History of consciousness

[Atticus]

Hello friends! Reading Carl Jung's Man and his symbols lead me to think about human consciousness, mainly because he seems to think them as two manifestations of the same thing, not two different (though interacting) entities, and so one might think that the conscious self is build on the subconscious. While history doesn't cover the whole development of consciousness, it might give some light to most recent events of it. I came to think three examples:

1. The Dreamtime of Australian Aboriginals, which hints that they were some how closer to the unconscious parts of their mind, or maybe more open to accept it as a part of them.

2. Expert of Arab world Jaakko Hämeen-Anttila wrote somewhere that metaphors and allusions are much more important among Arabs than western people. Maybe this suggests that they have a different value for "logic" and "rationality".

3. Thought in medieval times and antiques seemed to be more "magical" than today. When "rational" thinking got the status it now has? What kind of events influenced it? I have also noticed while teaching mathematics that even modern adults are much less free from this "magical" thinking that western people like to think, and note that maths (including logic) is thought to be the heart of rationality. Or as an another example the concept of justice seems to be purely magical, and yet it is thought to be major part of societies. It seems that "rationality" is very recent part of human thought and people don't adhere it very consistently.

As you might have already noticed I'm no expert in history or psychology and my understanding of those examples is probably very shallow and wrong. That is the reason I'm asking your thoughts about them and the subject. Also I'm not saying that some cultures were better or more developed (in terms odf consciousness) than another, and even if they were, I don't think it should have any political implications. The reason words like "rationality" &c are in quotations is their vagueness, not that I would have some contempt towards the concepts. And yeah, please note that validity of Jung's thoughts isn't so important, I mentioned him just as a background story.

After all this blabbering: How do you think human consciousness has developed during the known history? Is there any evidence (hopefully from historcal era) speaking for different kind of conciousness than modern western? What events do you think are the most important in the development of consciousness?

 

[Plotinus]

Surely consciousness per se is a physiological or biological phenomenon, in which case it hasn't changed or developed since our species evolved. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Of course people in different societies and different periods of history think differently, but that simply reflects differences of culture, not some kind of fundamental difference in phenomenology.

 

[Atticus]

Well yes, the question is more about cultures than differences in the "hard core" of humans. But you must remember that man is both cultural and biological animal, and as thoughts are pretty much all that mind is, culture's influence to it is as material as man's physical properties. There are for example things psychologically impossible us to do, which would be very normal in other cultures. I mean: culture isn't just fine tuning of human minds, but the thing which they are made of.

To give more precise examples: development of philosophy and mathematics in Greece seems to have been from description of magical views to argumentative systems, maybe bringing dominance of "rationality" to the sciences. On the other hand renaissance, scientific revolution and enlightment maybe made it the paradigm of everyday thinking.

 

[C~G]

Surely consciousness per se is a physiological or biological phenomenon, in which case it hasn't changed or developed since our species evolved. I'm not really sure what you're getting at. Of course people in different societies and different periods of history think differently, but that simply reflects differences of culture, not some kind of fundamental difference in phenomenology.

Are you serious?

And this comes from theologian...

You don't think there isn't shift when people elaborate things through their mythology of different Gods affecting their everyday life compared to the notion that whole universum is affected by physical natural laws which don't have personified manifestations?

I think the contrary is true. I think the evolution of humans have changed from those days as you put "since our species evolved" towards the evolution of the brain and it's consciousness by the effect of information it now gathers in course of life of individual and is able to use for the same evolutionary processes as before.

Of course I think the personification process does also affect the perception of this godless physical world but I think there's pretty much shift there between. Especially this difference is probably something that has also affected a lot history of mankind example in situation where westerners meet other people (Spanish and Aztecs come to mind).

I have also noticed while teaching mathematics that even modern adults are much less free from this "magical" thinking that western people like to think, and note that maths (including logic) is thought to be the heart of rationality. Or as an another example the concept of justice seems to be purely magical, and yet it is thought to be major part of societies. It seems that "rationality" is very recent part of human thought and people don't adhere it very consistently.

And I say "rationality" is magical thinking too.

"Rationality" in our culture already has positive meaning, in other words hardly anyone says I'm being "irrational" which is pretty much same as saying being stupid.

Mathematicians saying things like that is just building up their own fragile ego which is magical thinking too.

The whole notion of consciousness probably in the future has to change (and will change) since it isn't as concrete but much more fragmented than it's believed to be.

 

[CartesianFart]

The whole notion of consciousness probably in the future has to change (and will change) since it isn't as concrete but much more fragmented than it's believed to be.

I think "consciousness" should be discarded as the lot of words should be.

The expression of what goes in my mind should be "I think." Not what is in my thoughts.

 

[Atticus]

And I say "rationality" is magical thinking too.

Mathematicians saying things like that is just building up their own fragile ego which is magical thinking too.

