Vegetative state & Consciousness

[torridon]

I think Sriram's notion could run like this: Consciousness is an independent state of being...

The state of something cannot be independent of the thing that it describes.  An apple could be red, blood can be red, but can redness be independent of things that are colourful ?  Redness doesn't exist, but things that are red, do.

[Enki]

Yes, while I don't think the OP has anything that helps Sriram's hypothesis, I don't see that we can dismiss it  simply for it not making sense. If we assume a brain in a vat, then it could theoretically link into a simulation, let's go wild and call it the Matrix, where the toe, like the spoon, isn't.

Very much agree with Torri, on this. Consciousness is the state of something, so one has to establish what that something is. So far, all we have is the brain to go on, and science is making great strides in understanding how consciousness comes about as a brain state even though there is much that we cannot yet explain. If consciousness was linked to something else, then, as Torri says, evidence has to accrue that this is so. So far, nothing has been established that points to anything other than the brain being involved. That doesn't mean that we dismiss Sriram's suggestions out of hand, it simply means that there is no reason to accept them unless that evidence is forthcoming. And, as Torri says(in post 21), for Sriram's ideas to hold any weight(other than as a personal conviction), intersubjective evidence is needed, and for that to happen a rigorous methodology would have to be applied.

[Nearly Sane]

Very much agree with Torri, on this. Consciousness is the state of something, so one has to establish what that something is. So far, all we have is the brain to go on, and science is making great strides in understanding how consciousness comes about as a brain state even though there is much that we cannot yet explain. If consciousness was linked to something else, then, as Torri says, evidence has to accrue that this is so. So far, nothing has been established that points to anything other than the brain being involved. That doesn't mean that we dismiss Sriram's suggestions out of hand, it simply means that there is no reason to accept them unless that evidence is forthcoming. And, as Torri says(in post 21), for Sriram's ideas to hold any weight(other than as a personal conviction), intersubjective evidence is needed, and for that to happen a rigorous methodology would have to be applied.

Yes, I agree with all of that but Sriram had asked was his hypothesis possible and torridon appeared t state that it wasn't. I don't see that as correct. That I feel pain in a toe is anecdotal and does nothing to argue against Sriram's hypothesis

[torridon]

I think Sriram's notion could run like this: Consciousness is an independent state of being.  It has the ability to permeate 'something' and cause it to act in a conscious way.

Suppose consciousness is a distinct 'thing' that permeates matter, then we should be able to isolate it and measure it. We all gain consciousness and lose it every day as we awake and go to sleep, so this 'thing' would be pretty ubiquitous, not hard to determine.

A simplistic scenario involving the elimination of consciousness : when preparing you with a general anaesthetic before an operation, suppose the anaesthetist instead of injecting you, he pulls back his syringe and extracts consciousness from you.  He could then hold his syringe up to the light and inspect the consciousness in it, measuring your lack of consciousness by the volume of consciousness in his syringe.

Of course that is not how it works and it serves to illustrate the naivety of the concept that consciousness is a thing.  The model that has consciousness as the attentional state corresponding to the the level of cross brain information integration in a neurobiological system fits with the evidence from medical practice and neuroscience.

[Sriram]

Well...I am glad that NS is able to see the possibility. That is all I am talking about.

With all the anecdotal evidence available for Consciousness being independent of the brain it would require a very fanatical adherence to materialism to dismiss the possibility outright.

I agree that establishing it as a fact would require more examination. But I am not making a scientific proposal. I am making a philosophical point which could certainly be taken as a hypothesis.

To clarify further....though we have nowadays started using the word 'Consciousness' as though it is an entity in itself (to replace Spirit, Soul etc), consciousness is actually a property of what I would call the Self (the subject).  Now, what the Self really is  no one can say (any more than we can say what the String really is).

The Self is an entity that has Consciousness as its prime property besides other properties of course. It is the Self that is trapped in the body in the OP cases.

[Gordon]

Well...I am glad that NS is able to see the possibility. That is all I am talking about.

With all the anecdotal evidence available for Consciousness being independent of the brain it would require a very fanatical adherence to materialism to dismiss the possibility outright.

Nope - it needs a testable hypothesis first since without that there is nothing to consider: anecdotes are insufficient since people are fallible.

I agree that establishing it as a fact would require more examination. But I am not making a scientific proposal. I am making a philosophical point which could certainly be taken as a hypothesis.

