Consciousness - passive?

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

Here is a recent article from Science Daily about Consciousness. Obviously, they are talking about the active consciousness that we are aware of  and not about other states of consciousness such as the sub-conscious/unconscious that lie hidden but are believed to form the major part of our consciousness (like the hidden part of an iceberg).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150623141911.htm

**********************************************************************

Consciousness -- the internal dialogue that seems to govern one's thoughts and actions -- is far less powerful than people believe, serving as a passive conduit rather than an active force that exerts control, according to a new theory proposed by an SF State researcher.

Associate Professor of Psychology Ezequiel Morsella's "Passive Frame Theory" suggests that the conscious mind is like an interpreter helping speakers of different languages communicate.

"The interpreter presents the information but is not the one making any arguments or acting upon the knowledge that is shared," Morsella said. "Similarly, the information we perceive in our consciousness is not created by conscious processes, nor is it reacted to by conscious processes. Consciousness is the middle-man, and it doesn't do as much work as you think."

"We have long thought consciousness solved problems and had many moving parts, but it's much more basic and static," Morsella said. "This theory is very counterintuitive. It goes against our everyday way of thinking."

According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system.

Compare consciousness to the Internet, Morsella suggested. The Internet can be used to buy books, reserve a hotel room and complete thousands of other tasks. Taken at face value, it would seem incredibly powerful. But, in actuality, a person in front of a laptop or clicking away on a smartphone is running the show -- the Internet is just being made to perform the same basic process, without any free will of its own.

The Passive Frame Theory also defies the intuitive belief that one conscious thought leads to another. "One thought doesn't know about the other, they just often have access to and are acting upon the same, unconscious information," Morsella said. "You have one thought and then another, and you think that one thought leads to the next, but this doesn't seem to be the way the process actually works."

************************************************************************

For information.

Cheers.

Sriram

[Maeght]

Hi everyone,

Here is a recent article from Science Daily about Consciousness. Obviously, they are talking about the active consciousness that we are aware of  and not about other states of consciousness such as the sub-conscious/unconscious that lie hidden but are believed to form the major part of our consciousness (like the hidden part of an iceberg).

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/06/150623141911.htm

**********************************************************************

Consciousness -- the internal dialogue that seems to govern one's thoughts and actions -- is far less powerful than people believe, serving as a passive conduit rather than an active force that exerts control, according to a new theory proposed by an SF State researcher.

Associate Professor of Psychology Ezequiel Morsella's "Passive Frame Theory" suggests that the conscious mind is like an interpreter helping speakers of different languages communicate.

"The interpreter presents the information but is not the one making any arguments or acting upon the knowledge that is shared," Morsella said. "Similarly, the information we perceive in our consciousness is not created by conscious processes, nor is it reacted to by conscious processes. Consciousness is the middle-man, and it doesn't do as much work as you think."

"We have long thought consciousness solved problems and had many moving parts, but it's much more basic and static," Morsella said. "This theory is very counterintuitive. It goes against our everyday way of thinking."

According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system.

Compare consciousness to the Internet, Morsella suggested. The Internet can be used to buy books, reserve a hotel room and complete thousands of other tasks. Taken at face value, it would seem incredibly powerful. But, in actuality, a person in front of a laptop or clicking away on a smartphone is running the show -- the Internet is just being made to perform the same basic process, without any free will of its own.

The Passive Frame Theory also defies the intuitive belief that one conscious thought leads to another. "One thought doesn't know about the other, they just often have access to and are acting upon the same, unconscious information," Morsella said. "You have one thought and then another, and you think that one thought leads to the next, but this doesn't seem to be the way the process actually works."

************************************************************************

For information.

Cheers.

Sriram

Seems to be saying what has been said quite a lot recently , that most of what we do (if not all) is governed by our sub conscious rather than our conscious thought processes and we don't really have free. Wouldn't disagree with that.

[L.A.]

I'm not sure that I agree with the model described in the article. For a long time it has seemed to me that the sub-conscious is our 'auto-pilot'. It is quite easy just to drift through life without ever making any adjustments, in fact we do that most of the time - but the power of the conscious mind is that it can over-ride the sub-conscious and re-program it, but this takes some effort and many people can't be bothered.