Hmm.. I was only saying that maths is thought to be the heart of rationality, but actually I do also think that if some form of our culture is rational (logical), it is mathematics. That doesn't however mean that maths would be pure from "magical" elements. Teaching maths showed me that many people choose "magical" thinking even when rationality is possible, engouraged and in conflict with their views. I think it proves that people aren't so rational as they think to be. (Note that I don't mean with "rational" efficient or optimal, but more like logical, and I don't say that rationality would be the ultimate end of thinking).

And yes, rationality and some of it's offsprings are concieved magically. Many people concieve science as the source of thruth relying only on the statements of their priests.

 

[Plotinus]

To give more precise examples: development of philosophy and mathematics in Greece seems to have been from description of magical views to argumentative systems, maybe bringing dominance of "rationality" to the sciences. On the other hand renaissance, scientific revolution and enlightment maybe made it the paradigm of everyday thinking.

That may be right, although bear in mind that the Renaissance was not a very rational time. On the contrary, it was marked by a resurgence in mysticism, magic, and the like, in reaction to the Middle Ages, when people believed far less in magic and far more in reason. Just compare (say) Thomas Aquinas and Marsilio Ficino.

You don't think there isn't shift when people elaborate things through their mythology of different Gods affecting their everyday life compared to the notion that whole universum is affected by physical natural laws which don't have personified manifestations?

Of course, but I would think of that as a shift in the prevailing ideology, not in the nature of consciousness itself. I suspect that the only real disagreement here is one of terminology really.

 

[C~G]

I think "consciousness" should be discarded as the lot of words should be.

That is one way of doing it, or more precisely defining it another way.

The expression of what goes in my mind should be "I think." Not what is in my thoughts.

I will exchange here with you and say that "I think" the main question is "who" thinks of himself thinking.

It might be some kind of "deeply philosophical" question to others while for me it just shows how our brains is constructed and what kind of parts our illusion of continuos and superfluos consciousness is made of.

Hmm.. I was only saying that maths is thought to be the heart of rationality, but actually I do also think that if some form of our culture is rational (logical), it is mathematics. That doesn't however mean that maths would be pure from "magical" elements. Teaching maths showed me that many people choose "magical" thinking even when rationality is possible, engouraged and in conflict with their views. I think it proves that people aren't so rational as they think to be. (Note that I don't mean with "rational" efficient or optimal, but more like logical, and I don't say that rationality would be the ultimate end of thinking).

And yes, rationality and some of it's offsprings are concieved magically. Many people concieve science as the source of thruth relying only on the statements of their priests.

I do agree with you here.

I think the main problem is that people make these jumps from simple logical conclusions of mathematics to other problems which require much more information available and more complicated equatation than it might look with first glimpse. Some "rational" people just confuse of making world more simple than it is and say that their thinking is the "rational" and "right way" and this is the magical thinking I'm referring to.

Also I have noticed some others problems with folks that over-estimate their "rational" talents. Main problem with them is that they think all the truths in the world are equally achievable with the same methods.

That may be right, although bear in mind that the Renaissance was not a very rational time. On the contrary, it was marked by a resurgence in mysticism, magic, and the like, in reaction to the Middle Ages, when people believed far less in magic and far more in reason. Just compare (say) Thomas Aquinas and Marsilio Ficino.

But can we really do such comparisions between which times were more "rational" than others based into few thinkers?

Of course, but I would think of that as a shift in the prevailing ideology, not in the nature of consciousness itself. I suspect that the only real disagreement here is one of terminology really.

It could be.

Actually my point is that the conditions of our living have changed consciousness of humans more than we probably think. Such things as nutrition, availability of information (example concrete evidence of science about every day phenomena) and example how we experience our own life regarding the presence of our society in it's stories has had IMO probably quite drastic effect to human experience.

And I think human consciousness is hard to define in other way but one's experience of one's existence.

 

[Plotinus]

The expression of what goes in my mind should be "I think." Not what is in my thoughts.

In that case, how can you distinguish between one thought and another? If you refuse to describe the content of a thought, and speak only of the thinker, then my thought of an elephant is indistinguishable from my thought of a spider (to use Arnauld's example).

But can we really do such comparisions between which times were more "rational" than others based into few thinkers?

If we can't, then the question posed by the OP is meaningless or at least unanswerable. Isn't this whole discussion based upon the assumption that we can compare prevailing habits of thought between different periods?

 

[C~G]

If we can't, then the question posed by the OP is meaningless or at least unanswerable. Isn't this whole discussion based upon the assumption that we can compare prevailing habits of thought between different periods?

But it was about comparision between different consciousness of different periods not about grade of rationality of periods.

Then there's the problem that example if you compare few thinkers that you pick out that are "most rational" compared to others while in other times such texts might have been consumed by the time and nothing is left of the rationality of that time to the people of the future (us).

