Which of the following is the most core/foundational notion in human consciousness?

[Kyriakos]

Philo thread about core notions.

Poll question is the one in the title, ie:

Which of the following is the most core/foundational notion in human consciousness?

Poll options are:

1) Change (includes sense of progressions, as in time, space, morphing etc)
2) Distinctness (includes the ability to differentiate between one and many things, and between observer and observed)
3) Relation (includes the sense that something is tied in some way to other things)
4) Being (the sense that something exists in the first place, or that ANYTHING at all exists -- so it is not the same as distinctness)
5) Specification (piling on the traits of any given object so as to define it all the more)
6) Symbolism (ability to use underlying common patterns instead of set objects)
7) Other/Wot? (wot option)

I think that while 4 may appear more core than all others, it is likely that 1 is even more overarching as a human notion. I am voting for 1.

Τὰ πάντα ῥεῖ
(Everything is in flux)

 

[BvBPL]

Heuristics.

Not sure where that would fit into your model.

 

[Kyriakos]

Heuristics.

Not sure where that would fit into your model.

If you mean in the sense of trying to relate things and explain/account for them/find a solution within a set system, then it seems to be composed of various of the more core notions suggested in the poll. But if one had to tie it to just one then it may be argued to flow from the sense of relation (afteral a heuristic is a set routine leading to a solution within a system, utilising relations borne out of axioms).

So i do not see how it could be more core (by core it is meant 'more fundamental or foundational, as in the question and title)

 

[BvBPL]

Most of your suggestions seem to be instant things. They presume consciousness is something that exists at a certain point of time, rather than being a process. If someone believes consciousness is instead best described something that stretches over time then your first option, change, is the only one that recognizes a temporal aspect to consciousness.

However, I don't think that change, by itself, accurately describes the essential element. What is also needed is reflection upon change and growth over time. Reflection is demonstrated by the establishment of rules and guidelines.

Of course, humans are not unique to practice of reflection and adaptation. The dog learns not to poke its nose in the brambles after one incident. So the additional aspect that makes defines human consciousness must be something else. I'm uncertain what that additional quality is, but I have two ideas.

The first is a predictive and innovative capability. Humans learn from their past actions and use that knowledge to plan future actions. The swallow migrates because it is ingrained to do so through generations upon generations of natural selection establishing that migratory swallows are more able to pass on their genes than non-migratory ones. The human, in contrast, sees an early frost and determines that it is a good idea to come off the mountain and head towards the shore earlier this year than last year. Or maybe the human opts to stay in the mountains on the novel thought that maybe game will be easier to catch in an early frost. In either case, the predictive and innovative aspects both reflect consciousness as a thing best demonstrated through the passage of time rather than at a fixed point of time.

The other element may be language and communication. One thing that sets people apart from other animals is our capability to pass on knowledge to each other. Seen in this light, the defining part of human consciousness may not be a phenomenon local to the individual, but rather a collective of share experienced. Again, this still reflects a temporal aspect to consciousness as being only identifiable by examining the passage of time. Of course, this particular thesis may be impossible to test absent a real-life Mowgli.

 

[EgonSpengler]

In taking the word "human" to be an important part of the question, I'll say Symbolism. BvBPL mentions prediction, innovation and language, all of which I think are related to our capacity for abstract thought and for linking concepts, drawing analogies, etc.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I think sense of ego is the most specific trait of human consciousness. No.2.

 

[warpus]

I don't think that there is such a thing as a "core notion in human consciousness". It doesn't exist. Human consciousness is a very complex phenomenon, nothing sits at the centre of it that's a "thing".

I think it's like asking "What is the core notion in reality?". You could pick many things if you wanted to, depending on your context.

 

[Lohrenswald]

If nothing else, being is the most fundamental and deep rooted human notion, definetely

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I don't think that there is such a thing as a "core notion in human consciousness". It doesn't exist. Human consciousness is a very complex phenomenon, nothing sits at the centre of it that's a "thing".

I think it's like asking "What is the core notion in reality?". You could pick many things if you wanted to, depending on your context.

From human pov the core notion of reality is its practical value, isnt it?

 

[schlaufuchs]

Gah. Basically what BvBPL said.

A constant cycle of minute (imperceptible) shifts in lens followed by post hoc narrativization/teleologization and rationalization of perceived macroshifts leading to further shifts in future experiences.

I don't believe that epiphany in the traditional sense exists.

