What about the properties of consciousness?

Consciousness is a reality in that it is real. How do I know? Because I am aware of myself.

What do u mean by properties of consciousness?

Are you aware how the brain is working?
For example, does consciousness has any depth? wideness?

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Are you aware how the brain is working?
For example, does consciousness has any depth? wideness?
I think the definition of being conscious just means u are aware of yourself as existing in this universe. I dont know much more on this topic.

Consciousness creates reality. Reality doesn't create consciousness. Every "reality" depends on the observer. Dreams, and hallucinations aren't "real" to everyone else because only you observe it. What others can't observe isn't "real" to them. Consciousness itself is probably reality, reality is made of consciousness.

Consciousness is a product of thought. Thought is a product of time. Time is a product of energy.

Consciousness is therefore an abstract result of energy.

Originally posted by VitalOne
Consciousness creates reality. Reality doesn't create consciousness. Every "reality" depends on the observer.

You have no evidence for the first statement.

Or the second. Or the third.

Where was this 'consciousness' during the first few billion years after the big bang? Or are you denying that such a time period existed, since nobody was around to observe it?

Originally posted by TheERK
You have no evidence for the first statement.

Or the second. Or the third.

Where was this 'consciousness' during the first few billion years after the big bang? Or are you denying that such a time period existed, since nobody was around to observe it?

Actually, Quantum Physics experiments have proven that reality depends on consciousness. Quantum Physics also say that the observer creates the reality, and that all physical objects wouldn't have attributes without the observer. So according to Quantum Physics in a sense, if we never observed the Big Bang , it never happened.

Originally posted by VitalOne
Actually, Quantum Physics experiments have proven that reality depends on consciousness. Quantum Physics also say that the observer creates the reality, and that all physical objects wouldn't have attributes without the observer. So according to Quantum Physics in a sense, if we never observed the Big Bang , it never happened.

This is typical 'quantum physics abuse.'

Quantum physics says no such thing. For example, although observation may be necessary, that observation can be made by anything--including a simple computer, something we can probably all agree is not conscious.

Your statements reflect one of many different interpretations of quantum physics, paired with an additional misconception (observer does not have to be conscious).

If you care to disagree, please cite specific examples/post links which convincingly argue otherwise.

Originally posted by VitalOne
Consciousness creates reality. Reality doesn't create consciousness.
I don't think this is totally free creation. Reality must have some influence on the process of creating.

Originally posted by yinyinwang
I don't think this is totally free creation. Reality must have some influence on the process of creating.

Well, I don't mean that we have control over reality, our minds created it, but we have almost no control over it.

I don't think I am that powerful to create oceans.

If one has awareness and this is determined as consciousnes then could a Rock, for example have a simple self awareness therefore a simple consciousness.

It has often been suggested that there is a universal consciousness, there fore universal awareness.

For this to be true a Rock would have to be self aware.

Originally posted by yinyinwang
I don't think I am that powerful to create oceans.

You are that powerful, just as how your mind can create extremely realistic dreams...temporary reality (dreams) are really not that different from long-term reality (permanent until death).

TheERK,

This is typical 'quantum physics abuse.'

Quantum physics says no such thing. For example, although observation may be necessary, that observation can be made by anything--including a simple computer, something we can probably all agree is not conscious.

Reality implies meaning. Meaning can only be extracted from the data in that computer by a conciousness. Therefore that observation can not be made by anything, like a simple computer, but it must be made by something which will interpret meaning from meaningless data, and make it a reality. Computers do not "observe", no more than a mirror observes our reflection.

Where was this 'consciousness' during the first few billion years after the big bang? Or are you denying that such a time period existed, since nobody was around to observe it?

When a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? We all know the answer is no. Sound only exists in the mind, so if there is no mind to perceive it, only the meaningless vibrations exist. We live in a silent universe. Color also only exists in the mind. We live in a dark universe. The same can be said for our other three major senses. But what about our other senses? We sense time, for example. Is this also an illusion? Movement and time are two interpretations of the same thing. Does movement even exist in this universe? Or is there just one eternally still, dark, silent, meaningless now? I believe this is the case. Reality does not exist but in the mind. If the big bang had no observers, it could not have existed(as a reality
).

