Definition of Consciousness

[xynthal]

I have submitted this to a journal.  Feedback is appreciated.

   Consciousness is defined to be the perception of perception.
   In order to understand consciousness we must view perception as a passive process or if this is not acceptable, define a new term.  I will use term perception due to the fact that it can be understood that illusions are a demonstration of the physical limitations of our sensation process and that ambiguous images are a product of that which we want to perceive.
   First we should define the sensation process to be a change in internal stimulus due to a change in external stimulus.  This pertains to any and all sensors.
   It is commonly held that humans have five senses.  This refers to humans having five fundamentally differentiable sensor types.  Although, humans can also differentiate mental activity.

      Sense of Sight: Differentiation of the frequency electromagnetic radiation in the range of 400 - 700 nanometers.
      Sense of Hearing: Differentiation of the frequency of air pressure 17 to 0.017 meters or 20 to 20,000 Hz.
      Sense of Taste: Differentiation of solid and liquid matter.
      Sense of Smell: Differentiation of gaseous matter.
      Sense of Touch: Differentiation of temperature and pressure.

      M delta: Differentiation of mental activity. 

   In humans our internal stimulus is an electrical signal that is connected to the brain.  The brain receives and processes these electrical signals.  The autonomous result of the brain's processing is the creation of an internal representation.  This representation changes as the internal stimulus changes.  Ultimately the change in internal representation is due to a change in external stimulus.
   Now we can define perception to be the resultant change in internal representation due to a change in external stimulus.  This is an autonomous process.  Humans perceive all that is sensed and these internal representations are normally available.  If we want to perceive a specific internal representation we just want it and it is perceived.  That which we want to perceive is therefore perceived.
   Therefore, consciousness is defined to be the perception of perception.

[sakoz]

"... consciousness is defined to be the perception of perception.". Are you saying the word 'consciousness' is interchangable with the word 'perception'?  I would say the 'referents' appear simultaneously. To me, perceptions are witnessed by consciousness.  If you try to perceive consciousness, 'consciouness' recedes from each perception to witness it. It reminds me of our number system, just when you state the largest number you think is possible, you can add one to it and continue ad infinitum.
Your article (to me) seems 'scholarly'.  For layman like me, ask; "Are you conscious?"I answer' Yes, ah, that's what your definition is about.' Start with the referent, not vice versa with definition, (at least for me).

My version; "Consciousness defined as 'witnessing' of perceptions."

[xynthal]

"... consciousness is defined to be the perception of perception.". Are you saying the word 'consciousness' is interchangable with the word 'perception'?\

not quite... you have senses... they have sensors... the sensors when changed produce an electrical signal... this signal is received and processed by the brain into the brain's representation of the signal... this is perception... you can start to think about it like: consciousness is the sensation of a perception... or consciousness is the sensation of that which is sensed... but it's perception which is a little more complicated...

[Enigma]

Whats this?  Well thought out operational definitions? On MY psychology-forum? 


We do actually have a sixth sense: proprioception, the knowledge of our limbs in space.  This is a sixth sense because it is independent of the other five.  It's not contingent on vision: if I stick my arm behind my back, I'm still conscious of where my limb is even if I move it slightly. 

Your view on consciousness seems a little one sided in that it neglects metacognition: thinking about thinking.  Consciousness doesn't just monitor external stimuli, it also monitors internal stimuli.  Memory recall is a part of consciousness; I can close my eyes and recall an emotionally charged event and reproduce some of the same emotions I felt at the time.  It's not just electrical signals that affect the creation of internal representations, biochemicals play an important role.  Sakoz makes an interesting point when he says "perceptions are witnessed by consciousness".  This implies that consciousness is a sort of "monitor" for perceptions, both internal and external.  But is this monitor itself a perception (a meta-perception perhaps)?  To paraphrase a metaphor by Gilbert Ryle, imagine a visitor to Cambridge university.  They are taken around, shown the various classrooms and dorms and administration buildings, and are introduced to students and staff.  Afterwords, the visitor says, "I've seen this entire campus and met all the people, but where is the actual university", implying that the university is a separate and distinct entity.  Is consciousness like the university?

