Thread: What is the substance of Consciousness?

I was listening to the radio yesterday, and they were talking about the "maps" in the brain--maps of the body, inside and out, maps of the space immediately around you, etc. A lot of these things have been located within the brain--they know where the motor map, the sensory map, etc. are.

They also brought up an experiment that I read about first in a book called "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore. Basically, they put electrodes on somebody, then tell them to move a body part, and to hit a button when they first decide to do it. The amazing part is that the motor part of the brain "decides" when to do it, before the "conscious" part of the brain knows about it. People think they are deciding when to do it, but really they become aware of it after the fact, after their arm is already moving.

I hope I am describing that right. Anyway, the point is that consciousness may just be the "awareness" of the things that your mind and body are doing. It may not necessarily be the instigator of those things. This of course gets rid of that pesky free-will problem, which is why I like it.

You can kind of do the experiment to yourself--try not to decide what to do in some circumstance, just "observe" what you do.

They also brought up an experiment that I read about first in a book called "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore. Basically, they put electrodes on somebody, then tell them to move a body part, and to hit a button when they first decide to do it. The amazing part is that the motor part of the brain "decides" when to do it, before the "conscious" part of the brain knows about it. People think they are deciding when to do it, but really they become aware of it after the fact, after their arm is already moving.

I may be mis-interpreting this, but I'm just pretty sure this experiment doesn't prove anything. The thought of moving an arm... I can think about moving it and then move it, but most of time you are right that I do a lot of things without thinking. Like walking for example. I don't think left leg forward, or right leg forward or even "I'm walking" - I just walk.

I believe the conscious part doesn't decide this, and you are correct in that. But I'll just get to the point - I think the motor part of the brain you are referring to is the subconscious.

As far as what material the conscience is made up of, I really wish I could contribute well, but I just don't have the slightest backed idea. The best I could try to come up with is that its made up from memories. Memories aren't exactly a physical "thing", so neither is the conscience by my guess.

This question seems invalid.

What is the substance of a computer's On-ness?

Scientists can 'induce' out of body experiences where people experience consciousness without their body...sorta. I feel like consciousness is the same as awareness. Computers are not yet aware of themselves but I don't exactly know how to test this. Interesting topic nontheless.

Originally Posted by lucidbuddha

Scientists can 'induce' out of body experiences where people experience consciousness without their body...sorta.

It is possible to induce out of body experiences. They're colloquially known as 'dreams'.

It's quite unreasonable to assume that these experiences occur without need of the human body simply because they appear to have happened somewhere other than from behind your eyes.

Originally Posted by blade5x

I may be mis-interpreting this, but I'm just pretty sure this experiment doesn't prove anything. The thought of moving an arm... I can think about moving it and then move it, but most of time you are right that I do a lot of things without thinking. Like walking for example. I don't think left leg forward, or right leg forward or even "I'm walking" - I just walk.

No, it wasn't like reflexes. I'll try to find a link to it.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

This question seems invalid.

What is the substance of a computer's On-ness?

If it seems invalid, then you need not post. The substance of a computers on-ness is electrons in the processor and memory core. Do you think that every human being that is "on" is conscious? What is your take on supposed brain-dead cases?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If it seems invalid, then you need not post.

Screw that. Claiming a question is invalid is a perfectly valid answer. You'll never get anywhere if you don't welcome answers you're not looking for

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The substance of a computers on-ness is electrons in the processor and memory core.

The electrons in the computer are still there when it is off, aren't they? In fact, they're still moving around when it's off, too! There's really not much difference on that level.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Do you think that every human being that is "on" is conscious? What is your take on supposed brain-dead cases?

If by 'on', you mean 'alive', then no. Not all life is conscious, presumably - bacteria, for example, are probably not. That's not my point, though - my point is that consciousness could be a large-scale emergent property of the system, just like a computer's 'on-ness'. Such a property does not have any 'substance', really.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

What is the substance of Consciousness? Break out your textbooks, I'd like to see some informed and well thought out answers. Hopefully this will go in an interesting direction.

It depends on what consciousness your talking about.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

What is the substance of a computer's On-ness?

