What is the use of consciousness?

[Bahman]

It is like saying there is wiring in the geopolitical system that governs human activity on earth.
You are correct in only the most concrete way.
That this is how some understand the reality of the person is very sad to read coming from people who can do much better.

The analogy to a computer is a way to simplify things for “regular folk” in undergrad courses and on the Internet, like talking about chemical imbalances in the field of mental health. I’m not trying to be condescending, It is just that the explanation is so very limited.
And, there is a problem when juggling these analogies, trying to make them fit. They don’t.

You search for a word that is on the tip of your tongue.
Who is searching? How do you know the word exists?
If you don’t have a particular part of the brain intact, there will be no word appearing. So where and what was the word? In the chemistry? The neuron? The “wiring”?

Information is held in wiring inside our brains.

I provide you with an explanation above. But, you want something that fits your world view. You must expand it. It will do so if you seek what you do not know rather than try to get it all to fit in your current way of understanding.

I am open to accept the truth. In this case I don’t really know what is the use of consciousness.

 

[o_mlly]

Information is held in wiring inside our brains.

Not entirely correct. youtube.com/watch?v=3XjUFYxSxDk&app=desktop

I am open to accept the truth. In this case I don’t really know what is the use of consciousness.

In your view, does information enter one’s brain if one is unconscious? For instance, in the transfer of information – the teacher instructing the student – are both unconscious?

 

[Bahman]

Not entirely correct. youtube.com/watch?v=3XjUFYxSxDk&app=desktop

Could you please briefly explain the content of the video? I had problem listening to it.

In your view, does information enter one’s brain if one is unconscious?

Yes it can. We can even perform unconscious act once we master a specific task. Consider the case of driving.

For instance, in the transfer of information – the teacher instructing the student – are both unconscious?

I think it is a mistake to divide mind into two parts, conscious and unconscious mind. I think that we have a continuous filed of mind ranging from complete conscious mind to complete unconscious mind. Each task can be performed in this range depending on how much attention is needed. The process of learning/rewiring is happening in a specific range of mind as well.

 

[Aloysium]

I will tell you how I see it.

There is little if any essential difference in the neurons and especially the intraneuronal processes found in different areas of the brain. Neurons in different areas may differ in structure and size, and produce different neurotransmitters than those found elsewhere. There is however no difference in their features that would explain why one area is related to consciousness and another not. If you stimulate one area you will hear a sound, another you will see a light, another a memory, another may raise the respiratory and heart rates, yet another might produce a sensation of pleasure. All these events happen in an intact brain where the person is capable of attending to the experience and report it.

Problems like the one you are attempting to resolve, come up when one considers a person to be merely physical, an infinitely complex collection of chemical processes, encased in a bag of skin, so to speak. We are more than what modern science would consider to be physical matter.

About our being physical, we should appreciate that we are continuous with the rest of the physical universe. The molecules we ingest are the same molecules that will constitute our body and that were previously part of some other living organism. The photons emitted from this monitor enter into the body through the lens and hitting the retina cause chemical changes which initiate a cascade of neurochemical events. There is nothing physical that separates us from everything else that is physical. Yet we do not experience our existence as one cosmic minestrone of universal consciousness.

We are separate but a part of everything. This is where we begin to consider the reality of the human soul. We can understand it as being relational in nature. We connect with the physical universe through the senses. Our cognitive capacities allow us to connect with the structure that underlies those immediate sensory experiences. They also enable us to understand the structure of the cosmos that has to do with meaning, beauty and goodness. We also feel and suffer. And, it is the spiritual soul that enables us to connect through love.

So the screen in front of us is the screen, the light emanating and reflecting from it, chemical changes in the retina, neurological events in the midbrain and in various parts of the cortex. It is contained in what is our being, which exists as it as a self-other-connectedness.

This individual, finite being that is who we are, is ultimately rooted in Being itself, which is an eternal act of loving creation. We are connected with not only the rest of creation, but with the Source of our being and the aim of existence is to participate in its fullness. Becoming our true selves, who are Christ-like, we enter into the loving union that is the Triune Godhead.

Speaking of the use of consciousness presupposes that there is something greater than consciousness which gives it meaning. Some have stated it is survival. If that is the case, it is only as valuable as is life. If we are talking about the survival of a species, it would have no personal value. It doesn’t for some people; others fight until the bitter end. I think consciousness is a vague and ambiguous term, but the way I mean it, it is useless except for the fact that it contains all uses. It is like a spark between the two fathomless realities of self and other. The ultimate goal of consciousness is communion, through the giving of oneself to who and what is other.

 

[inocente]

There is however no difference in their features that would explain why one area is related to consciousness and another not.