Here is how I like to think of the universe. I think of this "eternally still, dark, silent meaningless" universe as an infinite mass of cookie dough. This dough has no shape or meaning. Although if you take a cookie cutter(conciousness) and cut out a shape from this mass(reality), you get something meaningful. I believe this is kind of how the universe is. Infinite potential. I believe that everything "exists", while at the same time, nothing at all exists.

In conclusion: everything exists, but not everything exists as a reality. Existence and reality are two different things. The big bang exists(if that theory is true of course), but it does not exist as a reality. But according to our limited definition of existance, which is dependent on reality, the big bang does not exist.

reality is independent of observers, of course, if you change the definition of reality, then this reality is not that reality.

reality is independent of observers,

Whilst as a general truth this statement may prove to be quite untrue in the future.

Reality is very dependant on the observer it's just we don't know how or why.

Truth or true reality is alot more fuzzy than we think I feel.

True objectivity is an ideal that can never be achieved because the object of this objectivity is essentially still subjective.

The amount of effect or impact we have on what we observe -------- could ----- be considerably more than we anticipate.

I don't think I am that powerful to create oceans.That's why you can't create oceans.

Isn't everything about belief after all?

I believe that we are aware because we are observed by God, that He is confirming our existance.


Every point is the middle, thus every point created the universe, the first cause must then be inside everything as the smallest piece. I think that the Big Bang happens all the time, the effect was just greater at the beginning since everything was at the same place..

Came to think about something...everything must have been created at the same time, cause if it weren't then the anti-matter and the matter would have destroyed themselves constantly and not have time to be buildt up to such a extent. The only other option is that the matter and anti-matter was forming far away from eachother but then how come the energy is so uniform? One part should then have exploded before the other parts (since they can't have arrived at the same time if they were created far away from eachother, one part of matter must have met the other part of the anti-matter and the rest would have been seperated by the explosion).

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
Whilst as a general truth this statement may prove to be quite untrue in the future.

Reality is very dependant on the observer it's just we don't know how or why.

Truth or true reality is alot more fuzzy than we think I feel.

True objectivity is an ideal that can never be achieved because the object of this objectivity is essentially still subjective.

The amount of effect or impact we have on what we observe -------- could ----- be considerably more than we anticipate.
what is true and what you perceive is true is not the same thing.
the universe is independent of human, but human beings do interact with the reality and this is ongoing process.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Consciousness is a product of thought. Thought is a product of time. Time is a product of energy.

Consciousness is therefore an abstract result of energy.
What makes you think this?

Consciousness is a product of thought. Thought is a product of time. Time is a product of energy.

Consciousness is therefore an abstract result of energy.

Here's how I think it should go:

Conciousness is a product of nueral interactions, nueral interactions are a product of energy, energy is a product of physics, physics is product of time, time is a product of dimension, dimension is a product of <leap> infinite potential, infinite potential is a product of everything, and everything is a product of nothing.

Conciousness is therefore an abstract result of nothing. :)

I like the conclusion but not the way you get there. There is as yet no evidence that consciousness is the result of neuron activity, unless you mean the everyday contents of consciousness.

Originally posted by TheERK
This is typical 'quantum physics abuse.'

Quantum physics says no such thing. For example, although observation may be necessary, that observation can be made by anything--including a simple computer, something we can probably all agree is not conscious.

Your statements reflect one of many different interpretations of quantum physics, paired with an additional misconception (observer does not have to be conscious).

If you care to disagree, please cite specific examples/post links which convincingly argue otherwise.

Right, it's just a theory. To be conscious is to be aware of one's environment. To observe is to take notice; to give attention to what one sees or hears; to attend. So how can you observe, but not be conscious?

Originally posted by Canute
I like the conclusion but not the way you get there. There is as yet no evidence that consciousness is the result of neuron activity, unless you mean the everyday contents of consciousness.

I would think that the resulting change in consciousness from altering brain chemistry (ie, influencing neuron activity) would be evidence enough. What are you trying to suggest?