Metallic, with electricity, if you mean generally when a circuit is closed. But that isn't an exclusive answer.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Screw that. Claiming a question is invalid is a perfectly valid answer. You'll never get anywhere if you don't welcome answers you're not looking for

But such answers as your previous may not be so bluntly welcome in this forum.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The electrons in the computer are still there when it is off, aren't they? In fact, they're still moving around when it's off, too! There's really not much difference on that level.

Well, Xaqaria answered your question. On-ness does not have physical substance.

Are you getting confused with one-ness?

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Such a property does not have any 'substance', really.

A spiritual substance, yes.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I was listening to the radio yesterday, and they were talking about the "maps" in the brain--maps of the body, inside and out, maps of the space immediately around you, etc. A lot of these things have been located within the brain--they know where the motor map, the sensory map, etc. are.

They also brought up an experiment that I read about first in a book called "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore. Basically, they put electrodes on somebody, then tell them to move a body part, and to hit a button when they first decide to do it. The amazing part is that the motor part of the brain "decides" when to do it, before the "conscious" part of the brain knows about it. People think they are deciding when to do it, but really they become aware of it after the fact, after their arm is already moving.

I hope I am describing that right. Anyway, the point is that consciousness may just be the "awareness" of the things that your mind and body are doing. It may not necessarily be the instigator of those things. This of course gets rid of that pesky free-will problem, which is why I like it.

You can kind of do the experiment to yourself--try not to decide what to do in some circumstance, just "observe" what you do.

How will that work out? free will just means the will to do whatever we choose whenever we wanna choose to do it, if we had no free will we will not be able to do whatever we wanna do, we will be like robots, doing whatever we are programmed to do aka no free will to do our own thing. Sorry, but i just don't get how people cannot see how free will does not exist. Free will is however to respond to an answer...you can say "**** your opinion", you choose to say that, because you can, you have been givin that option and you choose it. I can say i cannot believe you don't believe free will exists, because i can, that's free will.

Free will is not a "mystical" thing, it's just the do whatever you wanna do whenever you wanna do it thing. I guess everyone has their own opinions on it and i guess that's not your definition of free will.

Originally Posted by really

But such answers as your previous may not be so bluntly welcome in this forum.

What you call 'bluntness', I call 'efficiency'. I stated my position and an example which supported it in two sentences. If people don't like it, maybe I can add some fluff or something.

Originally Posted by really

Well, Xaqaria answered your question. On-ness does not have physical substance.

Are you saying that a computer's on-ness has some non-physical substance? Or are you acknowledging that my example question is invalid?

Originally Posted by really

A spiritual substance, yes.

NO. An emergent property of a system does not have a 'spiritual' substance, damnit. My calculator has emergent properties, snowflakes do, and so do fractals. What on earth does any of that have to do with 'spiritual substance'?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

How will that work out? free will just means the will to do whatever we choose whenever we wanna choose to do it, if we had no free will we will not be able to do whatever we wanna do, we will be like robots, doing whatever we are programmed to do aka no free will to do our own thing.

There is one nuance you're missing. It is true that we all have the ability to do whatever we want to do... however, none of us have the ability to change what we want to do, or how this is decided. We are like robots, doing whatever our brains decide we want to do and nothing else.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Sorry, but i just don't get how people cannot see how free will does not exist. Free will is however to respond to an answer...you can say "**** your opinion", you choose to say that, because you can, you have been givin that option and you choose it. I can say i cannot believe you don't believe free will exists, because i can, that's free will.

Free will is not a "mystical" thing, it's just the do whatever you wanna do whenever you wanna do it thing. I guess everyone has their own opinions on it and i guess that's not your definition of free will.

The problem for me is that there is no obvious source for free will. Where does it come from? The processes in our bodies are the result of chemical reactions. Our brains are just bigger versions of every other animals. Does a monkey have free will? A dog? A mouse? An insect? Even if you throw in some random things, or some quantum things, it doesn't add anything. You see the problem?

I know it feels like we do, and we have to act as if we do--nothing else makes sense.

