Thread: What is the substance of Consciousness?

My first thought was that consxiousness might be related to "free will". But we can't even confirm that we have a free will. Since Psychology can often describe a persons actions/descissions before the person himself knows them.

Getting sidetracked....

Anyway the best definition I can think must simply be that consciousness is "a observer". It really isn't a good description....

I think the reason this question is so difficult is because the word consiousness really describes two or maybe three separate things.

The first being the behavioral state of being able to respond to external stimuli. If someone is sleeping they are said to be unconscious even though they might be experiencing dreams, hypnogogic imagery, or other things.

The other phenomena is the subjective state of being aware of something whether it be sensory input, one's thoughts, or anything. If we apply this definition to consciousness then we are probably conscious 24 hours a day(with the possible exception of slow-wave sleep).

Yet another definition of consciousness, related to the second, but perhaps more relevant, is the ability to form memories of what one is experiencing at a given point in time. Although by this definition certain amnesiacs who most people would consider conscious(certainly by the first definition, and ,assuming they aren't philosophical zombies, by the second) wouldn't be conscious because they can't form memories.

If we're talking about consciousness as a spiritual or religious phenomenon we can really only be referring to the subjective view of consciousness, that is, what we ourselves experience. Although the materialist view that the subjective consciousness arises out of the material world is certainly plausible, there really is no way of testing it empirically. So the door is always open for a spiritual interpretation of consciousness.

Peanutbutter

Originally Posted by Mark75

Peanutbutter

Jelly!

Oh wow how did I miss this thread...

The question of this thread can be interpreted in two ways: 'what is the substance that enables consciousness (that it is made of),' or 'what is consciousness?'

The answer to the first question is easy, if one is a materialist (not a dualist). The substance that enables consciousness is your brain, or neurons.

This may sound like an overly simple answer, but it stems from the second question, which is 'what is consciousness.' This question is very complex because of the issues involved, firstly the ambiguity surrounding the definition of 'consciousness.' As an example, David Chalmers in Facing up to the Problems of Consciousness outlines the various definitions of the word 'consciousness':

The ability to discriminate, categorise and react to environmental stimuli;
The intergration of information by a cognitive system;
The reportability of mental states;
The ability of a system to access its own internal states;
The focus of attention;
The deliberate control of behaviour;
The difference between wakefulness and sleep.

With such a range of operations that come under the label 'consciousness' it's pretty easy to see why consciousness is a puzzling issue. Generally, I guess 'consciousness' can be taken to mean the function or process which enables all the above list to happen.

Consciousness is a process or a combination of processes. The most obvious analogy here is to think of consciousness as an operating system - Windows XP or Apple OS X - that allows a computer to run, although this can be misleading.

One of the most convincing recent theories of consciousness is Baars' Global Workspace theory of consciousness. I wrote a paper on the Global Workspace theory, and the basics of the theory is that consciousness is like a theatre stage. The audience in the theatre is the rest of the brain, and behind the scenes there are 'editors' and 'directors' who ensure that the show runs smoothly, and provide input - things like perception etc. The stage of the theatre is the 'workspace' of working memory. Working memory is basically your short term memory - it is the pieces of information you are holding in your mind at any one time. So on the stage there are various 'actors' competing for attention, and in the 'spotlight' there is one actor who is the immediate attention. The 'spotlight' is your interior monolouge, whatever thoughts and images are playing through your mind at one time.

The Global Workspace theory of consciousness is basically a materialist, reductive theory. It assumes that there is no such thing as a 'soul' and that our minds are identical to our brains. It also assumes that things such as the experience of seeing the colour red can be explained by reducing them to smaller parts. There's a few controversies surrounding this, which I'll talk about if anyone is interested.

So, the answer to the question of 'what substance is consciousness' is that consciousness is simply your brain. Neuron cells. Specialsed nerve cells. Out of their complex conncetions - more possible connections than there are stars in the universe - a sort of program emerges, and through its various devices we can be aware of ourselves, we can speak, we can eat, we can fall in love.

