What does "consciousness" mean

T Clark

It bothers me when people who start discussions don’t define their terms at the beginning of the thread. For that reason, a few weeks ago I started a discussion on the meaning of “mysticism.” I was really pleased with how it turned out. It helped me get a hand around how to use the concept. What I mostly think is that the word is so ambiguous I won’t use it at all if I can avoid it.
Which brings us to “consciousness” and associated terms. These include:

Consciousness
Self-consciousness
Awareness
Self-awareness
Sentience
Mind

In particular, I’m interested in talking about the capacity of humans and other animals to be aware of their own mental processes. I find myself being confused about which word to use when I try to describe it. Another related meaning is the part of our mind that directs our thought processes, perhaps speaks to us in words; perhaps is the seat of thought and reason. I want to talk about the “consciousness” people talk about when they discuss “The hard problem of consciousness.” To be clear, I don’t want to talk about the hard problem of consciousness except as needed to understand meanings.

Part of the problem is that the words in my list have other meanings. Examples:

When I wake from a coma, I become conscious
When I stop daydreaming, I become aware
When I feel shy and embarrassed, I am self-consciousness

I don’t mind discussing other meanings or shades of meaning, but generally only with the goal of addressing ambiguity.

Here are some definitions of the words I have listed above taken from various web sources:

Consciousness

The fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world
Sentience or awareness of internal and external existence
Everything you experience; the tune stuck in your head, the sweetness of chocolate mousse, the throbbing pain of a toothache, the fierce love for your child and the bitter knowledge that eventually all feelings will end
What it is like to be _?

Self-consciousness - This is a word I tend to use a lot, but I think I’ll stop now. Most of the definitions and synonyms relate to shyness or social anxiety. If it’s a word you like and want to use for this purpose, please speak up.

Awareness - This is word that generally refers to perceptions of the world as a whole rather than our own internal experience. I don’t think it belongs on the list. If you disagree, do it in writing here.

Self-awareness

Conscious knowledge of one's own character, feelings, motives, and desires.
An awareness of one's own personality or individuality
An awareness of our own values, passions, aspirations, fit with our environment, reactions (including thoughts, feelings, behaviors, strengths, and weaknesses), and impact on others.

Sentience

Feeling or sensation as distinguished from perception and thought
Sentience is the capacity to be aware of feelings and sensations
In modern Western philosophy, sentience is the ability to experience sensations (known in philosophy of mind as “qualia”). In the context of animal welfare, saying that animals are sentient means that they are able to feel pain.

Mind

The element of a person that enables them to be aware of the world and their experiences, to think, and to feel; the faculty of consciousness and thought
The element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons
The set of faculties including cognitive aspects such as consciousness, imagination, perception, thinking, intelligence, judgement, language and memory, as well as noncognitive aspects such as emotion and instinct.

One thing that jumps out is that these words are defined using other words on the list. It strikes me that none of these definitions may get to the heart of what so many of our discussions are about. If you see it that way, please say so, explain, and give your own definitions. I’ll add some more thoughts in my next post that I’m leaving out because I don’t want this one to be too long.

Anyway, let’s have at it. Again – I don’t want to discuss consciousness, I want to discuss “consciousness.”

Banno

↪T Clark

The best answer is to be found in a First Aid course.

Tom Storm

I want to talk about the “consciousness” people talk about when they discuss “The hard problem of consciousness.” T — T Clark

I think some call this phenomenal consciousness or 'what is it like to be consciousness' per Nagel/Chalmers.

T Clark

The best answer is to be found in a First Aid course. — Banno

At least read the post if you respond.

T Clark

I think some call this phenomenal consciousness or 'what is it like to be consciousness' per Nagel/Chalmers. — Tom Storm

I edited my post to include that as one of the definitions.

Jack Cummins

↪T Clark

I think that your definitions are fairly good, but I just wonder how the unconscious and subconscious fit into the picture, because consciousness is not a clear state, but a whole spectrum. It fades in and out during sleep, and can be altered, as occurs during intoxication. I am not really sure that I would clearly wish to come up with an overriding definition of consciousness, because it seems like trying to put it into a category. It seems larger than that, and even though human beings share many aspects of being conscious, we each have a unique stream of consciousness, because it is what our thoughts are composed from.

Tom Storm

↪T Clark

:up:

Wayfarer

It strikes me that none of these definitions may get to the heart of what so many of our discussions are about. If you see it that way, please say so, explain, and give your own definition — T Clark

It's a pretty good list, and very clear. A couple of comments - first, the more general a word is, the harder it is to define. Very specific words - hammer, orange, elephant, night-time - are very easy to define. Very general words - consciousness, love, meaning - are much harder to define, because they're polysemic, that is, they have different meanings in different contexts.