That experiment I was talking about is kind of used as evidence that free will is an illusion. I looked for some links, and I found several similar experiments, but nothing really good yet. I don't want to just copy it out of the book, but I guess I will if I can't find anything else. I'll keep looking, but I can't think of anywhere else to look right now.

I googled "intention move experiment" and stuff like that. There are abstracts but no real good description that I found.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I'll keep looking, but I can't think of anywhere else to look right now.

I'm usually a seagull hovering over the deep ocean of the Philosophy forum but every now and then I take a dip and I'd like to venture this:

Firstly,
Is it possible that "free will" is a phenomenon that only shows up on a more macro scale? More like an "emergent" phenomenon like stock market trends, etc?

Maybe it's something that can't be analized on a quantum level. I sometime get the feeling that science feels the answer always has to be in the very small and the smaller you go the closer you'll be to the answer, but I'm not sure that's true.

Secondly,
does anybodyreckon that, possibly, the whole "motor-aspect working before the consciousness-aspect thing" that Moonbeam described earlier is the same as the "no-mind" form of Zen-influenced martial arts developed in Japan?
The principle was that you didn't think about your moves. You trained your "body" (motor part of the brain) to do it, hence bypassing the conscious part completely.

Just a thought.

Originally Posted by Alban

Firstly, Is it possible that "free will" is a phenomenon that only shows up on a more macro scale? More like an "emergent" phenomenon like stock market trends, etc?

How would you prove that, I wonder? Would there be a lower limit of number of brain cells necessary, or something?

Originally Posted by Alban

Secondly,does anybodyreckon that, possibly, the whole "motor-aspect working before the consciousness-aspect thing" that Moonbeam described earlier is the same as the "no-mind" form of Zen-influenced martial arts developed in Japan?
The principle was that you didn't think about your moves. You trained your "body" (motor part of the brain) to do it, hence bypassing the conscious part completely.

Just a thought.

The point of the experiment is that all movement is that way, even the ones that you think you are "deciding" on. You realize after the fact that it is happening, and think that you decided to do it. Your consciousness is a story that you are telling yourself about what is happening as you go along, sort of.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Break out your textbooks, I'd like to see some informed and well thought out answers. Hopefully this will go in an interesting direction.

It's over 9000.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Screw that. Claiming a question is invalid is a perfectly valid answer. You'll never get anywhere if you don't welcome answers you're not looking for



The electrons in the computer are still there when it is off, aren't they? In fact, they're still moving around when it's off, too! There's really not much difference on that level.



If by 'on', you mean 'alive', then no. Not all life is conscious, presumably - bacteria, for example, are probably not. That's not my point, though - my point is that consciousness could be a large-scale emergent property of the system, just like a computer's 'on-ness'. Such a property does not have any 'substance', really.

The electrons are most certainly not still there when the computer is off. That is the purpose of the hard drive, and that is why you lose unsaved data if you shut off the computer.

If this thing, consciousness, is not a physical substance, is it real? Is consciousness as merely an emergent property present in systems similar to or even more complicated than the human brain?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

How would you prove that, I wonder? Would there be a lower limit of number of brain cells necessary, or something?



The point of the experiment is that all movement is that way, even the ones that you think you are "deciding" on. You realize after the fact that it is happening, and think that you decided to do it. Your consciousness is a story that you are telling yourself about what is happening as you go along, sort of.

There is a lot more to the brain than movement, however. Also, I can decide to move without actually doing it. In fact I do this often when I dream. My motor functions are essentially on stand-by but I am still fully capable of deciding to move.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

There is a lot more to the brain than movement, however. Also, I can decide to move without actually doing it. In fact I do this often when I dream. My motor functions are essentially on stand-by but I am still fully capable of deciding to move.

Don't you think part of the problem is that it is hard to seperate what you think you are controlling from the illusion? How do you know for sure which is which?

The movement thing is just an example. It is so simple, yet so profound, I think.

I found the book, now looking for the experiment...I think it was in this book.

P.S.@$^%*&! the writing in this book is so small, the index is not good, and I must have been eating something because some of the pages are stuck together....