And in answer to someone's question about animals and mirrors - chimps can recognise themselves in the mirror. One chimp spent hours in front of a mirror examining his mouth in fascination (he'd never seen inside his own mouth before.) Being able to recognise oneself in the mirror is a sign of how advanced consciousness is (how much an organism is able to distinguis itself from the world.

A good book about this topic is "Consciousness Explained". I must admit I haven't read it yet, but I'm planning to.

A good analogy to go with explaining consciousness is, I think, the magic trick. You can explain a magic trick, show it slowly or with different items so as to show the mechanics by which it works. But you can't show the magic trick and at the same time make it obvious how it works while it's happening. You can either have the magic trick - that which you are experiencing now - or have it explained, but not both at the same time. You have to decompose the different aspects of it to understand it but once you decompose it, it's no longer the magic trick.

So, in a way, you can explain some things about consciousness, but you can't actually "explain" the philosophical and phenomenological side of it. You can't make yourself leave your consciousness and look at it from the outside... or something. You can only form a model as approximation.

Thats the problem that I have with all of the definitions I've seen, especially those offered by Roller. Many of the normal definitions of consciousness allude to the ability to examine oneself from the outside ("ability of a system to access its own internal states") and yet everyone tries to explain it by using human creations as analogies, with the assumption that they are right and that is how it actually works. There is no evidence that our consciousness is actually anything like an operating system for a computer, a stage, or a magic trick, and yet these all sound semi-plausible. Is it that we are creating things in the image of our own conscious self, or are we really not capable of accessing our own internal states and must relate what we think is going on in ourselves to things we can see externally?

A good book about this topic is "Consciousness Explained". I must admit I haven't read it yet, but I'm planning to.

Yeah, Dennett is quite a good philosopher. I'd say it would be a good read.

Many of the normal definitions of consciousness allude to the ability to examine oneself from the outside ("ability of a system to access its own internal states") and yet everyone tries to explain it by using human creations as analogies, with the assumption that they are right and that is how it actually works.

The ability of a system to access it's own internal state means that we are able to be aware of things within our own consciousnes. An example of accessing an internal state would be thinking back to a memory - the memory is a 'state' and we can access it.

I agree that the use of metaphors can be misleading. In the case of the global workspace theory, Baars is careful to explain that the analogy of a 'working theatre' should only be used to illustrate the problem. If anything the use of metaphors says something about the way in which humans learn and process information - we understand things by comparing them to other, similar things.

There is no evidence that our consciousness is actually anything like an operating system for a computer, a stage, or a magic trick, and yet these all sound semi-plausible.

Well, again, the 'theatre' metaphor for global workspace theory is only a method of explanation. There is, however, much scientific evidence supporting the global workspace theory:

1. Research using methods such as blindsight and subliminal perception indicate that cognitive processing is possible without consciousness. Shevrin and Dickman state, “The initial cognitive stage for all stimuli occurs outside of consciousness. The initial cognitive stage outside of consciousness is psychological in nature, is active in its effect on consciousness, and can be different from consciousness in its principles of operation” (The Psychological Unconsciousness, 552).

2. Attention is a prerequisite of consciousness. Dehaene and Naccache state, "Experiments with masked primes indicate taht some minimal duration and clarity of stimulus presentation are necessary for it to become conscious..." and, "conscious perception seems to result from an interaction of these stimulus factors with the attentional state of the observer" (Towards a Cognitive Neuroscience of Consciousnes: Basic Evidence and a Workspace Framework, 7).


3. Mental operations such as durable information maintenance, novel combinations or operations, and intentional behaviour all require consciousness.

4. Working memory is relatively limited. It was thought that working memory can only hold a maximum of seven items, although this number has been revised downwards to about four.

5. Consciousness is limited to one stream of input. We can only hold one flow of thought in our attention.

6. Unconscious processes are vast and varied compared with conscious processes.

7. Consciousness can access unconscious information or the results of unconscious processes (this is the ‘ability to access own internal states of a system.’)