[sakoz]

Enigma, hey; IMAGINE if "thought' WAS proprioceptive? They are not, that's why we so often don't recognize them as ours and suffer the consequences when their 'false'.
Analgesia temporarily "inactivates" proprioception. (Lol 'thoughts' seem to be 'anesthetiized). Because thoughts are not proprioceptive, BELIEVING 'makes' them seem "other" than what they are- "OURS", therefore our involuntary reacts to them as if they were external to us. Let's 'explore/examine' believing  and save ourselves a 'lot' of 'grief'?

[INTP]

One of my favourite topics, but also one of those that needs a book for proper definition..

I think one of the fundamentals on creating consciousness is leaving something out. There cant be consciousness without putting the opposite(s) into unconsciousness, neither there can be consciousness if there is no existing unconscious. So in order to properly explain consciousness, you need to explain the unconscious, but that would require the other half of the book..

For example if you see a car and it enters your consciousness, you need to have the model of car in your unconscious in order to perceive the car consciously. This might sound bit silly, so ill explain. If you perceive a car and never seen or heard about anything like it, its not a car that comes into your consciousness, in your mind its just some loud big moving object, not a car. For it to be a car and not just some random object you need to be able to perceive the associations around the car for you to perceive it as a car. Naturally the object doesent change whether you perceive it as a car or some random object, but for consciousness its a different thing.

Or if you look at money, but only had heard about paper before, its not money you perceive, its just some fancy looking paper.

I like the jungian model of psyche, i wont go into explaining collective unconscious and body, but in the personal unconscious there are these things called complexes. Complex is defined as 'clusters of feeling toned associations around a common theme'. Theme in this case could be money for example and associations could be stuff like you getting some money as a kid from your parents and buying some candy, getting your first car after saving money from summer work etc etc. Now you dont perceive these associations as they are when you see money, but instead you perceive the tones of feelings associated around the common theme(money).
These complexes(like everything else in unconscious) are waiting for a proper moment to pop into surface(consciousness). Thinking about money would be a proper moment for money complex to pop into surface.
These complexes can naturally be anything from ant to your mother to love or what ever you have associated some feelings to.

Now then there is the consciousness and ego is the structure in consciousness. According to jung there are 5 main functions of ego;
1. Stability of personality. Ego tries to keep your general personality stable over time. This doesent mean that it will be able to keep personality from changing over time, just that it tries to do so.

2. Stability of identity. Ego tries to see you as you, even after you go to sleep and wake up the next morning.

3. Cognition. I doubt this needs any explaining.

4. Reality testing. Obey the laws of nature and keep the image of other stuff that are seen as part of reality.

5. Executive functioning. Ability to deal with the everyday demands of the world.

And some other notes about the consciousness from jungian point of view;
- conscious possessess a level of intensity, so all weak concepts remain unconscious.
- consciousness deters incompatible material and these remain unconscious.
- consciousness holds momentary adaptation, whereas unconscious contains individual memories(personal unconscious) and collective structures(collective unconscious)
-unconscious contains all images that have yet to encounter suitable conditions to become conscious.

And when we derive an complex from our unconscious, the ego takes a beating from the complex and the way ego operates is altered by the complex. For example out normal personality is altered for a moment, even the toughest guys can melt infront of love. Or your cognition might be altered, someone with strong and unhealthy feeling toned associations around money(some gambling addict for example) might be unable to use cognition properly when he gets money and gamble it all, even tho he knows he shouldnt do this.

[INTP]

If you look at this from neurological level, you propably know that neurons are connected to other neurons and wider the action potential spread is stronger the conscious experience is(assuming that this wider spread of action potentials get through to parts of brains where consciousness is formed).

Unconscious is naturally the already existing neurons and unconscious processing is these neurons communicating and making new connections(altering the neural connections), with the neural connections still being so weak that they stay local, instead of traveling to areas which perceive these action potentials(subliminal perceptions/processing would be a good example of this).

Now the problem arises, what area(s) form this conscious experience?