Originally posted by VitalOne
Right, it's just a theory. To be conscious is to be aware of one's environment. To observe is to take notice; to give attention to what one sees or hears; to attend. So how can you observe, but not be conscious?

I suppose that depends on your definition of 'observe'. If you are saying you can't observe without being conscious, then your definition of 'observer' is 'one who is conscious'--you might as well discard the word 'observer' altogether, if this is what you mean.

Originally posted by TheERK
I would think that the resulting change in consciousness from altering brain chemistry (ie, influencing neuron activity) would be evidence enough. What are you trying to suggest?
I can change the chemistry of my body by taking pills, but it doesn't follow that pills cause bodies. Clearly neuron activity affects states of human consciousness, but there is no evidence that they cause it's existence.

Also there is the problem of what it is that's aware of changing brain states.

Originally posted by VitalOne
Right, it's just a theory. To be conscious is to be aware of one's environment. To observe is to take notice; to give attention to what one sees or hears; to attend. So how can you observe, but not be conscious?
Observing and interpretting are different components in consciousness, for example, a two year old child is watching or observing, but he does not interpret what is going on and even has no memory of what has happen.
By accident, people loose memories and can not recognize things before, that is unable to interpret, not unable to observe.

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Observing and interpretting are different components in consciousness, for example, .
It is not at all clear whether that is true or not. Most philosphers and many scientists who study vision and perception would disagree.

Originally posted by Canute
It is not at all clear whether that is true or not. Most philosphers and many scientists who study vision and perception would disagree.
Would you mind injecting a point of reason behind the conclusion?

It is widely recognised that without the interpretive powers of our brains we wouldn't observe anything very meaningful. This is known particularly from studies of vision, where most of the research has been done.

Equivalently in philosophy it is accepted that all observations are 'theory laden'. Gombrich's 'Art and Illusion' is the best work I ever found on this topic, in which he discusses how our changing interpretative theories have affected our visual perception over the centuries as evidenced in the evolution of representational painting.

Our visual picture of the world is to a large degree a theory. The truth of this can be seen by studying certain kinds of visual illusions, cases where our theories are wrong and thus we perceive incorrectly, or from visual tests using intermittent flashes on screens and seeing how subjects unconsciously and automatically theorise relationships between them that don't exist.

Canute,

What makes you think this?
Extrapolation from obervation. :)

There is as yet no evidence that consciousness is the result of neuron activity, unless you mean the everyday contents of consciousness.
What else is consciousness but the everyday occurrance of such? You seem to think that consciousness is more that it is...Consciousness is simply a degree of knowledge. Do you consider knowledge something other than what you have stored in that neural network of yours?

Matnay,
Here's how I think it should go:
Conciousness is a product of nueral interactions, nueral interactions are a product of energy,
You should have stopped there, the rest is gobblygook. Energy is a product of physics?

Originally posted by Canute
It is widely recognised that without the interpretive powers of our brains we wouldn't observe anything very meaningful.

I don't think this is controdictory to my view, so what is the point against my conclusion?
observe meaningfully=observe+interpret;
observe+no meaning=observe+no interpretation.
right?

Consciousness is a product of the development of living organisms. They need (for the coordication of their survival) some storage of past events/facts (a memory module). To organise the memory data and use them (eg for predictions to find nurishment) a (memory) scanner was developed. Senses provide the data about enviroment it is put (all of it) into the memory and the scanner with a relevance " chip" scans it. The relevance chip (consciousness) can compare present with past and directs the organism towards the survival goals.

maybe it's worth asking the question
What is the difference between the human eye and a video camera? Why is the human eye so much more superior?

Originally posted by yinyinwang
I don't think this is controdictory to my view, so what is the point against my conclusion?
observe meaningfully=observe+interpret;
observe+no meaning=observe+no interpretation.
right?
I was saying that observation and interpretation cannot be separated. At a fundamental level an observation is an interpretation.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Canute,

What else is consciousness but the everyday occurrance of such? You seem to think that consciousness is more that it is...Consciousness is simply a degree of knowledge. Do you consider knowledge something other than what you have stored in that neural network of yours?
How is it possible to have know something if consciousness is no more than knowledge? Can knowledge know knowledge, and know that it knows it?