Not without a nod towards some sort of methodology - you need something more than personal conviction to demonstrate that consciousness is independent of our biology but somehow interacts with our biology.

To clarify further....though we have nowadays started using the word 'Consciousness' as though it is an entity in itself (to replace Spirit, Soul etc), consciousness is actually a property of what I would call the Self (the subject).  Now, what the Self really is  no one can say (any more than we can say what the String really is).

If this 'self' is external to our biology then you need to, as noted above, have a testable hypothesis to explain this. The comparison to string theory seems spurious since at string theory does involve hypotheses and is being investigated as an aspect or particle physics.

The Self is an entity that has Consciousness as its prime property besides other properties of course. It is the Self that is trapped in the body in the OP cases.

Might the 'self' be just how we experience our biology from a perspective that is within our biology?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - it needs a testable hypothesis first since without that there is nothing to consider: anecdotes are insufficient since people are fallible.

A whiff of logical positivism pervades the forum.

Which is worrying since it passed away several decades ago.

[Sriram]

Nope - it needs a testable hypothesis first since without that there is nothing to consider: anecdotes are insufficient since people are fallible.

Not without a nod towards some sort of methodology - you need something more than personal conviction to demonstrate that consciousness is independent of our biology but somehow interacts with our biology.

If this 'self' is external to our biology then you need to, as noted above, have a testable hypothesis to explain this. The comparison to string theory seems spurious since at string theory does involve hypotheses and is being investigated as an aspect or particle physics.

Might the 'self' be just how we experience our biology from a perspective that is within our biology?

We have to first accept it as a possibility before it can be examined further.  If the possibility is not accepted with all the evidence how can it even be considered for further research?

"Might the 'self' be just how we experience our biology from a perspective that is within our biology?".....what is the 'we'?

[Gordon]

We have to first accept it as a possibility before it can be examined further.  If the possibility is not accepted with all the evidence how can it even be considered for further research?

Nope - you need a hypothesis of some sort, from which you then formulate a method to investigate your hypothesis, and this is where evidence that is being sought is justified, defined and analysed, and where the approach to the analysis is also defined.

So before you can consider something as being apt for further investigation you need to be able to express it in the form of a coherent hypothesis, since if you can't do that then you don't have a basis to think your notion is 'possible' since you don't have a basis/method to investigate.

"Might the 'self' be just how we experience our biology from a perspective that is within our biology?".....what is the 'we'?

'We' - a collective term for people.

[torridon]

With all the anecdotal evidence available for Consciousness being independent of the brain it would require a very fanatical adherence to materialism to dismiss the possibility outright.

There isn't any evidence for consciousness being independent of the brain.  All there is, is anecdotal claims; claims are not evidence.  I could claim that the Moon is made of cheddar cheese; that does not qualify as evidence.

To clarify further....though we have nowadays started using the word 'Consciousness' as though it is an entity in itself (to replace Spirit, Soul etc), consciousness is actually a property of what I would call the Self (the subject).  Now, what the Self really is  no one can say (any more than we can say what the String really is).

The Self is an entity that has Consciousness as its prime property besides other properties of course. It is the Self that is trapped in the body in the OP cases.

Mostly woo.  I agree that many people misuse the word; if you search for consciousness of Youtube you probably get more hits that turn out to be flakey New Age woo than people talking about real consciousness as used in medical and scientific literature. 

I'd agree there is a close correspondence between the notion of self and consciousness; the two concepts are intimately linked; consciousness is inherently subjective, the self is the focal point of that subjectivity.  I'd disagree that the self is an entity, no evidence to support that, rather what the evidence suggests is that consciousness and self are aspects of the same phenomenology.  When consciousness is lost, the self goes too, both are processes of a brain processing information in peak waking state (normally).  If consciousness were something independent of brain function, that would render the brain largely redundant.

[ekim]

Suppose consciousness is a distinct 'thing' that permeates matter, then we should be able to isolate it and measure it. We all gain consciousness and lose it every day as we awake and go to sleep, so this 'thing' would be pretty ubiquitous, not hard to determine.

Perhaps it is formless and cannot be detected with measuring devices.  Perhaps in sleep the body just blocks the passage of consciousness in certain areas of the brain but it continues to function in other areas of the body so that physiological maintenance can take place more efficiently i.e. there is no gain nor loss just a redirection without intellectual interference.