[Nearly Sane]

Bit ambitious calling it a theory. There isn't anything in the article that covers why he is suggesting this

[torridon]

This sounds like an idea with mileage. A classic epiphenominalist account has consciousness as an insignificant byproduct of deeper processes but it always seemed to me we need more stuff for consciousness to do, to be important for, so now we can add 'interpreter' to the list of things it can do. It makes sense in the context of a compartmentalised brain with many structures having evolved at different times to suit various needs that there is a need for an overarching mechanism that integrates the many disparate functions. Information integration is the name of the game in much consciousness research and this idea seems to meld with that.

[Maeght]

Sounds like 70% nonsense to me.

Why?

[Maeght]

I don't think he's saying it doesn't exist, only that it doesn't do what we think it does. The recent brain imaging on decisions (demonstrated by pushing a yes or no button) suggested that what we do is 'decided' by the sub conscious and the conscious is then only controlling how we respond physically to that decision (telling the muscles to work to press the relevant button) - which is what seems to be being said here. People like to feel that their conscious mind is in charge really but the limited scientific evidence to date suggest that may not be the case.

[ekim]

We have long thought consciousness solved problems and had many moving parts, but it's much more basic and static,

I don't know who the 'we' is which thought that but many of those who have proposed meditation throughout history have advocated inner stillness as a way of simply being aware or conscious without the stimulus of thoughts or emotions.

[L.A.]

While I agree with a lot of what He says, I would disagree with the statement:

"According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system."

For much of the time that may be true, but our concious mind is capable of intercepting this information and modifying it. Also, the conscious mind is capable of 're-programming' our  subconscious responses to stimuli - for example if we make a conscious decision to learn to ride a bike or engage in any learning activity.

[torridon]

While I agree with a lot of what He says, I would disagree with the statement:

"According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system."

For much of the time that may be true, but our concious mind is capable of intercepting this information and modifying it. Also, the conscious mind is capable of 're-programming' our  subconscious responses to stimuli - for example if we make a conscious decision to learn to ride a bike or engage in any learning activity.

The point is, what you describe, is how it feels, intuitively, but that is not what research shows, which is that conscious experience is a retrospective phenomenon; our conscious awareness may play a role in making bigger and more complex life choices, but at root, the decisions we make are made in subconscious mind.

[Maeght]

While I agree with a lot of what He says, I would disagree with the statement:

"According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system."

For much of the time that may be true, but our concious mind is capable of intercepting this information and modifying it. Also, the conscious mind is capable of 're-programming' our  subconscious responses to stimuli - for example if we make a conscious decision to learn to ride a bike or engage in any learning activity.

You don't know that that is what is happening though. As has been said it may feel like it - just like the decision to press a Yes or No button in the experiments mentioned felt like conscious decisions whereas brain scans suggested they weren't.

[Leonard James]

But if the subconscious mind is capable of assessing the conditions and acting before we are aware of it, how can you prove that it doesn't also have the ability to choose freely and subconsciously how to respond to any given situation?

[L.A.]

While I agree with a lot of what He says, I would disagree with the statement:

"According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system."

For much of the time that may be true, but our concious mind is capable of intercepting this information and modifying it. Also, the conscious mind is capable of 're-programming' our  subconscious responses to stimuli - for example if we make a conscious decision to learn to ride a bike or engage in any learning activity.

The point is, what you describe, is how it feels, intuitively, but that is not what research shows, which is that conscious experience is a retrospective phenomenon; our conscious awareness may play a role in making bigger and more complex life choices, but at root, the decisions we make are made in subconscious mind.

I think what the experiments show is that we effectively have a 'pre-programmed' response to many situations, but I would argue that that is something that we have learned and are able to modify.

[Maeght]

But if the subconscious mind is capable of assessing the conditions and acting before we are aware of it, how can you prove that it doesn't also have the ability to choose freely and subconsciously how to respond to any given situation?

I guess because the processes going on in the brain can be imaged to see that certain synapses alays fire in response to the same stimuli. I can't prove it.

[Maeght]

While I agree with a lot of what He says, I would disagree with the statement:

"According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system."

For much of the time that may be true, but our concious mind is capable of intercepting this information and modifying it. Also, the conscious mind is capable of 're-programming' our  subconscious responses to stimuli - for example if we make a conscious decision to learn to ride a bike or engage in any learning activity.

The point is, what you describe, is how it feels, intuitively, but that is not what research shows, which is that conscious experience is a retrospective phenomenon; our conscious awareness may play a role in making bigger and more complex life choices, but at root, the decisions we make are made in subconscious mind.

