On Consciousness
It is one of the strangest questions we face. What is consciousness? It is something we are all intimately familiar with, in fact, it produces the experiences of both intimacy and familiarity, but remains maddeningly ineffable.
Consciousness is a phenomenon unique to more advanced organisms which seems surprising as it is, at its core, comprised of a few relatively simple functions. Among these is a sense of self and the ability to connect events in the environment to oneself; it is this ineffable experience that makes you you.
The International Dictionary of Psychology gives a downright hopeless definition:
Consciousness: The having of perceptions, thoughts, and feelings; awareness. The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means. Many fall into the trap of confusing consciousness with self-consciousness – to be conscious is only necessary to be aware of the external world. Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it.
One of the things I missed most during the hectic school year was reading books I was actually interested in reading, so I pounced on the local Barnes & Noble as soon as I finished my final exams picking up “The Conscious Mind” by David J. Chalmers (Non-affiliate link). I’m only a few pages in but I’ve already begun considering the source of this phenomenon and what it means.
Chalmers splits the mind into two primary concepts, the “phenomenal” and “psychological”. The former is the conscious experience that I plan to explore and the latter is the causal source of behavior and functions independently of any associated conscious experience.
What is the source of consciousness, of the phenomenal mind? Clearly, from an evolutionary standpoint, consciousness is advantageous. Perhaps the sense of self afforded some defense in that the organism was better able to understand the impact of environmental events on itself. As far as its source, there are two possibilities, those organisms which we consider to be “conscious” either developed some kind of neurological mutation whose physical properties directly produced this phenomenon, or they experienced some external stimulus which, using the CNS’s(Central Nervous System) existing faculties, gave rise to the conscious experience.
The latter case seems most likely as there does not appear to be a consciousness center of the brain. If so, consciousness is, ironically, given. The formation of groups, societies and civilizations could have provided this spark either from the collective priding of individuality or the personal quest for self among a sea of peers.
Would a human being have a conscious experience, a sense of self if they lived their entire life alone?
Allison
May 15, 09:16 AM
I am very surprised at the definition that you have quoted from the International Dictionary of Psychology. I agree that it is hopeless; it almost seems to go as far as to suggest that itself.
What I really find interesting though is the suggestion that “to be conscious is only necessary to be aware of the external world”. Perhaps I am simply looking at this comment from a philosophical standpoint when it may have been intended to be read from a physical standpoint, but nonetheless this statement looks a bit off.
It seems to me that it is not possible to ONLY aware of the external world and not one’s self. Self-conciousness (in the sense of simply being aware of oneself) is a necessary aspect of consciousness if you are going to distinguish between oneself and the external world. How can someone/something be aware that there is an external world without simultaneously being aware that there is something that the world is external to?
Brad4d
May 16, 01:06 AM
You implied awareness “in relation to our environment.” The 3rd dimension, space (a whereness), needs two points of view, with only one eye the world would look 2 dimensional, good that your last question brings up the 4th dimension of lifeTIME. So IT depends on paradox to separate individuals from collective consciousness.
Thame
May 16, 07:38 PM
Allison:
I know, what hope do we have if the writers of the Dictionary of Psychology have given up!
I think it is possible to be aware of external stimuli without consciousness. For example, a plant is, technically at least, aware of its external world. It receives and processes stimuli and performs an action based on these stimuli. This does not give a tree the phenomenal consciousness I am discussing. Perhaps using the word “aware” confused things as “awareness” is an element of phenomenal consciousness.
Brad4d:
I didn’t really get into the concept of collective consciousness although that might be interesting to study. Thanks!
Alex Z.
May 20, 11:41 AM
Now I cannot pretend to understand the brains consciousness in the scientific sense because it is outside of the current scope of science to explain the phenomena of consciousness, and also I do not pretend to be a scientist of any expertise that could correctly explain such a thing with any real authority or basis of fact or theory. So I will attempt to explain it in the way I know how and that is through reasoning.
Consciousness to me is in two parts (1) the ability to perceive one’s surroundings in relation to one self and (2) the ability to perceive or understand, and rationalize the outer world in the mind. To the former I will apply the name “natural” consciousness because it seems to arise naturally and in regard to the latter I will refer to it as “developed” consciousness because it seems to be a learned thing.
I will but touch on consciousness of the natural kind because as I said earlier it is a natural thing, and does not involve the question stated “Would a human being have a conscious experience, a sense of self if they lived their entire life alone?” because it would seem obvious that if a thing where natural that it would indeed exist regardless of a persons company or lack of. This would be demonstrated in the case of the lonely beast roaming about in the forest in search of food without company (for it would seem that even beasts have natural consciousness innately as defined above) because if he where not naturally conscious he would not be able to perceive or search for food.
But in regard to consciousness of the developed kind it would seem that beasts are lacking. It is shown in the second part of the definition where it is stated that to have a developed consciousness one must be able to rationalize and in beasts it is not so, in that they are un able to be “Consistent with or based on reason; logical” as they are mostly governed by their instincts and emotions which are fleeting and irrational by nature.
So I will say, to answer your question, a person if completely isolated for the entirety of its life would be naturally conscious but would be completely lacking in any developed consciousness.
—the 16 year old philosopherBreath Explorer
May 20, 12:46 PM
There seems to be an assumption by most that consciousness and the conscious plus unconscious mind are the same. After breathing consciously for many years and experiencing all the best feelings of my life through the breath, I have felt for a long time that the breath itself is consciousness. Scientists see it as physical respiration and most people also see it as physical. But Breath means Spirit (from the Latin) and Spirit, God and Consciousness are all connected. Religions refer to the spirit and the ‘holy breath’ etc, some religions meditate on the breath etc etc. There is a long history of breath and ‘spirituality’. But in our scientific age it has been reduced to something physical.
But explore the breath, realise the breath is keeping you alive not the other way round, and your consciousness can become enhanced, cosmic even :-) To understand what I mean, however, you must go beyond thought because no thought can exist in the tranquil oneness. That’s why I feel consciousness is not of the mind but of the breath. It is an understanding I have arrived at through feeling and awareness not through thinking.
Perhaps if a philosopher or psychologist was to explore their breath they might be able to verify it for themselves.
Ben
May 22, 07:28 PM
To ~quote : “Consciousness, at it’s core, is simply 2 functions; a sense of self and connecting events in the environment to ones self.”
My gut reaction is NO! How can it’s function be summed up so easily and concisely when we don’t even know WHAT consciousness is?
But… after thinking about it, I can’t argue with what you wrote. Amazing that the function of something as baffling as that 3 pound universe inside each of our heads can be summed up so concisely.
All of this his reminds me, I need to go wipe the dust off of my copy of Steven Pinkers “How the Mind Works,” finish the last few hundred pages, and then move on to Chalmers, whose been on my to-read list for probably 2 or 3 years now!
Thame
May 24, 09:14 PM
My very reductionist description leaves alot of things out. There’s a whole lot more to consciousness, but those two things seem the most prominent to me.