Originally posted by Canute
I was saying that observation and interpretation cannot be separated. At a fundamental level an observation is an interpretation.
How do you define what is above or below the "fundamental level "?

Just a thought to add to the discussion

Would I be over simplistic in suggesting that consciousness be considered as an outcome rather than a cause.

I know this may be a rather obvious statement but the same could be considered for knowledge. In that knowledge is an outcome as well.

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
Just a thought to add to the discussion

Would I be over simplistic in suggesting that consciousness be considered as an outcome rather than a cause.

I know this may be a rather obvious statement but the same could be considered for knowledge. In that knowledge is an outcome as well.
outcome or cause of what?

maybe neuro chemistry and many other factors.

Being aware of what we sense creates an outcome called consciousness.

So the question "is consciousness itself a reality"? would have to be answered as negative because consciousness is an outcome of reality and not a reality unto it-self.

This is I think what I am Suggesting

But even if consciousness is a outcome of reality, consciousness itself (as the outcome) must also be real, it exists since we experiance it. Even ideas must be a reality, the idea of Santa exists, thus Santa exists in the idea, however may not have conscious properties, unless you want him to...but that would be really cruel...imagine having to deliver all those presents...

Everything is reality, what matters is probably in which level of reality it is. Awareness seems to have it's own reality that is mixed with the physical (since it confirms the physical reality).

Originally posted by yinyinwang
How do you define what is above or below the "fundamental level "?
I meant that every observation is based to some degree on interpretation, but that we are not always aware of this, since most of our interpretative processes are very old in evolutionary terms, and quite unconscious. But I wasn't asserting that observations are only interpretations, (although I suppose idealists argue that they are.)

How is it possible to have know something if consciousness is no more than knowledge? Can knowledge know knowledge, and know that it knows it?
Yes, its called self-awareness.

Another interesting aspect to think of is a baby. A baby is not self-aware. It takes the building of a knowledge base to reach the point of 'consciousness' that entails the ability to think of the self and rationalize it as an entity. A baby is conscious on the most fundamental level (awake and breathing) but if we were to step inside the mind of a baby it probably wouldn't contain the kind of consciousness we are talking about.

Originally posted by Canute
,interpretative processes
What are these? In the brain?

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Yes, its called self-awareness.

Another interesting aspect to think of is a baby. A baby is not self-aware. It takes the building of a knowledge base to reach the point of 'consciousness' that entails the ability to think of the self and rationalize it as an entity. A baby is conscious on the most fundamental level (awake and breathing) but if we were to step inside the mind of a baby it probably wouldn't contain the kind of consciousness we are talking about.
We must be talking about different kinds of consiousness. I don;t see how being awake and breathing necessaroly makes one conscious, and I can't see how consciousness can have come into existence as a 'meme' of knowledge.

Theories based on memes, (Susan Blackmore's for instance) suffer from the problem that in order for consiousness to exist there must be a meme in a brain, but if meme's are consciousness then there is no way the first meme could have come into existence. It would have had to bootstrap itself out of nothing.

This is the mirror of the materialist problem of explaining matter, in that if matter is made out of other matter then you have to conclude that either matter is eternal or it arose from nothing. If consciousness is made out of matter then the same goes for consciousness.

Another interesting aspect to think of is a baby. A baby is not self-aware. It takes the building of a knowledge base to reach the point of 'consciousness' that entails the ability to think of the self and rationalize it as an entity. A baby is conscious on the most fundamental level (awake and breathing) but if we were to step inside the mind of a baby it probably wouldn't contain the kind of consciousness we are talking about.When we experianced it, it was exactly the same as we experiance it now. The difference is when we think back upon the experiance cause we see it in a different light. The same with childhood, if you had a tough childhood then that period may seem dark, but if you had a nice childhood then it seems light, there is also a certain feeling attached to childhood. There's a interesting feeling when we think about decades like the 60's and 80's, they "feel" different, the feeling wasn't experianced during the decade but was first seen when locking back upon it (seeing it from the outside).