OK, I found it:

Experiment by Benjamin Libet, neurosurgeon, 1985. (From "The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore, 1999)

"...His subjects had electrodes on their wrists to pick up the action, and electorodes on their scalps to measure brain waves, and they watched a revolving spot on a clock face. As well as sponatneously flexing their wrists they were asked to note exactly where the spot was when they decided to act. Libet was therefore timing three things: the start of the action, the moment of the decision to act, and the start of a particular brain wave pattern called a readiness potential. This pattern is seen before any complex action, and is associated with the brain planning the series of movements to be carried out. The question was, which would come first, the decision to act or the readiness potential?

..What Libet found was that the readiness potential began about 550 milliseconds before the action, and the decision to act about 200 milliseconds before the action. In other words, the decision to act was not the starting point."

Fascinating, no?

Libet also did some experiments which add something else to think about.

"Conscious sensory perception can be induced by stimulating the brain, but only when it is continuously stimulated for about a half a second. It is as though consciousness takes some time to build up... (Our consciousness lags, but we don't realize it)... experiments showed that with short stimuli (too short to induce conscious sensation) people could nevertheless guess correctly whether they were being stimulated or not. In other words they make the correct responses without awareness. Again the implication is that consciousness does not direct the action."

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The electrons are most certainly not still there when the computer is off. That is the purpose of the hard drive, and that is why you lose unsaved data if you shut off the computer.

No... you lose data from volatile memory because that memory requires power to maintain the information it contains. However, that doesn't mean that the electrons magically disappear when you turn off the power. We use AC power supplies most of the time, so really the electrons just stop moving in unison - they're still there, and they're still moving, but the emergent property of their motion (the data) is lost.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

If this thing, consciousness, is not a physical substance, is it real? Is consciousness as merely an emergent property present in systems similar to or even more complicated than the human brain?

The term 'complicated' doesn't make sense in this context - there is nothing more complex, on an atomic level, in a PC than in a rock or a piece of dirt. Consciousness as an emergent property can presumably exist in systems similar to the human brain - these systems are called 'animals'.

Originally Posted by thegnome54

No... you lose data from volatile memory because that memory requires power to maintain the information it contains. However, that doesn't mean that the electrons magically disappear when you turn off the power. We use AC power supplies most of the time, so really the electrons just stop moving in unison - they're still there, and they're still moving, but the emergent property of their motion (the data) is lost.



The term 'complicated' doesn't make sense in this context - there is nothing more complex, on an atomic level, in a PC than in a rock or a piece of dirt. Consciousness as an emergent property can presumably exist in systems similar to the human brain - these systems are called 'animals'.

Thats true, the electrons associated with the atoms are still there, although there are electrons that are introduced to the system and then vacate when the power is turned off and are not replenished. Regardless, the energy in the system is lower when the power is off. This energy is a substance of a sort.

Are animals as 'conscious' as humans are? I would say they are as aware, although perhaps not in the same ways as we are but I wouldn't say they are as conscious. An animal rarely recognizes itself in the mirror. Does this mean that the emergent property inherent in electro-chemical processors can manifest to a lesser degree depending on the system? This would mean that the physical differences in the system dictated the level of consciousness it will create. This physical difference could be construed as the substance of consciousness.

There is an extreme difference on the atomic level between dirt and a pc, and an even larger difference between a pc and the human brain. The atoms are structured in a much different way, making a myriad of different molecules. If you are claiming that because a single carbon atom in my body is the same as one found in my wood stove I think you are having trouble seeing the forest through the trees.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Thats true, the electrons associated with the atoms are still there, although there are electrons that are introduced to the system and then vacate when the power is turned off and are not replenished. Regardless, the energy in the system is lower when the power is off. This energy is a substance of a sort.

Fair enough, but then I chose a bad analogy. My point was that some systems, when ordered in a certain way, exhibit emergent properties which are not exhibited when the system (and everything in it) is rearranged. If consciousness is like this, then it has no 'substance', it is just a property.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

the emergent property inherent in electro-chemical processors can manifest to a lesser degree depending on the system? This would mean that the physical differences in the system dictated the level of consciousness it will create. This physical difference could be construed as the substance of consciousness.