The other, related issue is the domain of discourse in which the words are being used. For example, if you study both psychology and philosophy at an undergrad level (which I did) you will find the conception of mind in 'philosophy of mind' (philosophy) and in 'theories of the unconscious' (psychology) may be very different. They will refer to different sources and explore the subjects from different perspectives. They have different background assumptions and different aims in mind.

The last point, is that I think much of the talk about 'consciousness' has seeped into Western discourse from Eastern sources. In mainstream Western culture before the 19th c there was hardly any awareness of the term. Part of it stems from psychology, which takes consciousness as a part of its curriculum. But I'm sure a lot of the philosophical palaver about consciousness came from, for example, Emerson and Thoreau, who were influenced by Asian mysticism, and the subsequent influx of those schools, especially into America since the late 19th c (e.g. by the World Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1880's, held in association with the World Fair.) And that means at least some of the discussion about consciousness is freighted with (often implicit) references to Asiatic (Hindu/Buddhist) cultural memes.

Banno

↪T Clark

I did.

180 Proof

I recently grasped (futilely) at this slippery fish with

awareness of self-awareness = consciousness — 180 Proof

which I unpack a bit more in that post – just follow the link. Works for me as a stipulative definition for the sake of discussion on these fora.

T Clark

I think that your definitions are fairly good, but I just wonder how the unconscious and subconscious fit into the picture, — Jack Cummins

Good point. I want to add some more about that in another post. I just didn't want my first one to be too long.

I am not really sure that I would clearly wish to come up with an overriding definition of consciousness, because it seems like trying to put it into a category. It seems larger than that, — Jack Cummins

I don't disagree, but my post was intended to address a particular need - What do we mean when we talk about the hard problem of consciousness? What do we mean when we talk about rocks being conscious? Actually, that's what inspired me to write about this. There was a discussion that included talk of inanimate objects being conscious. We talk about these things all the time and I'm never sure we're all talking about the same thing. Rather, at least sometimes, I'm sure we aren't all talking about the same thing.

T Clark

Very general words - consciousness, love, meaning - are much harder to define, because they're polysemic, that is, they have different meanings in different contexts. — Wayfarer

All of the words I listed have other meanings. I tried to pick the definitions I think are relevant to the kinds of discussions we have on the forum. It would be nice if the people starting those discussions would be clear about these kinds of issues. That's not likely to happen. I mostly started this post to clarify in my own mind what I mean when I use these words.

The other, related issue is the domain of discourse in which the words are being used. For example, if you study both psychology and philosophy at an undergrad level (which I did) you will find the conception of mind in 'philosophy of mind' (philosophy) and in 'theories of the unconscious' (psychology) may be very different. They will refer to different sources and explore the subjects from different perspectives. They have different background assumptions and different aims in mind. — Wayfarer

As I said, I at least want to come up with a meaning that applies to the "hard problem of consciousness" people talk about. Which domain do you see that as part of? Maybe that's part of the problem - the people doing the talking aren't clear on that themselves.

The last point, is that I think much of the talk about 'consciousness' has seeped into Western discourse from Eastern sources... And that means at least some of the discussion about consciousness is freighted with (often implicit) references to Asiatic (Hindu/Buddhist) cultural memes. — Wayfarer

What impact does the source of the meaning, e.g. western or eastern, have on the meanings I'm trying to get at here?

Wayfarer

I at least want to come up with a meaning that applies to the "hard problem of consciousness" people talk about. — T Clark

Are you familiar with the original paper, which is here http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

Perhaps it might be useful to talk in terms of what you do or don't agree with or understand about this paper, as that is the one that defined the problem.

What impact does the source of the meaning, e.g. western or eastern, have on the meanings I'm trying to get at here? — T Clark

In philosophy of mind, it has an impact in the forming of concepts of the nature of consciousness. That's because 'Eastern' types of philosophers, right up to Deepak Chopra, have a particular way of using the word.

T Clark

↪180 Proof

I hope you don't mind if I steal the text you linked from @Pantagruel's discussion.

How is degree of consciousness quantified?
— Pantagruel
I agree with Wayfarer, it's binary not "a matter of degree" like a dimmer. Why think this? I understand things this way:

• pre-awareness = attention (orientation)
• awareness = perception (experience)
• adaptivity = intelligence (optimizing heuristic error-correction)
• self-awareness = [Phenomenal-Self Modeling ~Metzinger]
• awareness of self-awareness = consciousness

Except for the last (sys. 2), every other cognitive modality (sys. 1 (aka "enabling blindspot for sys. 2")) is autonomic and continually manifests a non-zero degree of functioning (thus, quantifiable?); "consciousness", on the hand, is intermittent (i.e. flickering, alter-nating), or interrupted by variable moods, monotony, persistent high stressors, sleep / coma, drug & alcohol intoxication, psychotropics, brain trauma (e.g. PTSD) or psychosis, and so, therefore, is either online (1) or offline (0) frequently – even with variable frequency strongly correlated to different 'conscious-states' – each (baseline) waking-sleep cycle. — 180 Proof

Perhaps it might be useful to talk in terms of what you do or don't agree with or understand about this paper, as that is the one that defined the problem. — Wayfarer

I like this, but I'm not sure if I agree. Or at least I'm not sure this is what other people mean when they say "consciousness."