Canute,
. I don;t see how being awake and breathing necessaroly makes one conscious
Ever heard of being knocked 'unconscious'? I was referring to most basic form of consciousness which is that of active thought. But I suppose we are talking about the higher level of consciousness.

I can't see how consciousness can have come into existence as a 'meme' of knowledge.
Consciousness as a meme...now that is interesting. I don't however quite see it as a meme. I see it more as a consequence. It isn't an idea but a result.

This is the mirror of the materialist problem of explaining matter, in that if matter is made out of other matter then you have to conclude that either matter is eternal or it arose from nothing. If consciousness is made out of matter then the same goes for consciousness.
Well, as I said in my earlier post...you can break it all down (including matter) to energy. That is why posited that consciousness is a result of energy.

Do you feel consciousness is something separate?

Cyperium,
I agree. It is a matter of perspective. But my point was that a baby has not yet gained the experience (and thus the knowledge) that leads to a self-aware consciousness. This tells me that the experience and knowledge are the factors that lead to this consciousness.

Cyperium,
I agree. It is a matter of perspective. But my point was that a baby has not yet gained the experience (and thus the knowledge) that leads to a self-aware consciousness. This tells me that the experience and knowledge are the factors that lead to this consciousness.There's nothing that tells us that babies aren't self-aware. It's not that they don't have the knowledge to be self-aware, it's that they don't have the knowledge to express it. Brain-measurement shows that the visual areas starts working even before the baby is born (and though it's blind), this may be to establish connections and so on, but it would be VERY interesting to know what the pictures show that the baby is seeing, cause I'm confident that the baby is aware of seeing them and may even be a part of some kind of evulotionary grow-up process.

One thing may be that memories aren't working that well at that age (and early childhood) though, and the location of objects may be hard to understand, since mommy can go outside the room and the baby will think she's gone forever and starts crying, the same when taking away a toy and simply hiding it, the baby will think that it's lost, this doesn't mean that the baby isn't self-aware (self-awareness doesn't require logical reasoning) it probably means that the baby thinks that when it doesn't see something it doesn't exist.

There is one thing that speak towards your idea though, and that is that the baby needs confirmation at an early age that it exists, that mommy responds to it's actions (comforting when crying etc.). But that doesn't mean that the baby isn't self-aware, it may just be so that the baby needs to know that others knows it exists.

Originally posted by fadingCaptain
Canute, Well, as I said in my earlier post...you can break it all down (including matter) to energy. That is why posited that consciousness is a result of energy.

I assume that matter is energy. Not that we know what energy is yet except 'the ability to do work'.
Do you feel consciousness is something separate? Yes and no.
This tells me that the experience and knowledge are the factors that lead to this consciousness. [/B]
The superficial everyday human experience of it perhaps. But for logical reasons it is impossible have experience or knowledge in the absence of consciousness, so it seems that consciousness must come before experience and knowledge in ontological terms.

consciousness does have properties, the question is by what standar to classify.
The concept of level of consciousness or state of consciouseness is one option.
at the biological level, it is subconscious.
Different people do vary in the properties of consciousness because they react uniquely to the same outside.

Originally posted by yinyinwang
Observing and interpretting are different components in consciousness, for example, a two year old child is watching or observing, but he does not interpret what is going on and even has no memory of what has happen.
By accident, people loose memories and can not recognize things before, that is unable to interpret, not unable to observe.

When you observe something, you interpret it to some degree as at least some thing. It may not be on a conscious level, but you still interpret it as something.

Not being able to recognize something doesn't mean you can't interpret it, it means you can't interpret it the way you interpreted it before. You interpret it as whatever you think it is. There is no right way to interpret something, interpretations are subjective.

Originally posted by VitalOne
When you observe something, you interpret it to some degree as at least some thing. It may not be on a conscious level, but you still interpret it as something.
true,
Not being able to recognize something doesn't mean you can't interpret it, it means you can't interpret it the way you interpreted it before. You interpret it as whatever you think it is. There is no right way to interpret something, interpretations are subjective.
but to observe without a context meaning is not interpretation.
Interpretation is not absolutely subjective. Subjectiveness can be equal to objectiveness under certain conditions. Otherwise there will not be so many new objects around.