• Belter
    89
    Consciousness can be defined as the individual ability "C" to differentiate if a given mental process "M" corresponds to reality M=R or just imagination M=I. Then, "M" is directly accessed by subject "S" (either we see something as actually is or we imagine it differently to reality, but we are thinking in the two cases, following the Cartesian argument). However, C (to know that M is actually mental or physical) is originated when M does not correspond to reality (M=I). Consciousness came us in the development when we think about fails in our predictions. Then we know that we have a mind which represents reality, but often does not fit that actually is. Then, we say that S is "conscious" or has the ability of be conscious. But this definition of "con-science" matches the basic definition of "science": that is, science fits the method of differentiating of fantasy and reality. Therefore, the "science of conscience" is not possible insofar the method and the object of knowledge are matching.
    In this sense, all that we can know about conscience is transcendental in a Kantian view (conditions of possibility). We can not say anything about conscience a posteriori, in the sense of empirically. All that we can know empirically either is about mind or about reality, but never about conscience.
    What do you think about it?
  • wellwisher
    163
    Part of what makes humans feel conscious, is we have two centers of consciousness. The main center is called the inner self. This center is similar to what animals have. It is the center of our natural instincts and human nature. The inner self is also the center of the unconscious mind.

    The second center, which is relatively new in terms of evolution; 10,000 year ago, and is unique to humans, is called the ego and it is the center of the conscious mind. Self awareness and consciousness, as normally defined and experienced by humans, is connected to the ego being able to differentiate itself from the inner self, with the two centers setting a contrast using the parts of the brain stem involved in arousal.

    As an analogy, say you were a good solider, who has been trained not to think on your own, but to blindly follow the orders from a commanding officer. This is like being one with instinct and the inner self. You go along, reacting to situations, without thinking. One day you get separated from your unit and find yourself in a unique situation where your training is no longer fully appropriate and your commanding officer is not around to give real time orders.

    You try to blindly follow your training, like a good solider, but it was not fully designed for this situation. You still need to survive and return to your unit, so you need to improvise. However, since you have always been a good programed to react robot, this is very awkward. You find yourself shifting you mind between your programmed training and your own attempts to improvise, which are falling short due to lack of practice.

    There are two states of arousal, occurring side by side, like two sine waves out of phase, but which overlap and separate cyclically as the time goes on. I think, therefore I am, is one of these two sine waves, with its arousal slightly out of phase with the inner self. The inner self is much faster since it uses the main frame parts of the brain; trained to react.

    As an experiment, to investigate the inner self, have someone jump out from behind a door to scare you, when you are not prepared. Then may have to buy their time. When they finally catch you off guard, you may jump and may even scream like a little girl. This can be embarrassing because the inner self will act before the ego can react, so the ego may not have enough time to maintain its willful mask of being in control. This will create a phase difference in arousal between the two centers, from which you will feel more aroused and even conflict that you may prefer.

    The traditional metaphysical explanation is close to this awareness in the sense it assumes two separate things; body and soul. These two separated things are analogous to inner self and ego, with the ego=soul, more unique, and the inner self=body more generic; human nature. The ancient people did not have the science to define consciousness in a material way, but they were able to self observe the phase difference and understand there were two things going on.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.