[RD] Your Body is Only a Shell: Naive or Truthful?

[Narz]

Sure but that doesn't exclude the other parts, particularly ones that might be essential.

What other parts do you consider essential for consciousness?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I don't understand what you mean. Doesn't it make sense that our subconscious uses up a much larger part of the brain than the conscious does? I thought that was a thing that was known

Its a known fact. But I am assuming if you control only the conscious part which is interconected/attached/superficial part of some larger (and in many respects much more efficient) subconscious part of yourself doesnt it also follow that your intelligence is a part of some larger intelligence? Doesnt the existence of larger unmapped subconsciousness clearly open up possibility of larger secret hyper consciousness as a modus of all existence?

 

[Borachio]

What other parts do you consider essential for consciousness?

Surely, the parts that connect the brain to the outside world, I'm guessing.

(Though I do know the question wasn't directed at me. Pardon my impoliteness, and all that.)

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I've been having conversations on and off over the years with someone about the importance of the human body; whether or not it's important to be attractive, important to be able-bodied, and important to care about it and how it presents itself in our world.

Clearly physical body is essential to function as a human being in this universe. All the other things are secondary.

The viewpoint's always confused me from the perspective of being disabled and not necessarily attractive with a capital A. The body has always seemed extremely important since it is not something you can replace and life has naturally determined that a body is how we're meant to experience reality.

Body and senses are just the basic means for experiencing reality. Intelect is giving us another desrciption of reality - very different one and often contrary and since its so limited chances are itsnt final version of reality either...

But at the same time, this person I've spoken to possesses a rare confidence in how they conduct themselves physically that I wonder if they have something figured out that I just haven't grasped entirely. They assert that the body is only a shell and thus it doesn't matter very much. Being attractive is pointless, being capable is nice but optional, and the whole thing is rather droll.

People are by nature quite diverse so the chances that other people have "figured out something" different is pretty high...

 

[Blue Monkey]

No matter how you wiggle it all comes back to the brain.

QFT:

It's important to avoid the mistake of confusing this true statement with an assumption that the brain is the sole source of perceived reality.

The problem with your position, Narz, is it's exclusivity. Simply asserting it repeatedly doesn't strengthen the argument. If you disagree, point out where and how you disagree. Most of us are open-minded (pun intended). Go into more detail ,and you might get more agreement.

As Borachio, Hygro, and warpus all point out in various ways there is a lot going on beyond the medulla oblongata. Once any part of the body beyond that is allowed to be considered "brain" the definition becomes very fuzzy. If some nerves and receptor organs are allowed how do we decide which ones should not be included. If we say some nerves are "brain" (through the spinal cord) then why not all nerves, and the tissues they connect to. Then there's the question of the glands whose secretions directly affect brain activity. For example, the adrenal glands are attached to the kidneys. Yet their secretions affect both emotional states and long-term memory.

I wouldn't classify the ganglia of Aplysia or the even simpler nerve rings of nematodes as brains. Yet both species exhibit learning behaviors. There is even experimental evidence of long-term memory in Aplysia.

Before anyone says "well they're not conscious" stop and consider how we might know some entity other than our individual selves is conscious. All we've got to go by is observed behaviors - their interpretation of and response to external stimuli, and physical expression of whatever might fall within the meaning of "internal states". Responsive changes to stimuli include (but are not limited to) hormonal and cell-to-cell communication, resulting movements, body shape changes, and changes in physiological states. In a human examples of each would be the increase in adrenaline, turning and walking, smiling, and blushing in response to the proximity of an attractive person. Plants release chemicals that affect themselves, move, change shape, and so on in response to external stimuli. On what basis would we say that these same behaviors in a plant are not signs of consciousness? Animals that are physiologically simpler, plants, artificial devices capable of passing the Turing test - I'm not convinced we can summarily and categorically eliminate them from the spectrum of conscious beings. But I wouldn't be willing to say (at this point) that any of them have a physical brain in the same sense that a human being does.

 

[Lexicus]

Before anyone says "well they're not conscious" stop and consider how we might know some entity other than our individual selves is conscious?

This is exactly the problem, and why we need a definition that's actually observable and can be agreed upon before any other debate or discussion takes place.

 

[Blue Monkey]

I was proof-reading and editing my post at the same time you were quoting it.

On what basis would we say that these same behaviors in a plant are not signs of consciousness?

 

[Blue Monkey]

I agree that a mutually acceptable definition of consciousness is needed. As well as a consensus on the distinctions between brain & body. Or - better still - mind & brain. It's such a complex issue that I'm not sure we can get there. But it's worth a try. Propose something as a starting point, Lexicus.

 

[Lexicus]

Propose something as a starting point, Lexicus.

I don't believe myself worthy of that task. And I don't have any strong opinions about the nature of consciousness, or where it is, or what is conscious and what isn't - all I feel able to say is that I don't think we (as a species, not us in this thread) have an understanding of the issues involved that would justify confidence such as Narz'.

 

[warpus]

Once any part of the body beyond that is allowed to be considered "brain" the definition becomes very fuzzy.