 

[warpus]

From human pov the core notion of reality is its practical value, isnt it?

Depends on how you define all those words, I guess.

 

[madviking]

ability to do art

 

[Kyriakos]

I don't think that there is such a thing as a "core notion in human consciousness". It doesn't exist. Human consciousness is a very complex phenomenon, nothing sits at the centre of it that's a "thing".

I think it's like asking "What is the core notion in reality?". You could pick many things if you wanted to, depending on your context.

Issue is that 'more complex' tends to be thought as forming from more fundamental. So if a suggestion is about something containing 'change', 'being' or other such cores, but is 'more complex', it should follow that itself cannot be as fundamental since it already prerequisites those named more fundamental notions.

Of course the question here is not whether notions exist as cores themselves. Merely if any of those fundamental notions mentioned appear to be (for whatever reason) more needed as a basis of human consciousness than the others or any other.
It is likely that any notion we have breaks up indefinitely to other fundamental notions, yet most of those deeper ones would not really even be stabilised as notions in our consciousness. Afterall we use language, itself pretty distanced from consciousness itself.

 

[Borachio]

Yeah.

I'm thinking back to my earliest memories here, which has led me back to agree it comes down to a choice between 1 and 4.

Certainly my sense of change must predate my sense of myself. But does "Being", here, refer to a sense of self. I don't think it does.

But without Being could someone sense Change at all? And if they could, what would it be that was sensing it?

 

[trader/warrior]

Chose 3, relation, I feel being and change can sort of happen without it being a proper conciousness and the other poll options may follow as a consequence of ability to relate things.

Probably should have gone for the wot option though. cus wot even is this. philosimication makes me confus.

 

[BvBPL]

Issue is that 'more complex' tends to be thought as forming from more fundamental. So if a suggestion is about something containing 'change', 'being' or other such cores, but is 'more complex', it should follow that itself cannot be as fundamental since it already prerequisites those named more fundamental notions.

Except that sapience is inherently complex, possibly the most complex system known to man, and it isn't unreasonable to assume that the prerequisites for a complex system may themselves be complex. It isn't a logical bridge too far to argue that any requirements for such complexity may themselves be nuanced.

It is quite possible that sapience is not a like an arch where the removal of the keystone would cause it to fall or a jigsaw puzzle where a missing piece would be obvious as such. It could be the case that it is more like a painting where the interaction of the various factors you've listed is as important as the presence of the factors themselves. A different configuration of the same factors and maybe sapience doesn't exist or isn't human sapience. The fundamental factors may be too simplistic to describe human consciousness versus animal sentience.

Afterall we use language, itself pretty distanced from consciousness itself.

Is it? If we accept that self-awareness is a necessary component of consciousness then we must consider that self-awareness is most easily considered as a contrast to the awareness of the other. Language serves to make us aware of the other by placing boundaries between ourselves and the exterior world.

Nor is it the case that communication is limited to humans. Obviously chimps can sign, wolves can howl, and bees can dance. We wouldn't say that bees are sapient, but we might say that a beehive, as a whole, is more sapient than a collection of individual bees not in a community.

Human language differs from most animal communication in that it is able to convey abstract notions, such as awareness of consciousness. By naming it, by using language, we have given the ephemeral form and boundary, allowing it to be described.

If self-awareness is a necessary component to consciousness and description of consciousness requires language then it follows that without language we would be unable to describe consciousness, therefore unaware of it, and, lacking that awareness, absent of consciousness.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Most of your suggestions seem to be instant things. They presume consciousness is something that exists at a certain point of time, rather than being a process. If someone believes consciousness is instead best described something that stretches over time then your first option, change, is the only one that recognizes a temporal aspect to consciousness.

However, I don't think that change, by itself, accurately describes the essential element. What is also needed is reflection upon change and growth over time. Reflection is demonstrated by the establishment of rules and guidelines.

Of course, humans are not unique to practice of reflection and adaptation. The dog learns not to poke its nose in the brambles after one incident. So the additional aspect that makes defines human consciousness must be something else. I'm uncertain what that additional quality is, but I have two ideas.

The first is a predictive and innovative capability. Humans learn from their past actions and use that knowledge to plan future actions. The swallow migrates because it is ingrained to do so through generations upon generations of natural selection establishing that migratory swallows are more able to pass on their genes than non-migratory ones. The human, in contrast, sees an early frost and determines that it is a good idea to come off the mountain and head towards the shore earlier this year than last year. Or maybe the human opts to stay in the mountains on the novel thought that maybe game will be easier to catch in an early frost. In either case, the predictive and innovative aspects both reflect consciousness as a thing best demonstrated through the passage of time rather than at a fixed point of time.