I think most theories are that consciousness arises from communication between brain areas, rather than within any single area, since that would explain why consciousness is a unified experience of sight, hearing, feeling, memory and so on.

 

[Bahman]

I will tell you how I see it.

There is little if any essential difference in the neurons and especially the intraneuronal processes found in different areas of the brain. Neurons in different areas may differ in structure and size, and produce different neurotransmitters than those found elsewhere. There is however no difference in their features that would explain why one area is related to consciousness and another not. If you stimulate one area you will hear a sound, another you will see a light, another a memory, another may raise the respiratory and heart rates, yet another might produce a sensation of pleasure. All these events happen in an intact brain where the person is capable of attending to the experience and report it.

Problems like the one you are attempting to resolve, come up when one considers a person to be merely physical, an infinitely complex collection of chemical processes, encased in a bag of skin, so to speak. We are more than what modern science would consider to be physical matter.

Can you resolve the problem using another theory?

About our being physical, we should appreciate that we are continuous with the rest of the physical universe. The molecules we ingest are the same molecules that will constitute our body and that were previously part of some other living organism. The photons emitted from this monitor enter into the body through the lens and hitting the retina cause chemical changes which initiate a cascade of neurochemical events. There is nothing physical that separates us from everything else that is physical. Yet we do not experience our existence as one cosmic minestrone of universal consciousness.

We can separate ourselves from the rest of cosmos because we are self-aware.

We are separate but a part of everything. This is where we begin to consider the reality of the human soul. We can understand it as being relational in nature. We connect with the physical universe through the senses. Our cognitive capacities allow us to connect with the structure that underlies those immediate sensory experiences. They also enable us to understand the structure of the cosmos that has to do with meaning, beauty and goodness. We also feel and suffer. And, it is the spiritual soul that enables us to connect through love.

It is not clear that how soul could resolve the problem of identity.

So the screen in front of us is the screen, the light emanating and reflecting from it, chemical changes in the retina, neurological events in the midbrain and in various parts of the cortex. It is contained in what is our being, which exists as it as a self-other-connectedness.

This individual, finite being that is who we are, is ultimately rooted in Being itself, which is an eternal act of loving creation. We are connected with not only the rest of creation, but with the Source of our being and the aim of existence is to participate in its fullness. Becoming our true selves, who are Christ-like, we enter into the loving union that is the Triune Godhead.

I don’t understand how this is related to our discussion.

Speaking of the use of consciousness presupposes that there is something greater than consciousness which gives it meaning. Some have stated it is survival. If that is the case, it is only as valuable as is life. If we are talking about the survival of a species, it would have no personal value. It doesn’t for some people; others fight until the bitter end. I think consciousness is a vague and ambiguous term, but the way I mean it, it is useless except for the fact that it contains all uses. It is like a spark between the two fathomless realities of self and other. The ultimate goal of consciousness is communion, through the giving of oneself to who and what is other.

I don’t understand how this is related to our discussion.

 

[HelenRose]

This question annoyed me for a while.

Consciousness can minimally be defined as ability to experience. It seems to me that we don’t need the experience if we want to be functional because our action just depend on external stimulus and how we are programed to act. So what is the use of consciousness?

Your thought?

This is assuming that we do not have free will. Our consciousness allows us the ability to choose how we will react to our experiences. We use consciousness to form conscience. We correctly form our conscience by studying the teachings of the Church.

God did not intend for us to be puppets on strings. He has given us intelligence, desire for beauty, desire for Him and free will. If we choose to believe that we are not responsible for our behavior, we will choose to do want ever we want to achieve whatever we want by whatever means are available to us.

This choose sounds good but it isn’t.

 

[Aloysium]

• Can you resolve the problem using another theory?
• We can separate ourselves from the rest of cosmos because we are self-aware.
• It is not clear that how soul could resolve the problem of identity.
• I don’t understand how this is related to our discussion.
• I don’t understand how this is related to our discussion.

The question you pose makes suppositions about usefulness and consciousness that are not straight forward and definitely not agreed upon. I think your view of consciousness as being the result of wiring in the brain is not well thought out. In order to get at a better understanding we have to go beyond the parameters that you set. We see this happening in history especially in science where the introduction of another theory does away with the problems that earlier models encountered. Ptolemy could have gone on and on trying to resolve problems he encountered describing the movement of heavenly bodies. It was the introduction of a new theory of a heliocentric solar system that revealed that there was no problem.

This is a rather circular argument. We are self aware because there is someone who is aware who is not the entire universe and what that person is aware of is of a finite being, not everything that is.