I know there is alot of debate about the subject as its so hard to measure, but personally i think its somewhere in limbic system or/and some areas around it. But i dont think its so simple that input there = consciousness, instead i think its the input to the area that interprets the infor coming in and looping in the system that forms the consciousness, by detering incompatible material. Seeing both sides of things, but selecting the sides of the things that the ego(some structure in the system) is most comfortable with.

Now again i dont think its all this simple either, but i think the info that enters the system is usually too weak to come into consciousness, except with some things like perceptions come on strong enough most the time, assuming that the sound is loud enough.

Also i think its important to combine information in the loop to consciously understand it. But thats another whole story, which i cant be arsed to write about.

[sakoz]

xynthal; you define 'consciousness' to be the perception of perception.
Enigma 'comes close' to agreeing with you. "But is this monitor itself a perception ( a meta-perception perhaps)?" his "...perhaps)?" indicates tentativeness, non-commital. Let's examine your definition. A meta-perception that can perceive a prior perception? Is the meta-perception conscious in order to perceive? Perceptions are imbued/permeated with consciousness? How else can a meta-perception be conscious of a prior perception? Is it conscious of itself like we are? Is unrecognized anthropmorphism at 'play' here?
Perceptions are form, thought, image, that are observable, virtual entities, holographs. I contend that 'consciousness' is not observable (even though experiential).
You can imagine a image of/about 'consciousness, but it's a inferential image that consciousness will witness as soon as you imagine that arbitrary image.
There's two 'schools of thought' about the origin of 'consciousness'. 1. That consciousness is derived from the brain; emergent, etc ( very popular belief of late).
2. Universal or at least global Consciousness at large. I subscribe to the latter. Just as a bulb does not create the electricity it converts/manifests into light. I believe our brain is the means that converts/transduces 'energy' (E=mc2) into 'original thoughts. Every 'original thought' replicates the 'Big Bang' on a teeny-weeny' scale.

INTP (I can't quote your second paragraph the short way). You indicate there's no conscious without unconscious. There's no sharp demarcation even though we refer to them as two; I myself use the iceberg as model. The iceberg is one, we only see the smaller portion. This is all I'll write for now.

[INTP]

INTP (I can't quote your second paragraph the short way). You indicate there's no conscious without unconscious. There's no sharp demarcation even though we refer to them as two; I myself use the iceberg as model. The iceberg is one, we only see the smaller portion. This is all I'll write for now.

Well.. there is no consciousness without taking away the opposite. Can you notice that something is unless you cant see the possibility of it not being? Can you experience pain, if you never felt what its like to be pain free or had the pain levels vary?

And what comes to unconsciousness, unconsciousness is basically memories, experiences etc that arwnt in use at the moment. You have neurons for britney spears, even when you arent thinking of her and when you arent thinking of her, she is in your unconscious. Now if you would never heard about her and you would see her on the street, it wouldnt be britney spears that you perceived, but just some random girl.

[sakoz]

Here's the challenge for all of us; "HOW DO WE ACQUIRE THOUGHT RECOGNITION IN LIEU OF PROPRIOCEPTION  OF THOUGHTS?"
Knowing we know a name, even though we can't access it at the moment, we have a "felt-sense" of the name, that's as close as I can come to explain "proprioception" of thought.
The "thought recognition" I refer to is analogous to "molecular, *Brownian Movement* of science". Molecular Motion was a inference to explain observable effects; then that inference was proven 'correct', as real as gravity. We see what that knowledge did for electronic technology. 'Thought-Recognition' (OF subliminal level) can do the same for mental health and well being.

( Those new to this topic; the placebo effect, (even though benefical,in original version) is a classic example of LACK of 'thought-recognition'. The 'subject', mistakenly  believes that a inert pill is medicine and experiences the effect of the BELIEF,  the 'fake' pill has no effect. 'Most' human experience is the effect of UNRECOGNIZED BELIEFS)

[HeyItsRyan]

Consciousness can only be defined as the ability of our mind to take in new information.

There's no other way to break it down. When our minds are conscious we are able to perceive our surroundings and acquire new information via our senses.