I'm not sure if I really agree. The brain is the command centre of the brain, so it is interconnected with a lot of other parts of the body, including the central nervous system and various organs. It's a bit messy, yeah, but I don't see that getting in the way of the assertion that the human mind originates in the human brain.

 

[bernie14]

somehow, I think we have deviated significantly from @Vincour 's initial query, but in any case first question.... is an organism's ability to respond to a stimulus the same as awareness? I would say it is not....for example, a reflex is a response to a stimulus that actually precedes awareness... another question would be does consciousness require voluntary control?

 

[Blue Monkey]

I'm not sure if I really agree. The brain is the command centre of the brain, so it is interconnected with a lot of other parts of the body, including the central nervous system and various organs. It's a bit messy, yeah, but I don't see that getting in the way of the assertion that the human mind originates in the human brain.

Slight misunderstanding there. I was just trying to say that once the definition of "brain" is expanded beyond a certain point it becomes meaningless to make a distinction between it and the larger context. What does it mean to say consciousness is centered in the brain if everything that exists is part of the brain?

... all I feel able to say is that I don't think we (as a species, not us in this thread) have an understanding of the issues involved that would justify confidence ...

and this I agree with completely.

somehow, I think we have deviated significantly from @Vincour 's initial query, but in any case first question....

As you yourself point out all these other issues come tumbling out of the original question. Discussing the mind/body problem is like herding cats into a bag.

 

[warpus]

Slight misunderstanding there. I was just trying to say that once the definition of "brain" is expanded beyond a certain point it becomes meaningless to make a distinction between it and the larger context. What does it mean to say consciousness is centered in the brain if everything that exists is part of the brain?

Ah okay, that puts your earlier comment into a clearer context for me. Makes sense, yep.

is an organism's ability to respond to a stimulus the same as awareness?

Do you mean consciousness and not awareness?

If so, I agree with your assertion that it is not. Consciousness implies the awareness of the brain of itself and of the universe (in some capacity). So a worm will respond predictably to stimuli as you imply and can't really be said to be aware of itself or much of anything. It is just going through biologically induced programming. IMO its brain (and/or nervous system) is too simple to house that sort of complexity required for a being to be able to ask those sort of questions. And in fact to be able to ask any questions at all, really. It can't ask "to be or not to be" so it lacks consciousness.

That's not to say that you need complexity alone, for consciousness. IMO there is probably more to it than just that.

another question would be does consciousness require voluntary control?

I think first we would have to define the meaning of the word "voluntary"

I personally believe that we have some voluntary power to override our biological programming, but that most decisions are made up for us in our subconscious. IMO your brain is basically making a crazy amount of decisions every second and it's way too much for the conscious part of the brain to pay attention to. IMO the conscious is removed from most decisions made because otherwise it would go crazy.. plus most decisions made are low-level operating system type operations anyway. IMO we only get a tiny glimpse of what our brain is doing, and we have the power to override some of the higher-level decisions, such as whether to turn left or right or buy the sofa or the loveseat, and to us it might seem like we are making decisions, but in reality the decision to walk to the bathroom was already made by your subconscious a couple milliseconds ago by an incredibly complicated algorithm and set of decisions you had no idea about. IMO that's where "gut feeling" comes from

 

[Lexicus]

https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun

Pretty kewl essay on consciousness for any interested

 

[soundjata]

Discussion in page 5 is fascinating.

"it's an emergent property of a brain which is connected to the surrounding world." Thanks Borachio for the brilliant definition

"The term is impossible to define except in terms that are unintelligible without a grasp of what consciousness means." -> Wiki says we have a concept and it looks absurd.

"Im not sure that consciousness actually exist, it could just be an illusion". Denkt.
I would agree consciousness is an illusion, when disguised as an absolute or a division between the conscious and the not conscious.
Because in reality consciousness can only be appreciated as a relative quality : I am more conscious while awake than asleep; the cat is more conscious than the worm; the worm's consciousness has qualities the algae's does not... And so on.

Hence, consciousness should not be appreciated as an absolute concept.

We can improve Borachio's definition then : consciousness is what connects an entity to the surrounding world.

"But it seems fairly arbitrary to draw the line at the base of the skull, to me." Borachio.
Indeed! Which entity are we speaking about? A brain cell? A brain? A brain with a pair of eyes? Or a fully grown human specimen?

Consciousness can be related to many levels of aggregation among organisms or "non living" entities.

Mother earth is conscious according to our definition.
Humanity is conscious
A worm is conscious, although it doesn't possesses the super consciousness enhancer aka the brain
A diamond crystal is conscious (This feeling... Gravity always... And still impervious to electricity )

Coming back to the question : yes your body is only a shell, a conscious shell.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I would agree consciousness is an illusion, when disguised as an absolute or a division between the conscious and the not conscious.
Because in reality consciousness can only be appreciated as a relative quality : I am more conscious while awake than asleep; the cat is more conscious than the worm; the worm's consciousness has qualities the algae's does not... And so on.

Hence, consciousness should not be appreciated as an absolute concept.