Yes, that's exactly what I believe. The only problem is, if you take an entire human and put it into a blender, then although you will still have the same 'stuff', it will not be conscious. If you could somehow put the human back together, it would gain consciousness by virtue of the functioning systems in the body. This means that it takes nothing 'extra' to go from an unconscious mass of stuff to a conscious human, other than a specific arrangement of the stuff.

That's the only reason I think the question is invalid - there is really no 'substance' which makes up this consciousness.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Are animals as 'conscious' as humans are? I would they are as aware, although perhaps not in the same ways as we are but I wouldn't say they are as conscious. An animal rarely recognizes itself in the mirror.

Why is that mirror thing always given as some sort of evidence about animal awareness?

Chimps, dolphins, elephants, maybe some others see themselves in the mirror, recognize themself, and are interested in their own appearance. (They look inside their mouths, behind them, etc. places they can't usually see.)

I would say that dogs and cats recognize themselves, because if they look in the mirror and think it is another animal, they freak out; after a short while they recognize themself and they don't react. They just don't care what they look like, so they don't examine it after they know it is their own reflection. I've seen animals lots of times facing the mirror and seeing things in it--try sneaking up on a cat looking in the mirror. It know which is its own reflection and which is somebody else's.

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Don't you think part of the problem is that it is hard to seperate what you think you are controlling from the illusion? How do you know for sure which is which?

The movement thing is just an example. It is so simple, yet so profound, I think.

I found the book, now looking for the experiment...I think it was in this book.

P.S.@$^%*&! the writing in this book is so small, the index is not good, and I must have been eating something because some of the pages are stuck together....

OK, I found it:

Experiment by Benjamin Libet, neurosurgeon, 1985. (From "The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore, 1999)

"...His subjects had electrodes on their wrists to pick up the action, and electorodes on their scalps to measure brain waves, and they watched a revolving spot on a clock face. As well as sponatneously flexing their wrists they were asked to note exactly where the spot was when they decided to act. Libet was therefore timing three things: the start of the action, the moment of the decision to act, and the start of a particular brain wave pattern called a readiness potential. This pattern is seen before any complex action, and is associated with the brain planning the series of movements to be carried out. The question was, which would come first, the decision to act or the readiness potential?

..What Libet found was that the readiness potential began about 550 milliseconds before the action, and the decision to act about 200 milliseconds before the action. In other words, the decision to act was not the starting point."

Fascinating, no?

Libet also did some experiments which add something else to think about.

"Conscious sensory perception can be induced by stimulating the brain, but only when it is continuously stimulated for about a half a second. It is as though consciousness takes some time to build up... (Our consciousness lags, but we don't realize it)... experiments showed that with short stimuli (too short to induce conscious sensation) people could nevertheless guess correctly whether they were being stimulated or not. In other words they make the correct responses without awareness. Again the implication is that consciousness does not direct the action."

The reason why the mechanics behind movement doesn't necessarily apply to the mechanics behind the higher processes in the brain is because in many cases movement is relegated to lower parts of the nervous system and becomes a reaction due to direct specific stimuli. When memory has to be consulted in order to respond to something, or form an idea about it; this is when the process becomes much more complicated. Is memory capacity, or perhaps the energy involved in memory usage the substance of consciousness?

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Why is that mirror thing always given as some sort of evidence about animal awareness?

Chimps, dolphins, elephants, maybe some others see themselves in the mirror, recognize themself, and are interested in their own appearance. (They look inside their mouths, behind them, etc. places they can't usually see.)

I would say that dogs and cats recognize themselves, because if they look in the mirror and think it is another animal, they freak out; after a short while they recognize themself and they don't react. They just don't care what they look like, so they don't examine it after they know it is their own reflection. I've seen animals lots of times facing the mirror and seeing things in it--try sneaking up on a cat looking in the mirror. It know which is its own reflection and which is somebody else's.

I'd never heard it as an explanation; it had just occurred to me. I've had animals that would regularly attack or become puzzled by mirrors. This shows me that they either quickly forget what they look like, or never recognize it at all. Regardless, it shows that they lack the awareness to associate their own movements with what is going on in the mirror to realize that they are in some way causing the image.