The soul refers to that aspect of the person who knows, acts and loves. The world acts as a mirror reflecting who we are by its reaction to us. We develop all sorts of mental images about ourselves and our role in existence as a result of these interactions/relationships. The person transcends these and the mind incorporates what is both inner and outer, self and other as it manifests itself in human experience.

I am attempting to explore the reality of consciousness, which is what your question addresses.

I am attempting to explore the idea of usefulness, which again is what your question addresses.

With the final sentence, I am responding to your question.

 

[Bahman]

This is assuming that we do not have free will. Our consciousness allows us the ability to choose how we will react to our experiences. We use consciousness to form conscience. We correctly form our conscience by studying the teachings of the Church.

God did not intend for us to be puppets on strings. He has given us intelligence, desire for beauty, desire for Him and free will. If we choose to believe that we are not responsible for our behavior, we will choose to do want ever we want to achieve whatever we want by whatever means are available to us.

This choose sounds good but it isn’t.

Free will is an illusion. I have a separate thread for this. It is simple. We are rational being and always choose the best option among a set of prioritized options.

 

[Bahman]

The question you pose makes suppositions about usefulness and consciousness that are not straight forward and definitely not agreed upon. I think your view of consciousness as being the result of wiring in the brain is not well thought out. In order to get at a better understanding we have to go beyond the parameters that you set. We see this happening in history especially in science where the introduction of another theory does away with the problems that earlier models encountered. Ptolemy could have gone on and on trying to resolve problems he encountered describing the movement of heavenly bodies. It was the introduction of a new theory of a heliocentric solar system that revealed that there was no problem.

I didn’t argue that consciousness is the result of wiring. To be honest I don’t know how consciousness emerges.

This is a rather circular argument. We are self aware because there is someone who is aware who is not the entire universe and what that person is aware of is of a finite being, not everything that is.

The soul refers to that aspect of the person who knows, acts and loves. The world acts as a mirror reflecting who we are by its reaction to us. We develop all sorts of mental images about ourselves and our role in existence as a result of these interactions/relationships. The person transcends these and the mind incorporates what is both inner and outer, self and other as it manifests itself in human experience.

I am attempting to explore the reality of consciousness, which is what your question addresses.

I am attempting to explore the idea of usefulness, which again is what your question addresses.

With the final sentence, I am responding to your question.

The basic idea is that how consciousness could be useful when we can explain our activities based on wiring and rewiring in the brain.

 

[Tomdstone]

We are rational being and always choose the best option among a set of prioritized options.

Not sure that this holds 100% of the time.

 

[Tomdstone]

The basic idea is that how consciousness could be useful when we can explain our activities based on wiring and rewiring in the brain.

Consciousness can be useful in making us aware of our surroundings.

 

[Bahman]

Not sure that this holds 100% of the time.

It is 100% as far as you are rational.

 

[Bahman]

Consciousness can be useful in making us aware of our surroundings.

Consider the case of driving. We can derive for hours without being aware of our surrounding.

 

[Tomdstone]

Free will is an illusion.

What is your definition of free will?

 

[Bahman]

What is your definition of free will?

The ability to freely choose one option among several options.

 

[Tomdstone]

The ability to freely choose one option among several options.

What does “freely” mean?
If I have in front of me, an apple, an orange and a pear, can I “freely” choose which one to eat?

 

[Bahman]

What does “freely” mean?
If I have in front of me, an apple, an orange and a pear, can I “freely” choose which one to eat?

Free means without any constrain.

 

[Aloysium]

What does “freely” mean?
If I have in front of me, an apple, an orange and a pear, can I “freely” choose which one to eat?

:twocents:

Free will has only to do with the capacity to give of oneself to what is other.
It is about the possibility of love in the sense of willing the good for the other.
It has to do with following the commandments, utilizing our conscience, sorting out situations and our own motivations, trying to discern whether a direction is truly towards the good, and then acting on it.
It does the fruit no good whichever one you choose.
But, in a consumerist society that is what the will is reduced to.
We abrogate our capacity to choose, with all the anxieties that follow, for comfort.
In the end, those who are free are possibly those imprisoned, forced to make difficult moral choices each and every day.

 

[Vico]

Free means without any constrain.

Free will means not externally determined, as with necessitarianism.

Collins Dictionary (British English):

free will, noun
1a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined
1b. the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory Compare determinism (sense 1)
1c. (as modifier) * ⇒ a free-will decision
2. the ability to make a choice without coercion * ⇒ he left of his own free will: I did not influence him

determinism, noun
Also called: necessitarianism the philosophical doctrine that all events including human actions and choices are fully determined by preceding events and states of affairs, and so that freedom of choice is illusory Compare free will (sense 1b)