We are not creators of our consciousnes or only to a limited degree and certainly we are not its complete masters. Its seems to me we are being used by consciousness much more then we are using it.
I agree that the division between the conscious and the nonconscious is likely an illusion but I cant share your sentiment about form of consciousness beyond our present usual capacity e.g. some of its absolute form. Maybe you find that from practical pov in your conscious mind you cant appreciate the concept of an absolute consciousness while many philosophers would disagree but that doesnt say about the matter anything more then say the fact that a dog cant appreciate the concept of higher mathematics: its simply beyond its capacity of judgement...

 

[Hrothbern]

Perhaps there are stages of consciousness
and the moment we, as hominins, learned talking, we made the first little step
once you can use a word for tree and you make later the leap to use treetree for a bunch of trees... more abstract.
you have something... that word.... that you can speak out to someone else, or yourself (!) without that tree being there at all at that moment.
You can bring an object alive.
And that's only a small step to give/have a name for yourself...
AND... use that word for yourself

I think something of that original amazing moment is still preserved
In classic magic it turns all around one thing: "if you know the right word of something, you have gained the power on that something"
Those first words where I think eyeopeners on their own and a magic moment in our developing consciousness.

More speculative
I think that the step by step higher consciousness was boosted by the invention of writing. (Sumer 2,500 BC)
Your abstract word now became more abstract and at the same time tangible
powerfull magic
And many old magical rituals are intertwined with that.

Perhaps the next step can be seen from old stories of gods taking possession of your mind, the visions, the prophesies, the oracles.
Ofc again speculative
But let's assume that a lower level of consciousness is related to a lower level of control over your subconsciousness.
Then at the lower level, your subconsciousness tell you directly something in a vision,
Your subconsciousness takes over control <=> your gods speak in a vision.

If you take for example the bible, you can notice that direct contact with god and later visions decrease over time, end up at the special people still able to get visions (prophets) and then disappear.
The oracle of delphi needed (probably) the help of hallucinating fumes.
In still later times the last remnants of subconsciousness taking control are visible in demon expelling, but also that is decreasing.
You could also intepretate the strong focus of the Greek on logic was a way to free herselves of the old gods and gain self control with our consciousness.
The classic Heracles/Perseus stories have the same main theme: although demi-gods, they fight the freedom fight of the humans against the old gods, the old unconsciousness remains.

So all in all I see that consciousness seems to have stages and has increased over or history.
talking, name giving, writing, logic

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

I thought it was established that words were originaly root sounds for an emotions while later words came to represent ideas. You can see the movement of centre consciousness there...

The "gods" are in instincts as well as in intuitions...

 

[Blue Monkey]

Consciousness implies the awareness of the brain of itself and of the universe (in some capacity). So a worm will respond predictably to stimuli as you imply and can't really be said to be aware of itself or much of anything. It is just going through biologically induced programming. IMO its brain (and/or nervous system) is too simple to house that sort of complexity required for a being to be able to ask those sort of questions. And in fact to be able to ask any questions at all, really. It can't ask "to be or not to be" so it lacks consciousness.

Not saying necessarily that I disagree with you but ...

Deciding arbitrarily that some other being is not self-aware is very dangerous conceptual territory.

Perhaps there are stages of consciousness
and the moment we, as hominins, learned talking, we made the first little step

This reminded me of something from an introductory linguistic anthropology class. Vervets have various calls. One is basically "good food over here!". The rest of the group come join the discoverer. "there's an eagle up in the sky!" - no one wants to get eaten so they all get out of the trees onto the ground. "Watch out for the leopard!" and the rest of the group gets up into the trees asap. Now the interesting part is that sometimes a vervet finds something really tasty that it doesn't want to share. If it's up high in a tree is will holler "eagle!" so everyone else jumps down and doesn't see it munching away up high. If the tasty bits are on the ground the greedy vervet will holler "leopard!" so everyone moves away up high. I think the ability to choose self over social group, and to lie about it, are symptoms of self-awareness/consciousness.

 

[Hrothbern]

I thought it was established that words were originaly root sounds for an emotions while later words came to represent ideas. You can see the movement of centre consciousness there...

The "gods" are in instincts as well as in intuitions...

Well,
my post was shooting from the hip on the subject
without any specific knowledge except my general interest in everything. Processes and evolution in particular.

But on topic of the part consciousnes/brain
What I tried to describe that much of the increase of consciousness seemed to have happened during recent history.
With words developed for objects as first little step game changer (a long time ago).
Is a cultural feature.
And this has, if it is correct, quite some impact on what consciousness is for us now, because it will probably differ widely between living humans. Differ in kind, in depth and scope.
Depending on what they experienced during their early years, how much talking with them happened, how much playing in a wide choice of possibilities, how much socialising, and later in life depending on how experienced in logical (academic) discussions, how experienced in perceiving/handling non-rational signals/body language, how well trained in automating learning and info storage processes, etc.

And with the consciousnes as the big chairman of your brain, we will all have another kind of relation, cooperation/control over our brain and awareness of all signals from your brain and from all over your body.

So digging in I looked at internet for feral children (children raised in the jungle by for example wolves)
They have the same brain, but no consciousness in our meaning of the word.
And learning them words ? They will learn some, but not many. It is too late, the small time window our developing brain has, to adapt optimal to the situation at hand, is already closed.