I think we can get glimpses of what kind of difference there has been in the consciousness of the people of middle ages example compared to modern man and we can probably even consider that modern man is more rational but how to compare example people's rationality from 1100 to that of 1400? Or do you think reading certain thinkers really reflect the general consensus and perception of reality?

My point is that you need to also study the every day habits and quirks of the people rather than few philosophers from that period to get some kind of impression of how people experienced their reality. Of course it doesn't hurt how thinkers of that period commented these things but I think using them guidelines would be same as using current philosophers or example mathematicians how people reflect the reality currently which would lead people to complete astray. I wouldn't call any "average Joe" behaving like current philosophers might describe them to do, do you think?

 

[thomas.berubeg]

And yes, rationality and some of it's offsprings are concieved magically. Many people concieve science as the source of thruth relying only on the statements of their priests.

I agree. Your common North American (United states and Canada, i'm not sure about the rest of the world, not knowing the prevailing mentality) idolizes science, taking it without doubt as pure truth, remaining unschakeable in thier conviction until another scientist comes along with a different view, then adopting that as firmly as the one before. (except on evolution...)

 

[CartesianFart]

In that case, how can you distinguish between one thought and another?

Simple. By looking at where the utterance is being made by whomever speaks it.

It can cause a troublesome episode if you are indeed blind though.

If you refuse to describe the content of a thought, and speak only of the thinker, then my thought of an elephant is indistinguishable from my thought of a spider (to use Arnauld's example).

(To use the Fartenese's example) If I describe what my thoughts are to another person who is recieving it, then it is up to the individual who have recieved my utterance to make sense of the content of what I am saying.

To C~G:
Another way of saying "History of Consciousness" is that you can also say - "Collection of memories of my everdayness since I was aware of me being conscious."

 

[Plotinus]

Simple. By looking at where the utterance is being made by whomever speaks it.

It can cause a troublesome episode if you are indeed blind though.

(To use the Fartenese's example) If I describe what my thoughts are to another person who is recieving it, then it is up to the individual who have recieved my utterance to make sense of the content of what I am saying.

That behaviourist answer is flawed in the same way that all behaviourist answers are - it fails to account for differences in phenomenology. To put it more simply, if the only way you can distinguish between different thoughts that are had by the same person is how that person behaves, then you have no way of distinguishing between private thoughts, even your own. Yet it seems pretty simple for me to distinguish between my thought of a spider and my thought of an elephant, even if I never say anything about them to anyone. Obviously the difference is that one is of a spider and the other is of an elephant. By saying that thoughts differ only in virtue of who thinks them, and not in virtue of their objects, you are denying the possibility of any kind of intentionality, which is just absurd. It would mean that no-one could ever think about anything.

 

[Kyriakos]

There are more differences in thoughts than just that though. Surely it is correct to claim that the formation of the thought of an elephant in your mind is different than that of a spider, however even two "thoughts" of an elephant can be very different.
The image itself is artificially linked to a term, but the term then serves as a medium for placing the image in more abstract connections to other terms. Therefore one person could be thinking of the term "elephant" and imagining its position in a species, the information about its behaviour he has read of, myriad other bits of knowledge related to it.
Another person could not be having in the foreground of his thought at all such categorisations, but instead be more inclined to view it as a symbol. And the world of symbols is by all means greater than the world of organised scientific thought, since symbols interconnect in all ways possible, whereas scientific thought has by definition a limited such scope of interconnections.
Then there are the countless different ways and degrees in which you visualise that which you had thought of. Again the differences are there.

Imo whereas consciousness itself might not have been significantly altered- but it is another question that which would request a definition of significant alteration in that respect- in the ages, what has definately been altered is the effect that science has had on the more epidermic levels of it. Surely the savages who had not been taught any sciences since they did not have a school system would not have had any way of including such thoughts in their consciousness, however the levels below that of the entirely organised knowledge might not have been that different from that of an average educated modern man.
In art it is very obvious that symbols have a strong effect on the psyche. And some pieces of art obviously date back to millenia ago. Probably the deeper levels of the psyche seem pushed back by the modern way of organising thought, but it would be wrong to assume that due to that they no longer exist. On the contrary it is far more logical to assume that not only they exist but they play always their part in any way of thinking, albeit the examination of them is not the focus point of most ways of thinking.

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree. Your common North American (United states and Canada, i'm not sure about the rest of the world, not knowing the prevailing mentality) idolizes science, taking it without doubt as pure truth, remaining unschakeable in thier conviction until another scientist comes along with a different view, then adopting that as firmly as the one before. (except on evolution...)

But that's hardly the fault of "science", if it's even reasonably possible to view it as a single entity. The same applies in matters of religion, politics, economics, art, culture, whatever. At least when it comes to science the percieved authorities are- by and large- sincerely attempting to discover factual information about the universe, rather than just asserting or extending their own power.