A simplistic scenario involving the elimination of consciousness : when preparing you with a general anaesthetic before an operation, suppose the anaesthetist instead of injecting you, he pulls back his syringe and extracts consciousness from you.  He could then hold his syringe up to the light and inspect the consciousness in it, measuring your lack of consciousness by the volume of consciousness in his syringe.

If consciousness is formless and cannot be detected objectively then his syringe method is doomed to fail.

Of course that is not how it works and it serves to illustrate the naivety of the concept that consciousness is a thing.  The model that has consciousness as the attentional state corresponding to the the level of cross brain information integration in a neurobiological system fits with the evidence from medical practice and neuroscience.

That could be because neurobiology only works with neurons and other biological forms and has to base its models upon such forms and forces.  If consciousness is formless then neuroscience would probably reach a 'dead' end.

[Sriram]

Nope - you need a hypothesis of some sort, from which you then formulate a method to investigate your hypothesis, and this is where evidence that is being sought is justified, defined and analysed, and where the approach to the analysis is also defined.

So before you can consider something as being apt for further investigation you need to be able to express it in the form of a coherent hypothesis, since if you can't do that then you don't have a basis to think your notion is 'possible' since you don't have a basis/method to investigate.

'We' - a collective term for people.

What is the evidence for Parallel universes and what is the method of investigation?!

I meant that....what is that which experiences 'our biology from a perspective that is within our biology'?

[Gordon]

What is the evidence for Parallel universes and what is the method of investigation?!

I meant that....what is that which experiences 'our biology from a perspective that is within our biology'?

No idea: don't know enough about it. However, I'm sure the experts investigating will have some form of theory and related method. Since you raise it perhaps you should check it out.

I'm simply pointing out that so far as is known what we think on any issue involves and requires our biology: so no functioning brain = no thoughts or experiences.

[Udayana]

What is the evidence for Parallel universes and what is the method of investigation?!
...

There are quite a few different ideas on "parallel universes" some testable some not. The string theory based ones are being investigated by looking for "signatures" in the cosmic microwave background.

https://phys.org/news/2015-09-theory-parallel-universes-maths-science.html

Other testable multi-verse theories predict other effects: eg particular ranges for universal constants or the existence of elementary particles with particular characteristics. A scheme to investigate possibility of our universe being a simulation was suggested, based on investigating energy quantisation.

The thing is that it is not worth considering any parallel universe theory unless it has explanatory power - ie. can be used to explain observable events - in which case it will be falsifiable. The problem of your idea of a "self" independent of brain, body and the rest of the material world, is that you have defined it in a way which guarantees that it does not have any explanatory use and cannot be falsified.

[Sriram]

No idea: don't know enough about it. However, I'm sure the experts investigating will have some form of theory and related method. Since you raise it perhaps you should check it out.

I'm simply pointing out that so far as is known what we think on any issue involves and requires our biology: so no functioning brain = no thoughts or experiences.

My point is that without verifiable evidence and proper investigation if people can propose parallel universes and Strings then the Self being independent of the body can also be proposed as a possibility.

I agree that ' no brain...no experiences' . That is similar to ' no computer... No internet experience'.  That does not mean we as individuals don't exist independent of the computer.

[Gordon]

My point is that without verifiable evidence and proper investigation if people can propose parallel universes and Strings then the Self being independent of the body can also be proposed as a possibility.

Nope - I've no idea what the theories are around particle physics and I'm fairly sure experts in the field are formulating and testing any theories in a systematic manner and even then I suspect they would concede that they may be wrong. That they don't know for sure doesn't justify your notion that this 'independent Self' could then be possible - that is a non sequitur.

I agree that ' no brain...no experiences' . That is similar to ' no computer... No internet experience'.  That does not mean we as individuals don't exist independent of the computer.

Which is a straw man since nobody has argued that, even so that is a bad analogy since while people can function without a computer they can't without a brain.

[Shaker]

while people can function without a computer they can't without a brain.

You want to spend more time on 'Searching for God'

[Nearly Sane]

Well...I am glad that NS is able to see the possibility. That is all I am talking about.

With all the anecdotal evidence available for Consciousness being independent of the brain it would require a very fanatical adherence to materialism to dismiss the possibility outright.

I agree that establishing it as a fact would require more examination. But I am not making a scientific proposal. I am making a philosophical point which could certainly be taken as a hypothesis.