I think what the experiments show is that we effectively have a 'pre-programmed' response to many situations, but I would argue that that is something that we have learned and are able to modify.

Feel free to argue that of course, but as has been said we don't know that is what happens.

[L.A.]

But if the subconscious mind is capable of assessing the conditions and acting before we are aware of it, how can you prove that it doesn't also have the ability to choose freely and subconsciously how to respond to any given situation?

I fully accept that there are situations where we subconsciously makes decisions before we could have consciously processed the information. However, I would argue that this occurs because our subconscious has been 'programmed' this way. With children, this 'programming' comes mostly from parents and teachers (also significantly advertising) - but as adults, we may 're-program' ourselves so that our 'gut reactions' are as we would wish them to be.

[L.A.]

While I agree with a lot of what He says, I would disagree with the statement:

"According to Morsella's framework, the "free will" that people typically attribute to their conscious mind -- the idea that our consciousness, as a "decider," guides us to a course of action -- does not exist. Instead, consciousness only relays information to control "voluntary" action, or goal-oriented movement involving the skeletal muscle system."

For much of the time that may be true, but our concious mind is capable of intercepting this information and modifying it. Also, the conscious mind is capable of 're-programming' our  subconscious responses to stimuli - for example if we make a conscious decision to learn to ride a bike or engage in any learning activity.

The point is, what you describe, is how it feels, intuitively, but that is not what research shows, which is that conscious experience is a retrospective phenomenon; our conscious awareness may play a role in making bigger and more complex life choices, but at root, the decisions we make are made in subconscious mind.

I think what the experiments show is that we effectively have a 'pre-programmed' response to many situations, but I would argue that that is something that we have learned and are able to modify.

Feel free to argue that of course, but as has been said we don't know that is what happens.

This is an area where literally no one knows Maeght. It's more a case of finding a useful model.

[Leonard James]

But if the subconscious mind is capable of assessing the conditions and acting before we are aware of it, how can you prove that it doesn't also have the ability to choose freely and subconsciously how to respond to any given situation?

I guess because the processes going on in the brain can be imaged to see that certain synapses alays fire in response to the same stimuli. I can't prove it.

But why shouldn't the subconscious have the power to override them, just as the conscious mind does?

[Maeght]

Where is the evidence that it does?

[Leonard James]

Where is the evidence that it does?

Waiting to be discovered?

I fear it's just another case of "we don't know".

[Maeght]

Absolutely - which is why I questioned when you posted that the conscious can overrode the sub consious. As you say we don't know but am sure science will find the answer one day (perhaps).

[ekim]

But if the subconscious mind is capable of assessing the conditions and acting before we are aware of it, how can you prove that it doesn't also have the ability to choose freely and subconsciously how to respond to any given situation?

I fully accept that there are situations where we subconsciously makes decisions before we could have consciously processed the information. However, I would argue that this occurs because our subconscious has been 'programmed' this way. With children, this 'programming' comes mostly from parents and teachers (also significantly advertising) - but as adults, we may 're-program' ourselves so that our 'gut reactions' are as we would wish them to be.

Do those elements in the sub-conscious or below the threshold of consciousness actually make assessments and decisions though?  Perhaps they are just reactive triggers built up over time, like in the case of addictions where reaching for the addictive substance ceases to be a conscious choice but more an unconscious reaction.  When the addict starts to become aware, or conscious of, the reactive feedback loop then he stands a better chance of making assessments and decisions i.e. consciously acting rather than unconsciously reacting.

[torridon]

But if the subconscious mind is capable of assessing the conditions and acting before we are aware of it, how can you prove that it doesn't also have the ability to choose freely and subconsciously how to respond to any given situation?

I fully accept that there are situations where we subconsciously makes decisions before we could have consciously processed the information. However, I would argue that this occurs because our subconscious has been 'programmed' this way. With children, this 'programming' comes mostly from parents and teachers (also significantly advertising) - but as adults, we may 're-program' ourselves so that our 'gut reactions' are as we would wish them to be.

You are confusing subconscious with 'gut' reactions. We make decisions all the time below the level of conscious awareness. Remember the last time you had a blazing stand up row with someone, words coming out of your mouth before you had time to think them through; later on you probably regretted and made a note to self 'engage brain first next time'. That is a little telling anecdote that reminds us that subconscious always precedes conscious, conscious awareness is a more complex phenomenon that is always retrospective, a picture of what happened just a moment ago, it is always lagging slightly behind reality and this includes awareness of decisions just made internally.