 

[Plotinus]

There are more differences in thoughts than just that though. Surely it is correct to claim that the formation of the thought of an elephant in your mind is different than that of a spider, however even two "thoughts" of an elephant can be very different.

That's a good point and you're quite right. Of course that just goes to show even more clearly how absurd it is to suggest that two thoughts can be distinguished only by who is thinking them, and by nothing else at all.

 

[Kyriakos]

That's a good point and you're quite right. Of course that just goes to show even more clearly how absurd it is to suggest that two thoughts can be distinguished only by who is thinking them, and by nothing else at all.

Not sure i understand what was meant by that argument (two thoughts being evidently different from each other by virtue of different people having them)

It should be obvious that if you have two different people they can only be thinking any thought in a significantly different way. Nomatter the simplicity of the thought it still is the product of so complicated mental processes that it can only be different from a seemingly corresponding one by another person.
Since every thought breaks up to parts, for a thought to be exactly the same it would follow that everything it contained remained the same as well. But even for the seemingly simplest of thoughts this is impossible, since their complexity uncreases drammatically with each closer look.
For example if one is thinking of going out of the house, another person next to him could well be thinking of the "same". However only in a very basic level it could be argued that the thoughts was identical, and in reality only for the purposes of being practical when analysis is not called for. For in reality person A would be thinking of getting out from an environment he has specific views of (doesnt matter that they ussually would not be presented in immediate consciousness; they exist at any rate below it) and getting to another environment he has other views of. One could say that in name the tendancy could be presented (again falsely) as being the same, but the actual thought would be very different, due to its supporting parts being different to relatively great degrees.

After all we all have formed our ways of looking at anything with different abilities/connections/urges/interests. All those are parts of any thought, even in their absence from the actual detached thought they still form what surrounds it and again thus affects it. Even thought which is consciously detached from emotion cannot fail from being entirely personal and a manifestation of one's entire psyche, since it is playing always a crucial part in the ongoing phenomenon of the individual consciousness.

 

[Plotinus]

I wasn't saying that two people can't have qualitatively different thoughts. I was saying that one and the same person can have qualitatively different thoughts. CartesianFart claimed that the only thing you can say about any thought is who is having it, and that you can't describe any other features of it, such as what it is about. And my point was simply that that is absurd.

 

[Kyriakos]

I had read that this was your view as well, just was noting that i found that argument to be strange

 

[CartesianFart]

That behaviourist answer is flawed in the same way that all behaviourist answers are - it fails to account for differences in phenomenology.

I am not going to tell you that I disagree with your notion that the behaviorist's response is flawed, but I can point out that your assessment of what a behaviorist is downright flawed in itself. To say that a behaviorist's explanation of consciousness without any regards to what a phenomenologist would say is incompatible since they are of two different school of thoughts. One is an extreme position and the other is in the other position while each cancel each other out on how to define and interpret how consciousness works.

To put it more simply, if the only way you can distinguish between different thoughts that are had by the same person is how that person behaves, then you have no way of distinguishing between private thoughts, even your own.

To me, I find it nonsense to say the least that it is our utmost importance to even know what a person think or knowing the consitution of another's mind altogether. It cause rediculous abstract intellectualizing to a degree where mixing of what is materially real and what is immaterially not real. It is vain metaphysics by the theorist to use concrete terms of physical things and then supplanting them into a system of abstract one that explain how consciousness is governed by some theoretical law analogous to how brain works for all people possessing it.

Understanding what and how my thoughts are is not something of not knowing if it is mine nor someone else. As long as me knowing myself of possessing the thought, then it is silly for to even suppose that it is someone else's thought. The only way to discredit solipsism, paradoxically, is to say when you think outloud to someone and the person who have received it will say," Well, that is what I think too." Of course, it is only the result of my saying it aloud that fixed the attention of the person who have recieved it by thinking either the same or the very fact that he or she have thought of it before me (which is a coincidence to say it best). It does not prove that we are all under some kind of immaterial law that governs all conscious thoughts who possess it.

Yet it seems pretty simple for me to distinguish between my thought of a spider and my thought of an elephant, even if I never say anything about them to anyone.

Tell me this, can you think of something and act on your own volition of doing it, will the spider and the elephant do it for you instead of your body?

Obviously the difference is that one is of a spider and the other is of an elephant. By saying that thoughts differ only in virtue of who thinks them, and not in virtue of their objects, you are denying the possibility of any kind of intentionality, which is just absurd. It would mean that no-one could ever think about anything.

No. What I am saying is that, when you think of something by the faculty of your own mind and then say it outloud, you are percieving how other people response to what you have said based on what you have thought. The object is not them or others but yourself being the object through the medium of communication with others who have recieved it.