’re going to see a separation of the “I” from perspective. I don’t know how… but this isn’t a dead subject.
Murdoc wrote:
The term unconscious is used to express remaining consciousness that is not aware of itself when referring to the individual. Conscious in itself implies awareness, so when one says conscious or consciousness, awareness is implied. When referring to the individual, due to paradox, saying unconscious mind IMO is accurate. Because the unconscious existence of no awareness for the individual does exist, it should only be described as unconsciousness. Though in essence there is no unconscious, from our limited perspectives there is much unconscious.
illativemindindeed,
I can always trust you to set me straight.
What would it take to broaden our limited perspective, if this were possible? How would someone go about exploring the unconscious, which in truth, is not unconscious at all? What is our illusionary boundry from everything? Our self?
We are surrounded by eternity, yet something stops us from realizing this and using eternity to our advantage.
Murdoc,
Once again gratified to offer any insight.
You considerations are absolutely correct. It is our self-consciousness, ie. the self, that separates our consciousness from the infinite amount of consciousness which I believe to exist.
All it takes to broaden our limited perspective is the want or desire for expansion. In considering what one could do to open further to this consciousness there exist many ways. I personally suggest different types of meditation. Focusing on the infinite, and attempting to bring the infinite within your limited awareness as to expand it is a good method. Also, the use of imagination will take you far as well. Imagine yourself in the middle of the universe, which in all actuality you are, (but I simply find it easier to imagine myself in the darkness outside of earth amongst the stars) and expand yourself everywhere. Feel your consciousness going infintely beyond and never stoping. Imagine yourself as having no body, ie. having no limits.
In addition to meditation, ones everyday life should be less ephemeral or corporeal focused. One has to wane focus on those things of which we are most conscious and able to observe, and simply be open to going further into those things which we are not. Being open is extremely important, for infinite consciousness consist of all consciousness, and for one to perceive it, they have to be open to it. Remember, you must be as a child to enter in the Kingdom. So you must learn all over again within the open-minded acceptance of a child. But this time, learn from the ultimate source, that source of infinite consciousness. More so Im referring to the act of being less focused on the physical and manifest, and instead contemplating and focusing on that which we seemingly cant think about. I know thats sort of oxy-moronish but I think you will understand me. If not let me know.
Also, if you are spiritual and you have a personal relationship with God, make it stronger and ask Him for assistance in your pursuit of truth and expansion. It will most certainly be given. If your not spiritual, the simple desire for this truth and expansion will take you there.
Murdoc:
actually, i don’t, though i think Gobbo has a point too. If you really feel this way i would suggest reading Diderot’s D’Alembert’s Dream.
DETROP:
Sartre? Might as well get to the heart of the argument: Husserl.
Since you all seem to be well read on other peoples ideas theories and thoughts. How about breaking it down into your own ideas theories and thoughts. What is Conscious?
What are we?, would be the real question we know the physical side of us very well. Now how about the real us. The little electric pulses that zap around in our soft mushy brains, is that us or merely a tool.
What one true sense do we have that is not attached to the physical world? If we become deprived of our external senses what comes alive? Grasp that first waking thought in the morning and hold it examine it.
Can you try to answer all this with out quoting someone else? Reach down in there and use yourself not someone else. Ask yourself what are you?
thank you for that question. i guess i’ll try:
consciousness is the inexpressable that expresses. i don’t think that merely the ability to receive impressions is sufficient for consciousness. i believe that some sort of expressiveness stemming from consciousness is required. that does not mean that we know how to understand or perceive what is expressed. we may not receive the expression at all.
none the less
so consciousness is a dynamic unity of receiving and giving. taking in and producing. passivity and assertiveness.
consciousness, for humans, is usually bound up with language. i believe that language is our mode of expression. are mode of consciousness. at the same time, i have trouble seeing other modes of consciousness.
i, personally, cannot see outside of materiality and yet i know my senses are limited. some animals can’t see but are ultra sensitive to vibrations. i am aware that there are senses i’m not endowed with and that i am limited. thus, just because of i cannot perceive the extra-sensitive (material) doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. i also don’t doubt that what i perceive is there.
maybe the question then is: what then qualifies as expressing?
for me, all expresses. i think there is a hierarchy of consciousness. we aren’t necessarily at the top. at the bottom are things that have the potential for expression/reception. at the top are full actualizers.
i think materiality is endowed with consciousness, but that firing neurons aren’t the whole story whatsoever. i don’t believe that consciousness is unattached to materiality either. just because its empirical doesn’t make it dirty.
i’m rambling…but atleast i’m trying.
any thoughts of your own kriswest?
concious awareness of things that go beyond our bodily desires.
That is what God ment when he created us in his image. That and individuality and identity. For we see life in a first person point of view, and only care about others in pain because it makes us sypathize with love. Our social advances should be on the same level of love. And not might is right like the law of nature.
our body never once had the need to evolve beyond eating and mating. Yet we have become so much more.
Which a hard determinist holds to be true.
David Bohm (among others) argued that consciousness could be viewed from a materialist standpoint as being part of a spectrum of matter-energy that extends beyong the matter and energy we directly observe in the "physical" world. This interperetation implies that things besides humans could be consciousness, and that everything must have some sort of consciousness, or at least most likely does.
The difference, then, would just be in the arrangement of matter in our bodies and brains.
I don't think that materialism cheapens the idea of human consciousness - whether we attribute it to some level of physical laws or to an etheral cartesian self, it will always be puzzling and wonderful.