In addition to the above experimental evidence (these things have been found through various cognitive experiments,) the global workspace theory rests on a groundwork of accepted theoretical postulates, including Fodor’s Modularity of Mind (complex processes such as face recognition can take place unconsciously), the non-modularity of attentional consciousness, and attentional amplification and dynamic mobilisation.

A theory is a way of explaining how a system works. The above evidence and theoretical frameworks are general consensus in the cognitive science community at the moment, and the combination of all this evidence is global workspace theory. The metaphor of the ‘working stage’ is only for illustrative purposes, and I think that the theory, while perhaps not the final answer on consciousness, is at least an important step in the right direction.

So, in a way, you can explain some things about consciousness, but you can't actually "explain" the philosophical and phenomenological side of it.

Phenomenological concerns about consciousness do present problems. Perhaps the most famous article about this is Thomas Nagel’s What is it Like to be a Bat? Nagel argues that we can explain everything about a bat’s physical make-up such as a bat’s body, it’s sense of taste, smell and the use of sonar, but in doing so we can never know or experience the intrinsic phenomenological ‘qualia’ of what it is like to be a bat. This, according to Nagel, means that we have not adequately explained consciousness until we have a means of doing so. Another variation, which is what I think Korritke and Xaqaria are talking about, is that we can never obtain an ‘external’ view of our own consciousness. I think that’s true, but this is the reason most cognitive research uses careful and methodical psychological experiments.

As for phenomenology, I think Nagel is forever chasing the ‘ghost in the machine.’ To know the objective experience of what it is like to be a bat, you have to be a bat. That doesn’t mean that there’s something unexplained about a bat’s consciousness.

Sorry about the lengthy post.

Gnome, I understand. Thanks, but now for a new direction here.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Peanutbutter

Hey, welcome back to the forum.



I think that the reason why we are getting no solid answers here is because we a thinking that any answer has to be derived from the physical world as we know. Perhaps this is the question which brings about a new world - one which is the gateway to understanding all philosophical problems and ideas: The spiritual. Although many may argue that spiritual concepts can not be scientifically proven well, I'd suggest that they be followed as a good explanation and one which satisfies many people from many cultures and religions.

How about you guys read some of this:

http://www.ahalmaas.com/glossary/c/consciousness.htm
http://www.presencethebook.com/article16.htm

I believe that our notions of mass/energy or particle/wave are just concepts, which happen to be capable of describing the universe we live in. Whether these concepts have any deeper, more fundamental connection with nature, I do not know, but my opinion is that they do not. It appears to me as a human attempt to describe something which is above language, as language depends on our experience. The outside world is impossible to experience directly, hence we cannot have words nor concepts for it.

When I think about how the world would look like experienced directly, I like to picture it as made out of transparent liquid-like energy - not solid objects - with vivid colours, which are constantly changing, and only taking form when I "look" at them, otherwise existing as an ocean of possibility. In my opinion, consciousness can exist separate from the brain, but this is just a belief for which, at least at the moment I am unable to provide proof for ). But this is how I would imagine a bodiless conscious experience. This "ocean" would be naked energy/matter/field, the fabric of the universe.

We experience the world through our senses, which gather information by physical and chemical processes. These processes are the same inside our sense organs as it is when two inanimate objects interact. So in this view, I disregard the human observation point as special. The entire universe for me is alive, conscious, and by alive I mean interactivity, change, motion, not biological processes. Consciousness would not be confined inside our body. Consciousness is not the decision-making capacity of the human mind, nor is it the faculty which judges. It is simply experience, with nothing attached. This does not have to singularily be a human attribute.
(another way to put it - consciousness seems to arise, or be affected by, purely physical and chemical interactions taking place in our nerves. In the eyes of physics and chemistry, our nerves are simply extraordinary complex structures, but which, nevertheless follow the same basic principles as any other matter. So why would our nerves (body) be special, as to containing consciousness?)