The other element may be language and communication. One thing that sets people apart from other animals is our capability to pass on knowledge to each other. Seen in this light, the defining part of human consciousness may not be a phenomenon local to the individual, but rather a collective of share experienced. Again, this still reflects a temporal aspect to consciousness as being only identifiable by examining the passage of time. Of course, this particular thesis may be impossible to test absent a real-life Mowgli.

I said "being" because there's nothing more core than being or not being (ie. alive vs. dead or not-yet-born/conscious).

As for language and communication... Gorillas have been taught to use a variety of sign language, and they in turn are able to teach others. Crows are known to teach one another and their young things such as "this human is good but that human is bad."

And don't even start telling us that whales and dolphins don't communicate with each other and pass on knowledge.

 

[Kyriakos]

Except that sapience is inherently complex, possibly the most complex system known to man, and it isn't unreasonable to assume that the prerequisites for a complex system may themselves be complex. It isn't a logical bridge too far to argue that any requirements for such complexity may themselves be nuanced.

It is quite possible that sapience is not a like an arch where the removal of the keystone would cause it to fall or a jigsaw puzzle where a missing piece would be obvious as such. It could be the case that it is more like a painting where the interaction of the various factors you've listed is as important as the presence of the factors themselves. A different configuration of the same factors and maybe sapience doesn't exist or isn't human sapience. The fundamental factors may be too simplistic to describe human consciousness versus animal sentience.

I agree with that, but wasn't it echoed/alluded to in the part of my post you did not quote?

Of course the question here is not whether notions exist as cores themselves. Merely if any of those fundamental notions mentioned appear to be (for whatever reason) more needed as a basis of human consciousness than the others or any other.
It is likely that any notion we have breaks up indefinitely to other fundamental notions, yet most of those deeper ones would not really even be stabilised as notions in our consciousness.

(i was wondering if it wasn't that clear what i meant...). Yes, i am not arguing (of course) that in the consciousness itself there is any notion set as core. It is apparent that they are interconnected, and likely they are indeed 'all complex' in the way that nothing is by itself a mere point in a system there.
But we do not sense consciousness as the mind phenomenon itself is. We surely do pick up stuff as individual, and generalise them as notions. The question could not have been about how things are from a hypothetical 'mind's own point of view', cause no human would know that anyway

 

[Birdjaguar]

Philo thread about core notions.

Poll question is the one in the title, ie:

Which of the following is the most core/foundational notion in human consciousness?

Poll options are:

1) Change (includes sense of progressions, as in time, space, morphing etc)
2) Distinctness (includes the ability to differentiate between one and many things, and between observer and observed)
3) Relation (includes the sense that something is tied in some way to other things)
4) Being (the sense that something exists in the first place, or that ANYTHING at all exists -- so it is not the same as distinctness)
5) Specification (piling on the traits of any given object so as to define it all the more)
6) Symbolism (ability to use underlying common patterns instead of set objects)
7) Other/Wot? (wot option)

I think that while 4 may appear more core than all others, it is likely that 1 is even more overarching as a human notion. I am voting for 1.

I don't think that any of 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 can happen unless 2 is in place. Unless there is some sense of distinctness or separateness (self?) I don't think any of the others can be meaningful or, perhaps, even noticed.

1, 3, 5, & 6 certainly depend upon some sense of self. 4 is most likely to be relative to something else and so follow 2, but maybe could be defined in a way to avoid that.

I think sense of ego is the most specific trait of human consciousness. No.2.

I agree.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Distinctness (even in sense of the person being distinct from the environment) seems to be not that existent in toddlers, though. And afaik the first realisations of themselves as distinct happen after they have developed some lingual skills and are introduced to what the mirror is as well.

Moreover a toddler is mostly immobile in his cradle/similar small environment, and the external world may appear much like an extension of his/her own being. Iirc i recall (very vaguely of course) how i was looking (less than 1 year old obviously) at the living room behind the wooden protective bars of my toddler-space, and being of the impression that the room was also myself (or similar).

But change is picked up even by non-sentient beings. It is unlikely an ant is sentient (as in self-aware), but it is very obvious it will react if you try to hunt it down or pester it with some object.