Quoting from @Pantagruel in that same discussion. I wish I had participated. Maybe I wouldn't need to have started this discussion at all.

Consciousness is a feature of an entity capable of manipulating its environment. And what determines the form and function of that entity? The successive and cumulative manipulations of its environment. An apparent circularity. — Pantagruel

I'm going to steal one of @Wayfarer's responses from that thread too:

Something is either conscius or it's not. Birds, bees, humans are conscious - unless they're not - but one is not 'more conscious' than the other. But I'm sure that birds are more intelligent than bees, and humans more than birds. — Wayfarer

Isn't that sentience?

T Clark

Are you familiar with the original paper, which is here — Wayfarer

I have read various discussions about it, but I haven't read this. I will.

T Clark

Headed for bed. I'll pick this up in the morning.

180 Proof

↪T Clark

:up:

TheMadFool

I don’t want to discuss consciousness, I want to discuss “consciousness.” — T Clark

A novel approach to the subject of mind. You threw me off with that sentence but I suppose it was meant to evoke a zen moment. @Banno should've caught on early, he's a diehard Wittgenstein fan.

If "consciousness", the word, is what the OP wants to analyze then this thread needs to be contextualized in re the so-called linguistic turn philosophy allegedly underwent some time ago in its past. All thanks to Wittgenstein? I'm not sure.

My own contribution for what it's worth is to provide a short etymological report:

The English word "conscious" originally derived from the Latin conscius (con- "together" and scio "to know"), but the Latin word did not have the same meaning as the English word—it meant "knowing with", in other words, "having joint or common knowledge with another" — Google

Now that we have some idea of the word's origins, the question that pops into my mind is, what would a linguist do next? Your guess is as good as mine.

If I may offer my two cents, the next step would be to analyze the pronunciation of "consciousness" which may involve the particular shape the mouth needs to assume, the movement and contact points of the tongue, the role of the nasal sinuses as echo chambers, etc.

How does all this contribute to understanding the word "consciousness"? For my money, it'll go towards providing insight into Latin and English as languages, one as the source and the other as a spin-off. In short, the OP isn't really about the word "consciousness", nor is it about consciousness, it's actually about language in general and Latin & English in particular. :joke:

Jack Cummins

↪T Clark

Actually, I think that your thread question is fantastic. I was not criticising it, but simply read it when waking up in the middle of the night, so my response may have seemed a bit grungy. The reason why I think your question is so good is that we use the word so often on this site, and I know that I have written threads including the word consciousness. While people are inclined to seek definitions, I am not sure that there are many discussions here about the specific meaning of the term consciousness.

I suppose that I am just see it as an area for exploration rather any restrictive definitions. I know that you say that you have 'a meat and potatoes' philosophy and, as we already discussed in my thread on transformation of consciousness, I have a different position. My own understanding of consciousness incorporates a possible collective unconscious as a source of consciousness, or of levels of consciousness as dimensions. But, I will stop here, because I am going into what is consciousness and I believe that you are looking more specifically at what we mean by the term consciousness, although it is linked because people probably use the word differently.

javra

Awareness - This is word that generally refers to perceptions of the world as a whole rather than our own internal experience. I don’t think it belongs on the list. If you disagree, do it in writing here. — T Clark

To me, "awareness" belongs in the list. I note that you’ve used “aware”/“awareness” in defining most of the other terms in the OP’s list. At least for some definitions.

For my part: If one knows oneself to be, for example, content, one knows this because one is aware of so being—i.e., due to an awareness of being content—and not due to perceptions of the world. I will add, nor due to perceptions of one own body (as one might perceive a stomachache): where there are sensory receptors whose data becomes interpreted by the aware being. To be clear, there are no known physiological sensory receptors for discerning the degree or presence of one’s own contentedness. Nevertheless, one is aware of being content when one so is. But it would be odd to say, "one perceives oneself being content".

Other examples can be offered alongside certain emotions and states of being. Awareness of value, of meaning, of concepts (i.e., generalized or abstracted ideas), and of the aesthetic come to mind. The same perceived item could hold different values, meanings, evoke different concepts, and hold different aesthetics to the same person at different times or, else, to different minds—despite being a perceptually identical item. And there are no know sensory receptors for discerning value, meaning, concepts, or beauty. Why one person discerns a sunrise as beautiful when another person doesn’t isn’t a direct product of perception—at least not when scientifically specified—though both will visually perceive an identical sunrise.