Another property of consciousness, I believe, is that it creates the idea of time. Arising from general relativity is the idea, that time is not flowing (I'll elaborate briefly below). It can be thought of as a fourth spacial dimension, and when something is motionless in the three spacial dimensions, all its movement is in the "time" dimension, and vice versa. Also, all of time exists simultaneously. Here, consciousness could provide the sense that time is flowing, by acting as a "flashlight", allowing to experience only certain locations on the "time dimension" at any one time, flowing to the next.

Ideas like dimensions and time seem to me also as human concepts, which might not have much to do with reality.

I'll try to be more specific:

1) consciousness is naked experience, which cannot be subjective. (here I mean the very act of experience, not the content)
2) consciousness cannot exist by itself, but has to arise from contact. (Have you ever been conscious of not being conscious?)
3) the human body is not a special container for consciousness, as any other contact between objects is equivalent on physical terms.
3*) taking into account spiritual ideas, it is the higher energy bodies, which make humans special compared to the rest. although, these ideas are vague to me.
4) consciousness creates the subjective ideas of space, time and ego.

by point nr. 4, in respect to the ego, I mean that somehow consciousness seems to limit itself to only our personal being. Many spiritual traditions talk of this as a barrier to be overcome, however. I am not sure how I feel about the whole ego business. I believe that consciousness can be universal. But why can't we experience being a bat, for example, then? I have read accounts of meditators describing becoming "one with the universe". Hence, maybe this, again, is an obstacle which can be overcome.


Cannot squeeze my brain further for any ideas. It is too late in the evening. Those ideas are all a messy self-contradictory lot anyway. Maybe there's some truth in there, I'll let you decide.

I would like to summarize by referring to Sokrates, by saying that all I know, is that I know nothing.

*About time not flowing business: Imagine yourself sitting where you are, and me, sitting behind my computer in another galaxy, many millions of light years away. Ignore the movement of the galaxies and planets, and imagine that we are not in relativistic motion - that we are stationary in respect to each other. In this situation, when I could instantly communicate with you, I would find, that you are as you are. But, if i was to get up from my chair and start walking toward you (on my little planet in galaxy X), so we are in relativistic motion. Here things get exciting. We would start to experience time differently, due to relativity. Now, if i instantly communicated with you, I would find that you are already dead, and it is your child who is answering me behind your computer. Then, was I to stop again, I should be able to communicate with you again (ignoring light speed limitations). Was I to walk in the opposite direction, I would find that you are not yet born. Relativity forbids faster than light speed communication, but this point holds nevertheless. If the light signal from you would reach me in those few million years, it would be possible to calculate how long it took to get to me. The signal would carry information about what you were doing, and I could calculate what time you were doing it, and compare it with what I was doing. In this way it would be possible to confirm the time-weirdness. What I am getting at, is that there are countless objects moving at various speeds in various locations of the universe. So there are objects which exist on different time scales than us. Our planet earth seems very different depending on the velocity and position of the observer. In our time there can be objects (far away from us) for whom we exist in our future of past. So the concept of time is quite meaningless.

I believe that substance actually and only comes from the universal consciousness.

Would this 'universal consciousness' exist without individual consciousness?

Universal consciousness has always seemed a rather ambiguous concept to me.

First of all, what is it? Is it something akin to a 'god' - is it, say, a 'mind' of the universe?

Is it the sum of all consciousness 'produced' by sentient beings in the universe?

Is it perhaps some trandescental 'substance' that allows beings to become conscious by 'tapping into it?'

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Would this 'universal consciousness' exist without individual consciousness?

Relatively, they are one. The Universal can bring about Individual Consciousness through life. I think it still would.

Re-incarnation should be kept to another topic.

Originally Posted by Roller

Universal consciousness has always seemed a rather ambiguous concept to me.

I'm glad you will soon understand then.

Originally Posted by Roller

First of all, what is it? Is it something akin to a 'god' - is it, say, a 'mind' of the universe?

It is Spirit. Yes, they are all the same thing, whatever you call it. The problem may be for the uneducated is, that these names are different and therefore so must be their meaning. This is not true in this concept. "God", "Mind Of God", "Universal Mind", "Universal Consciousness", "The Aether" and "The Matrix" are all the same.

Originally Posted by Roller

Is it the sum of all consciousness 'produced' by sentient beings in the universe?

Yes, the Universal is all Consciousness. Individuals come from the total Mind.

Originally Posted by Roller

Is it perhaps some trandescental 'substance' that allows beings to become conscious by 'tapping into it?'

We are always conscious until death, but many need to become more aware of how a recognition of this can benefit them. "Tapping into it" is simply an experience whereby we trust it, that we shall have all we desire. This should go into "The Law Of Attraction", though.

Many physicists assert that not only matter, but also "empty" space, is composed of vibrating non-things, strings, variant vibrations with no substance that nonetheless give rise to substance. In other words, everything we think of as existing and much that we don't is made of the same stuff, acting differently. Obviously, a billion-odd humans throughout history haven't reached the conclusion that All is One via physical science, but physics corroborates.

Regarding the consciousness debate, it's the nature of the "stuff" of our universe not only to be in motion, but to vary and organize that motion into the semblance of ever more complex structures, from variant strings into variant quarks into variant atoms into variant molecules, and I would carry the trend from molecules into proteins, into viral particles, into cells, into organisms, into ecosystems, into expanding universal consciousnesses continuous with the base unity.

That's what I mean when I say human consciousness is not the exception, but an expression of the norm. Taking form, asserting any separateness from the whole, whether as a rock or a mathematician, is an expression of consciousness; the difference is one of degrees.

The interesting thing about string theory is that strings (if they exist) are not only insubstantial, but are actually holes in the fabric of reality. The theorized string is actually a looped wormhole. This means that what is commonly believed as empty space is actually the only real 'substance' of reality and everything we see as substantial is actually composed of a series of patterns of gaps in space time.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The interesting thing about string theory is that strings (if they exist) are not only insubstantial, but are actually holes in the fabric of reality. The theorized string is actually a looped wormhole. This means that what is commonly believed as empty space is actually the only real 'substance' of reality and everything we see as substantial is actually composed of a series of patterns of gaps in space time.

Damn it's even more scary when you summarize it like that. I'm not qualified to understand yet.

I would really, really love to join in on this discussion seeing as I am currently taking a "philosophy of mind" class at my university, but it would be horribly tedious for me to try to regurgitate everything I have been reading and discussing in class on the subject...all of which is deliciously relevent to this particular discussion. Instead (and keep in mind this only aimed at those who truly wish to know more about the subject...since it will involve an active role in self-education as opposed to a passive role), I will refer the book I am currently reading.

Its called "Consciousness: An Introduction" by Susan Blackmore

Its one of the most balanced books I have read on the subject (in terms of the author minimizing her personal opinions on the subject). Plus its set up like a text book, so it very comprehensive.

The reading suggestion is helpful. What are your personal opinions on the matter?

Less and less sure the more I learn about it. I used to be a dualist, as in i believed that the mind and brain were to different things...but now i'm not so sure. That book makes a lot of good points that would suggest that our consciousness is physical in nature.

Here's something I read in the book that i found interesting (not verbatim).

"Bob meets up with John, a student at Yale University, and asks John to bring him to the university because he has never seen it before. John shows Bob the Library, the bookstore, the science department, and all of the buildings at Yale...to which Bob replies "yeah, but where is Yale?"

The point of this example is that, perhaps consciousness is like this example in the sense that consciousness may not really be a separate entity in of itself, but rather the totality of components that, themselves cannot be called "Yale". The author used this example to try to explain a different position on the subject (amongst several others).

They also talk about the "Cartesian Theatre" which is the notion that there is some part of us that "watches" what the brain is perceiving like a movie...which is a very intuitive position to hold from a first person point of view. However, there are several compelling arguments that suggest that there isn't anything watching the brain, but rather the act of the brain perceiving and processing stimuli is what results in that feeling of "watching"...and that consciousness is not something separate from the brain activity that supposedly "projects" the movie.

There are also argument that even challenge the notion that there is a set "moment" in time in which things become conscious...but that is rather complicated to explain. If you are interested look up Dennet's theory of "multiple drafts".

I could keep talking, but I still need to learn more before i really get a grasp on some of these concepts.

I don't mean this to be insulting, and I won't mention any posts specifically, but I'm getting an unpleasant vibe from a large portion of this conversation.

It's almost as if someone invented a new word - "Shnaggly", and started saying "I think shnaggly is a good description of Zogglues". Then the next person comes along and asks "Do you mean Zogglues in reference to Hoilps, or as a continuation of Shnagglyism?"... etc.

Basically, you're trying to have a discussion using key concepts which no one really understands in the first place, and all that results is hot air. Many of you are using the words "consciousness", "mind", "universal consciousness", etc., as if they are common notions. These are actually still some of the greatest mysteries of science - no one knows what consciousness is.

Let me repeat that - NO ONE KNOWS WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS. When you take something which we already don't know shit about (if you'll excuse my french) and attempt to philosophize about the nature of even more complex, hypothetical systems which involve it, you will not go anywhere fast.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like we should avoid such discussions in philosophy - it's the sort of stuff that gives it a bad name in science. Philosophy, to me, should be a sort of extended hypothesizing period. It should always have a strong basis in real life, providing possible (and plausible) explanations to phenomena which are observable. Perhaps we should instead try to discuss exactly what we think the definition of consciousness should be? It's still a very tough task, but at least it would be a little more realistic.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like we should avoid such discussions in philosophy - it's the sort of stuff that gives it a bad name in science. Philosophy, to me, should be a sort of extended hypothesizing period. It should always have a strong basis in real life, providing possible (and plausible) explanations to phenomena which are observable. Perhaps we should instead try to discuss exactly what we think the definition of consciousness should be? It's still a very tough task, but at least it would be a little more realistic.

I notice you never did respond directly to my comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegnome54
I think that's really all energy is. We don't know anything about it other than what we can detect, and we've simply noticed that these phenomena seem to be caused by something, and named this something 'energy'.

It seems like kind of a filler to me - it helps us make models and use conservation of energy, but we really don't know what it is, or if it really exists as we think it does. Quote:
Originally Posted by NonDualistic
Exactly. Isnt it the same sort of thing with what we call consciousness in my view of it which is reversed from your view of it?

You said earlier in you way of looking at consciousness:


Quote by Gnome:
Well, I believe that everything which makes up who we are - our emotions, thought patterns, memories, skills, etc. - are all emergent properties of our bodies and the matter within them. As consciousness clearly seems to fall into this group, I consider it to be an emergent property as well.

The way I see it, all of these are emergent properties of consciousness, showing up as physical manifestations which are "visible' to us as our bodies and all related to those bodies.


In this model what you just said of energy can easily be said of consciousness -

"We don't know anything about it other than what we can detect, and we've simply noticed that these phenomena seem to be caused by something, and named this something 'consciousness'."

Such could be ventured that this "energy" is the same as this "consciousness" that we loosely define at the moment.

At least this seems to be where my view is headed anyhow.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

I don't mean this to be insulting, and I won't mention any posts specifically, but I'm getting an unpleasant vibe from a large portion of this conversation.

It's almost as if someone invented a new word - "Shnaggly", and started saying "I think shnaggly is a good description of Zogglues". Then the next person comes along and asks "Do you mean Zogglues in reference to Hoilps, or as a continuation of Shnagglyism?"... etc.

Basically, you're trying to have a discussion using key concepts which no one really understands in the first place, and all that results is hot air. Many of you are using the words "consciousness", "mind", "universal consciousness", etc., as if they are common notions. These are actually still some of the greatest mysteries of science - no one knows what consciousness is.