When we are unconscious, this ability is turned off (such as in a coma). When a person sleeps, you are conscious, hence your mind is activating primary senses for the purpose of protection and situational awareness. This is why we hear our alarm clocks or wake up if the house is on fire.

However, when we sleep our minds still work. Since certain senses are turned off, primarily sight, we don't take in that much new information. During this "downtime" of our minds we access our subconscious. The purpose of our minds accessing subconscious information is an attempt to fill that void of acquiring new information while we sleep. Our minds create a dreamspace in which we perceive a false reality, but within the dream are always elements of information we've acquired within our lives.

[INTP]

Consciousness can only be defined as the ability of our mind to take in new information.

Earth worms are able to take in new information, but are earth worms conscious?

[HeyItsRyan]

Consciousness can only be defined as the ability of our mind to take in new information.

Earth worms are able to take in new information, but are earth worms conscious?

Yes.

What kind of question is this? Just because an earthworm is not as complex of an organism as a human being, doesn't mean it's not complex in and of itself. It still has a brain, nervous system, digestive tract, etc. If it's alive and moving and possesses inherent, natural desire to eat, reproduce, etc., not to mention survival instinct and situational awareness, then therefore it must have consciousness.

[INTP]

Consciousness can only be defined as the ability of our mind to take in new information.

Earth worms are able to take in new information, but are earth worms conscious?

Yes.

What kind of question is this? Just because an earthworm is not as complex of an organism as a human being, doesn't mean it's not complex in and of itself. It still has a brain, nervous system, digestive tract, etc. If it's alive and moving and possesses inherent, natural desire to eat, reproduce, etc., not to mention survival instinct and situational awareness, then therefore it must have consciousness.

Well i disagree with that. Maybe a calculator would be better example, its able to take new information in too. Do you think calculators are conscious too?

[HeyItsRyan]

Consciousness can only be defined as the ability of our mind to take in new information.

Earth worms are able to take in new information, but are earth worms conscious?

Yes.

What kind of question is this? Just because an earthworm is not as complex of an organism as a human being, doesn't mean it's not complex in and of itself. It still has a brain, nervous system, digestive tract, etc. If it's alive and moving and possesses inherent, natural desire to eat, reproduce, etc., not to mention survival instinct and situational awareness, then therefore it must have consciousness.

Well i disagree with that. Maybe a calculator would be better example, its able to take new information in too. Do you think calculators are conscious too?

lol, your argument is way off and you're taking what I said way out of context. A calculator is not a living organism.

And you've yet to specify a single reason why my definition is, in YOUR opinion, wrong.

[INTP]

lol, your argument is way off and you're taking what I said way out of context. A calculator is not a living organism.

And you've yet to specify a single reason why my definition is, in YOUR opinion, wrong.

Okay so now your definition changed to living organism that is able to take in new information, not just being able to take in new information.

Now what makes a living organism so unique that only difference between being conscious or not is that its living? Why cant machines have consciousness?

Im just trying to show you that your definition is lacking, but thats the case with any definition of consciousness thats so short.

[HeyItsRyan]

Dude, come on...


First of all, look at my original definition of consciousness again:

"Consciousness can only be defined as the ability of our mind to take in new information."

I CLEARLY implied that I was specifically speaking of human beings when I said "our mind." At the very least you can defer that I was speaking about any living organism with a MIND.

A machine does not have a mind, not in the sense that we do. It takes in and displays information, sure, but it can not have consciousness because it is not self-aware. As we progress further into quantum mechanics and computing and one day successfully build true artificial intelligence, a machine that is aware of its own existence, then I would say it has consciousness.

But right now, you're arguing apples to oranges.

And when you said in your first post, that you can not have consciousness without unconsciousness, I could easily argue that. Prime example; a person may live their entire life and NEVER go unconscious. When they are awake they're conscious (obviously), and when they sleep they access subconscious. Then one day they just die. Death in itself is not considered unconsciousness as the brain, as an organ, is no longer functioning.

So if a person lives their entire life without EVER going unconscious, how can you possibly conclude their minds even have the ability to go unconscious unless it's actually happened to them? Maybe unconsciousness is an abnormality that only SOME people experience?

Take people who drink too much alcohol for example. A lot of drunks have experienced "blackouts" in their life. Whereas, they pass out and their minds shutdown, essentially "rebooting." When a person truly has a blackout, their minds do not take in new information. No matter how hard you try to wake them, move them, or call their name they do not respond. Why? Because they are unconscious. Nor do they remember the period of time while they were in the blackout.

But, not ALL drunks have blackouts and lose consciousness. Some people drink like fish remain fine. In that same sense, some people can be hit in the bad of the head with a baseball bat and never lose consciousness. Some people can overdose on drugs and never lose consciousness. So how can you conclude that every human being has the ability to go unconscious?

I think a lot of people would agree that there is a very fine line between unconsciousness and death. If unconsciousness IS an abnormality, then when certain things happen to our brains some people, who don't have the ability to go unconscious, just die.

[sakoz]

INTP; In your #8 you write we have neurons, synapses for Britney Spears, correct, hope your not implying we have images like photos even when we're not looking at them. The images don't exit when we're not looking. It takes consciousness to interact with the neurons/synapses in order to 'manifest' images. When a brain of a cadaver is examined, yes cells,neurons,synapses are seen but not images, because there's no consciouness to 'manifest' images. I refer you to the 'observer effect". This might seem like a minor point, but let's not assume the images are intact in the unconscious.

[INTP]

@hey its ryan

Few moments ago you said that earthworms are conscious, now you changed it to that only human mind is able to create consciousness..

If understanding about ones existance is what is required for consciousness, you can program a computer to be aware of itself. Actually windows/linux/macOs is constantly processing whats going on it and not just programs, but cpu temperature etc. So even the computer you are using is self aware, there is no quantum computing required. But thats just one of many definitions required for consciousness. With your definition, you are leaving this out totally, so again your original definition is lacking.

I suggest googling 'machine consciousness', you might find something interesting.

What comes to all that subconscious talk, im not referring to someone being unconscious when i use the word unconsciousness, read my op again.

The reason im using the word unconscious instead of subconscious is simply because subconscious is too broad term used by everything below the treshold of consciousness and the term isnt really used anymore, since its definition is too broad.

Also lets take this drug named DMT as an example. Its a strong hallucinogen, which also shuts of all new information coming in. Even tho all new info coming in is stopped, people are experiencing things, but its not new info they are experiencing, but contents of your unconscious, which are being shaped by the drug.
Do you think that when people take this drug, they stop being conscious and arent consciously experiencing anything, simply because they stop taking in new info?

Your definition is full of holes and lacking too much that i kinda have hard time taking it seriously. If you still think it holds after these arguments, please tell me why.

[INTP]

INTP; In your #8 you write we have neurons, synapses for Britney Spears, correct, hope your not implying we have images like photos even when we're not looking at them. The images don't exit when we're not looking. It takes consciousness to interact with the neurons/synapses in order to 'manifest' images. When a brain of a cadaver is examined, yes cells,neurons,synapses are seen but not images, because there's no consciouness to 'manifest' images. I refer you to the 'observer effect". This might seem like a minor point, but let's not assume the images are intact in the unconscious.

Yea i didnt mean picture like visual images, but mental images, the sort of non visual images your consciousness perceives, when you see or hear something. For example when you hear someone screaming a certain way, you might get an image of someone being in urgent need of help. Without this image attached to the screaming(or everything else you perceive) the noice would be meaningless static, something that new born babies are experiencing.

What i think the consciousness is observing are this sort of images. Even the sounds you hear with your ears are these images, same with visual perceptions. Take the ames room illusion as an example, if it was the actual outside world you perceived, there wouldnt be any illusion, but because you are using an already existing image of a room in your perception, you see the people changing sizes, even if you knew that its just an illusion.

Naturally the images are created by stimuli coming from the eyes, mixed with your already existing images and some of these images are so deeply rooted, like the image of a room, that its not altered by external world, instead the external world tries to fit itself to this image.