To clarify further....though we have nowadays started using the word 'Consciousness' as though it is an entity in itself (to replace Spirit, Soul etc), consciousness is actually a property of what I would call the Self (the subject).  Now, what the Self really is  no one can say (any more than we can say what the String really is)
The Self is an entity that has Consciousness as its prime property besides other properties of course. It is the Self that is trapped in the body in the OP cases.

I can see the possibility of alien abduction, fairies, and Arsenal winning the Premier League. I think you need to careful of the idea that anecdote is evidence and very careful of the idea that saying there is a 'lot' of it is at all useful. Again see the alien abduction idea, that there is lots of that doesn't add to it. It's all the same value as the one anecdote in the absence of testing.


As to the idea that you are talking philosophically rather than scientifically, your OP attempting to argue from some scientific findings, and argue in a way that is in specific opposition to the person you are reporting on, does not bear that out.

[Sriram]

Which is a straw man since nobody has argued that, even so that is a bad analogy since while people can function without a computer they can't without a brain.

The point is simple. In a world where we interact through computers, if the computer breaks down, we will not be able to interact...even though we continue to exist and are perfectly in a position to communicate albeit outside the computer world.   The breakdown of the computer does not mean we go out of existence.

It is similar with brains and the Self.  Any damage to the brain could affect our communication with others, but does not mean the Self goes out of existence.

The OP cases highlight how if the Self is given a means of communication through sophisticated technology, even in the absence of a fully functioning brain, it does manage to communicate.  Being 'trapped' in the body ...means just that.

[torridon]

I agree that establishing it as a fact would require more examination. But I am not making a scientific proposal. I am making a philosophical point which could certainly be taken as a hypothesis.

I think you are blurring the distinction between philosophy and science then. A hypothesis is a scientific proposal.

We all adopt philosophical attitudes, some see a glass half full, some see it half empty. When I am with my children I am a father, when I'm with my parents I am a child, with my boss, I'm an employee.  We are all adept at stepping into different personas and that is OK so long as they don't become entrenched or we end up on the road to a multiple personality disorder. It is healthy to recognise that we all have multiple aspects and they all spring from the one source, and so it is with the self, it is useful to think of our selves as something distinct from our bodies, but if you are going down the road of making a scientific hypothesis out of that, that they are ontologically distinct things, then that is going too far into fantasy land for my money; we need to keep our feet on the ground, recognise that ultimately I am one being that is the source of all my different aspects; there is not two me's, my mind is the subjective aspect of my brain; also with my dog, he is one dog, not two dogs with another one living inside, and that spider crawling across the carpet right now, that is one spider it is not two spiders.

[ekim]

I think you are blurring the distinction between philosophy and science then. A hypothesis is a scientific proposal.

We all adopt philosophical attitudes, some see a glass half full, some see it half empty. When I am with my children I am a father, when I'm with my parents I am a child, with my boss, I'm an employee.  We are all adept at stepping into different personas and that is OK so long as they don't become entrenched or we end up on the road to a multiple personality disorder. It is healthy to recognise that we all have multiple aspects and they all spring from the one source, and so it is with the self, it is useful to think of our selves as something distinct from our bodies, but if you are going down the road of making a scientific hypothesis out of that, that they are ontologically distinct things, then that is going too far into fantasy land for my money; we need to keep our feet on the ground, recognise that ultimately I am one being that is the source of all my different aspects; there is not two me's, my mind is the subjective aspect of my brain; also with my dog, he is one dog, not two dogs with another one living inside, and that spider crawling across the carpet right now, that is one spider it is not two spiders.

I think you are right about suggesting the difficulties arising from blurring the distinction between philosophy and science and I would add between both of those and religion.  As regards the multiple personalities we adopt as aspects of the one individual, I think Sriram is suggesting something beyond that i.e. that there is perhaps one consciousness which permeates you, your dog and the spider and all life forms including vegetation, which could have a bearing on the 'vegetative state' mentioned in the heading of this thread.  The vegetative state seems to suggest a living state but with a consciousness limited in its expression by damaged animal physiology.

[Sriram]

I think you are blurring the distinction between philosophy and science then. A hypothesis is a scientific proposal.

Of course!  The distinction is indeed blurred. Science is a subset of philosophy. Nothing more.  You are trying to make the distinction rigid and water tight, which is not only undesirable but also impossible.