Let me repeat that - NO ONE KNOWS WHAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS. When you take something which we already don't know shit about (if you'll excuse my french) and attempt to philosophize about the nature of even more complex, hypothetical systems which involve it, you will not go anywhere fast.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like we should avoid such discussions in philosophy - it's the sort of stuff that gives it a bad name in science. Philosophy, to me, should be a sort of extended hypothesizing period. It should always have a strong basis in real life, providing possible (and plausible) explanations to phenomena which are observable. Perhaps we should instead try to discuss exactly what we think the definition of consciousness should be? It's still a very tough task, but at least it would be a little more realistic.

Perhaps, just you should avoid conversations in philosophy. Personally, I believe the only way science can progress is if one explorers every crazy and seemingly absurd possibility in the mind and then, as almost the final step, picks out those that make the most sense and applies scientific rigor. It seems like you are only comfortable dealing with existing scientific concepts, and if this is the case, I feel sorry for you because you will never progress in the field of science and the only hope you have is becoming a teacher of it.

You are right, no one knows what consciousness is, but as you can see from posts such as roller's, some people have very good ideas what it is like based on empirical data. The next step is to formulate ideas and then construct new hypotheses. Since no one here will be getting a research grant any time soon, and none of us have access to extensive labs, all we can do at this point is discuss the possibilities; something I've noticed you are not very good at. You are amazingly good at talking about what is, but your ability falls off drastically when talking about what could be.

Originally Posted by ethen

Less and less sure the more I learn about it. I used to be a dualist, as in i believed that the mind and brain were to different things...but now i'm not so sure. That book makes a lot of good points that would suggest that our consciousness is physical in nature.

Here's something I read in the book that i found interesting (not verbatim).

"Bob meets up with John, a student at Yale University, and asks John to bring him to the university because he has never seen it before. John shows Bob the Library, the bookstore, the science department, and all of the buildings at Yale...to which Bob replies "yeah, but where is Yale?"

The point of this example is that, perhaps consciousness is like this example in the sense that consciousness may not really be a separate entity in of itself, but rather the totality of components that, themselves cannot be called "Yale". The author used this example to try to explain a different position on the subject (amongst several others).

They also talk about the "Cartesian Theatre" which is the notion that there is some part of us that "watches" what the brain is perceiving like a movie...which is a very intuitive position to hold from a first person point of view. However, there are several compelling arguments that suggest that there isn't anything watching the brain, but rather the act of the brain perceiving and processing stimuli is what results in that feeling of "watching"...and that consciousness is not something separate from the brain activity that supposedly "projects" the movie.

There are also argument that even challenge the notion that there is a set "moment" in time in which things become conscious...but that is rather complicated to explain. If you are interested look up Dennet's theory of "multiple drafts".

I could keep talking, but I still need to learn more before i really get a grasp on some of these concepts.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but in the case that this is true, the question becomes, what are the components that create consciousness, or even the illusion of consciousness? Obviously the presence of a brain is not enough; as even wasps have a rudimentary brain(actually three) but I would definitely argue are not conscious; at least not as individuals. There are parts of the brain that can be completely removed leaving a person's sense of consciousness intact, and there are people who appear to have about the same brain functions as the rest of us but do not appear to be conscious (although I will point out that often appearances can be deceiving). Are brain functions similar to software as Gnome has suggested, so as long as some physical brain exists, the components can exist in any part of the "hardware"?

I had a thought about this subject the other day, but I didn't post it because I assumed the conversation had died. I'll present it briefly now. In order to be conscious, one must have a clear concept of self. One's 'level' of conscious, I would argue, stems from the level of understanding one has of what they truly are and what the implications of their existence are. A lot of the ability to understand one's self stems from our ability to recognize beings whom we can relate to, and communicate with them in order to realize the full extent of our similarities. I see myself as a conscious human being, for the most part, because I am more like the conscious human beings I see around me than anything else. I would argue then that consciousness stems from the level of ability to communicate with the outside world. This is in part due to our complex sense organs, and also the speech centers of our brain as well as our tongue. Early man becoming upright was probably the single most beneficial stage in the history of evolution of this planet, simply because it allowed the tongue to develop as a tool of speech instead of just for manipulating food.