This perception of perception definition is correct in my opinion, but i dont think it covers all sides of this and leaves out the fact that this perception that is being perceived are internal perceptions(these images and memories etc), not the external perception as people would usually think the definition meaning, but the tricky thing with this is that we project these inner images onto external world and see them being in the external world, not inside.

[sakoz]

INTP; I like your #19(in esence). Yes, consciousness perceives images. Yes, images are automatically attached to sensory input, resulting in a 'combo'. Too often we don't recognize what we add; example, the Nine-Dot puzzle. We look at nine dots and simaltaneously see our image/schema of "square". We originally could not solve the puzzle because we mistook our 'added' image as if it were actually inherent in the dots. As you said, we 'mix'  images and perceptions. The Ames room and Necker Cube illustrate our 'mixing' tendencies. We have 'problems' when we  don't recognize our 'additions'; that makes for 'grist' for therapy.
I have trouble with your definition of perception of perception; perception implies perceiver; so when perception perceives a prior perception, who/what perceives the perception perceiving the prior perception? It can go on self-reflexively on and on, you can't perceive consciousness no matter how far you go.
I 'love' your mention of "non-descript noise", without a image attached would be meaningless. Here's the crux of my point why I post here at this site.
Suppose at two A.M. you hear a noise from the kitchen with the thought;"Oh, there's a burglar in the house.!"  How would you feel? Some anxiety? You can't possibly see into the kitchen from the bedroom, but you see your image of a 'burglar" in your mind, and your involuntary reacts to IT as if the image was a real, empirical 'burglar'. When we don't recognize our assumptions,and 'believe' there real, our involuntary must react as surely as objects fall due to gravity. Anyway, back to the example, you investigate and go to kitchen and a different cause of the 'noise', the image of burglar fades faster than fog or vapor in sunlight. (The light of consciousness).  "Thought-Recognition" is the key, the images are 'added' automatically so it's easy to lose track that indeed they are ours.
( when you see a image in your mind, what is the source of illumination?)

[INTP]

Well, different parts of the brains perceive signal coming from different areas and are effected by these perceptions from other areas. But the deal is that for example visual cortex isnt creating consciousness, even tho it perceives signals from other areas. And that is because it doesent put any feeling associations to perceptions(this naturally needs some memory areas also). How ever limbic system does, i suggest reading the functions and connections of areas in limbic system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system . You get better info by looking at the pages of each area, that page has quite crappy functional definitions.

This page also has some interesting info about consciousness and other brain stuff:
 http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/d/d_12/d_12_cr/d_12_cr_con/d_12_cr_con.html

In order to get the perception of perception part, you need to see different sort of perceptions, the perception of light that comes from eyes to visual cortex is different than the perception of the processed info that leaves the visual cortex. And naturally when you perceive the images from cerebral cortex, its perception of perceptions coming from eyes. For example in some bugs and some animals, there isnt much processing done to visual info after its processed, instead they just react to visual info instantly, same with other perception. For example earth worms coming out from the ground whwn it starts raining, they dont think like "hey i need to get on the surface so i wont drown", instead they just get an instinct to move away from wet soil. So you cant really say that its an consciois decision from them. Naturally people have instincts too, but thats about unconscious processes, not about conscious, so ill leave that to another topic.

[pljames]

Excellent post. I do not exactly understand the unconcious. But a front has to have a back therefore conscious has to have a unconcious like a memory. It is stored and it sleeps. pljames

Consciousness can only be defined as the ability of our mind to take in new information.

There's no other way to break it down. When our minds are conscious we are able to perceive our surroundings and acquire new information via our senses.

When we are unconscious, this ability is turned off (such as in a coma). When a person sleeps, you are conscious, hence your mind is activating primary senses for the purpose of protection and situational awareness. This is why we hear our alarm clocks or wake up if the house is on fire.

However, when we sleep our minds still work. Since certain senses are turned off, primarily sight, we don't take in that much new information. During this "downtime" of our minds we access our subconscious. The purpose of our minds accessing subconscious information is an attempt to fill that void of acquiring new information while we sleep. Our minds create a dreamspace in which we perceive a false reality, but within the dream are always elements of information we've acquired within our lives.