But (contentious as what I’ve so far written might be) back to the central point: My take so far is that all interpretations of “consciousness” will encompass awareness. This although certain notions of consciousness will specify only certain forms of awareness and therefore label other forms of awareness as not constituting consciousness proper. Many, for example, will believe that an ameba, despite being aware of its environment, is not conscious of its environment. (Then again, many will claim that great apes are not conscious either.)

So I’m curious, can anyone provide an instance where one is conscious of X without being aware of X?

bert1

Very good OP.

I think the natural language use and philosophical (as in 'hard problem') use (if there is such a distinction) intersect in, for example, the following reasonably natural exchange between two people at the beach:

Jack: I wonder what it would be like to be a seagull?
Jill: Fantastic, I would imagine. The feeling of swooping through the air, the effortless traversing of long distances. Pecking people, nicking chips. I'd love it.
Jack: I dunno, it might not feel like how you imagine at all. We're very different from seagulls. It's like trying to imagine what it's like to be a snail, we're just too different.
Jill: Maybe, but even though I can't imagine what it is like to be a snail, I reckon there is still something it is like to be a snail, even though I'm not sure what. I think they have nerves don't they?
Jack: Sure. Not like rocks though, there's nothing it's like to be a rock. No nerves or even cells, so they couldn't possibly have experiences.
Jill: Agreed, there's nothing it's like to be a rock. Although some philosophers think there is according to my friend bert1.

They are discussing, I think completely intelligibly, about whether there is something it is like to be x.

Equivalently, to my mind, we can talk about the kinds of things that have experiences, and the kinds of things that don't.

Equivalently, to be aware of something is to be experiencing something, is to be conscious of something.

'Feeling' can be used equivalently, to feel x is to be conscious of x. Even to 'know' something could be used in this way, although that's less common.

'Sentient' can be used this way. To be sentient is just to be conscious, to be capable of experience.

There are other ways these words can be used, but I think all of this language can be used to talk about consciousness in the phenomenal sense. (I personally think it is important to make a distinction between consciousness and consciousness-of-something, as it is, for me, in principle possible to be conscious without being conscious of something, even if that never actually obtains).

Dictionaries typically identify this usage among other usages. Although interestingly, not all do! I think the Cambridge online dictionary misses it out. For example (I have bolded the phenomenal sense intended by the OP):

Dictionary.com
noun
1) the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
2) the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people:
the moral consciousness of a nation.
3) full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life:
to regain consciousness after fainting.
4) awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge:
consciousness of wrongdoing.
5) concern, interest, or acute awareness:
class consciousness.
6) the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.

Banno only identifies one of these definitions (roughly no 3) and says it is 'the best' which is absurd. Dictionaries describe usage, it's a factual business not a normative one. Likewise this thread is concerned with facts of usage and meaning. People mean what they mean. Is Banno saying that people shouldn't use words in ways he doesn't like? That philosophers should stop talking about sense 1 completely? Or is he saying that sense 1 is really best thought of as sense 3? Or what?

Amity

The best answer is to be found in a First Aid course. — Banno

At first glance, this can look absurd.
However, a First Aid course involving people training people to look after people, it is a total picture of:

Consciousness
Self-consciousness
Awareness
Self-awareness
Sentience
Mind — T Clark

Think about it...

bert1

Think about it... — Amity

Ok, I just did. You seem to be suggesting that talk of consciousness outside of a this kind of medical sense makes no sense. So to wonder if, say, a tree or a rock is conscious is, by definition, meaningless. Is that right?

Amity

Ok, I just did. — bert1

Not long or hard enough.

bert1

↪Amity

OK, so please could you explain your point?

Amity

OK, so please could you explain your point? — bert1

I could.
And so could @Banno if he so desires...

Banno

So to wonder if, say, a tree or a rock is conscious is, by definition, meaningless. Is that right? — bert1

Not so much meaningless as wrong.

bert1

I could. — Amity

Shit or get off the pot.

bert1

Which is the best definition of 'rat'? To betray someone to the authorities as in 'to rat someone out'? Or small rodent?

The word has at least two senses, and neither is wrong.

Wayfarer

So to wonder if, say, a tree or a rock is conscious is, by definition, meaningless. Is that right? — bert1

‘How’s the patient?’ ‘Oh, he’s in a bad way, his bike went over a rock and he hit his head on a tree. He’s lost consciousness.’

‘Oh, too bad. How’s the rock? And the tree?’

bert1

How’s the rock? And the tree? — Wayfarer

Neither of them seem to know who the current Prime Minister is. It's not looking good.

What does "consciousness" mean

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions