Consciousness as Memory Access
Is consciousness nothing more than a particular method of memory access?
Couldn't being conscious of any particular thing, simply be accessing memory of the concept of function?
This is a theory I've had for awhile, and after considering various aspects of "consciousness", have yet to come up with counter-evidence or reasoning. Perhaps this theory is similar to other current theories, as I haven't read up much at all.
But I'm interested in others perspectives and feedback on this theory, and reasoning or evidence you can think of, which suggests this theory is incorrect or correct.
Note: The 1st paragraph is a bit of a summary if you dont want to read so much. or ask, & I can post a link to quite a bit more detail, if you want to read more.
Conscious Comprehension:
Consciousness is basically a process of memory access. To be conscious of any given concept, is to access memory data of that concept, simultaneously to accessing data of the interaction of factors involved in the concept. General consciousness is accessing memory of the concept of; the existence and function of the individual itself.
Different aspects of consciousness might be: conscious perception, conscious awareness, self-consciousness, and conscious thought.
“Conscious perception” could be considered to be conscious of any given particular factor. Simultaneous memory access is what allows a “conscious” perception of the factor, and the relevance and implications of the factor’s existence. The noted factor, can be a variety of things, including objects, groups or categories of objects, concepts, or at the most basic and generic level, datum. The minimum required information for consciousness, would be information data labelled however it may be, with the factor being 1 unit of data, and the interaction being how that datum reacts with another unit of data.
“Self-consciousness” could be considered, an individual being conscious of themself. The factor of which they are accessing within memory data, would be themself (and whatever they perceive themself to consist of, as saved in their memory data). The interaction of the factor (themself) would be the causes and effects of the existence of themselves, and how their existence relates to their surroundings (or whichever perception they have saved in memory data, of the settings regarding their presence).
“Conscious awareness” could be considered, being continuously conscious of a concept. One difference of definition from “perception”, could be the requirement of continuous simultaneous memory access. As long as the individual sustains memory access to the factor and interaction of that factor, for a minimal period, the ongoing memory access could be considered awareness. Awareness could perhaps be of any given concept, but the most general intention of the term, is likely that of: the individual being consciously aware of the concept that they are capable of using thought, and that they are using it at the present time.
“Conscious thought” could be considered the process of continuous memory access, and the circulation through saved memory data. Circulation through memory data is done by using the conscious process of simultaneous data access of any factor and the interaction of that factor, combined with sustained memory access, and a method to access an alternate factor within the overall memory data. A trigger method is required to allow differing factors to be accessed, and to guide which new factor within the memory, is accessed. The trigger method is the match or resemblance of one factor to another. With enough memory data, any factor or resemblance of the factor would be found multiple times, and as sustained memory access occurs, a differing factor or interaction of the same factor can be sequentially accessed. With humans, the factors are often distinguished by words which are saved as memory data, which resemble different pieces of memory data which was input to the brain via senses.
For a memory system to be capable of effectively being conscious of new general data, it needs to have a function of perceiving the interaction of any factors of data it receives (so that its able to access the data of the factor as well as its interaction). To perceive the interaction of general data, the memory system need to be able to match any factor, to different accounts of that factors interaction with other factors. With a massive amount of received data (such as humans receive, typically), it could take excessive time to sort through all matches of a factor and perceive its interaction, and to determine the next factor to be accessed. Feedback triggers can be added, to regard certain factors, or sub-constructs of factors, or their interaction, as useful or not. This groups data, saving time.
Humans have developed a conscious thought method, capable of processing general data which is input to the brain's memory system. The general data is received by the senses, and often saved with a feedback trigger which indicates relevance of that information data. Humans feedback triggers were developed to regard different sensory memories of encounters with their environment, to be helpful or harmful to their survival.
All that being said, what are the benefits of the comprehension and understanding of the methods of consciousness?
By analysing consciousness, the methods of intellectual distinguishment of factors, and the interaction and reaction of factors within a concept, can be determined. Consciousness and therein intelligence, could be significantly beneficial, if understood and potentially more effectively utilised. Once the process of: comprehension of factors within a concept, is understood, the process can be applied to all concepts and factors encountered throughout life. The effective process can be applied to any problem, to then cause the most preferable outcome, by more accurately adjusting factors (as the cause and effect of which is comprehended and saved as memory), and resolve problems.
Understanding the process of consciousness is potentially, understanding the root of human thought and intelligence. Just like the process of consciousness itself, if it can be comprehended, then the cause and effect of the concept can be applied more effectively to more appropriate circumstances. Considering it is the method of virtually all interactions of us as humans, and the potential method of which any decision is made by an individual capable of conscious thought, this could be the most relevant, beneficial, and widely applicable concept to ever be understood!
Conclusionarily, conceivably, the constructs of consciousness consist of comprehension of concepts, carrying combinations of code, critical to creating corresponding circulation. The code is memory data of virtually anything we encounter and save as information, using our senses. The circulation is memories triggering memories of resemblance.
By use of these concepts of consciousness, virtually any information can be comprehended, even the concepts of consciousness...
Couldn't being conscious of any particular thing, simply be accessing memory of the concept of function?
This is a theory I've had for awhile, and after considering various aspects of "consciousness", have yet to come up with counter-evidence or reasoning. Perhaps this theory is similar to other current theories, as I haven't read up much at all.
But I'm interested in others perspectives and feedback on this theory, and reasoning or evidence you can think of, which suggests this theory is incorrect or correct.
Note: The 1st paragraph is a bit of a summary if you dont want to read so much. or ask, & I can post a link to quite a bit more detail, if you want to read more.
Conscious Comprehension:
Consciousness is basically a process of memory access. To be conscious of any given concept, is to access memory data of that concept, simultaneously to accessing data of the interaction of factors involved in the concept. General consciousness is accessing memory of the concept of; the existence and function of the individual itself.
Different aspects of consciousness might be: conscious perception, conscious awareness, self-consciousness, and conscious thought.
“Conscious perception” could be considered to be conscious of any given particular factor. Simultaneous memory access is what allows a “conscious” perception of the factor, and the relevance and implications of the factor’s existence. The noted factor, can be a variety of things, including objects, groups or categories of objects, concepts, or at the most basic and generic level, datum. The minimum required information for consciousness, would be information data labelled however it may be, with the factor being 1 unit of data, and the interaction being how that datum reacts with another unit of data.
“Self-consciousness” could be considered, an individual being conscious of themself. The factor of which they are accessing within memory data, would be themself (and whatever they perceive themself to consist of, as saved in their memory data). The interaction of the factor (themself) would be the causes and effects of the existence of themselves, and how their existence relates to their surroundings (or whichever perception they have saved in memory data, of the settings regarding their presence).
“Conscious awareness” could be considered, being continuously conscious of a concept. One difference of definition from “perception”, could be the requirement of continuous simultaneous memory access. As long as the individual sustains memory access to the factor and interaction of that factor, for a minimal period, the ongoing memory access could be considered awareness. Awareness could perhaps be of any given concept, but the most general intention of the term, is likely that of: the individual being consciously aware of the concept that they are capable of using thought, and that they are using it at the present time.
“Conscious thought” could be considered the process of continuous memory access, and the circulation through saved memory data. Circulation through memory data is done by using the conscious process of simultaneous data access of any factor and the interaction of that factor, combined with sustained memory access, and a method to access an alternate factor within the overall memory data. A trigger method is required to allow differing factors to be accessed, and to guide which new factor within the memory, is accessed. The trigger method is the match or resemblance of one factor to another. With enough memory data, any factor or resemblance of the factor would be found multiple times, and as sustained memory access occurs, a differing factor or interaction of the same factor can be sequentially accessed. With humans, the factors are often distinguished by words which are saved as memory data, which resemble different pieces of memory data which was input to the brain via senses.
For a memory system to be capable of effectively being conscious of new general data, it needs to have a function of perceiving the interaction of any factors of data it receives (so that its able to access the data of the factor as well as its interaction). To perceive the interaction of general data, the memory system need to be able to match any factor, to different accounts of that factors interaction with other factors. With a massive amount of received data (such as humans receive, typically), it could take excessive time to sort through all matches of a factor and perceive its interaction, and to determine the next factor to be accessed. Feedback triggers can be added, to regard certain factors, or sub-constructs of factors, or their interaction, as useful or not. This groups data, saving time.
Humans have developed a conscious thought method, capable of processing general data which is input to the brain's memory system. The general data is received by the senses, and often saved with a feedback trigger which indicates relevance of that information data. Humans feedback triggers were developed to regard different sensory memories of encounters with their environment, to be helpful or harmful to their survival.
All that being said, what are the benefits of the comprehension and understanding of the methods of consciousness?
By analysing consciousness, the methods of intellectual distinguishment of factors, and the interaction and reaction of factors within a concept, can be determined. Consciousness and therein intelligence, could be significantly beneficial, if understood and potentially more effectively utilised. Once the process of: comprehension of factors within a concept, is understood, the process can be applied to all concepts and factors encountered throughout life. The effective process can be applied to any problem, to then cause the most preferable outcome, by more accurately adjusting factors (as the cause and effect of which is comprehended and saved as memory), and resolve problems.
Understanding the process of consciousness is potentially, understanding the root of human thought and intelligence. Just like the process of consciousness itself, if it can be comprehended, then the cause and effect of the concept can be applied more effectively to more appropriate circumstances. Considering it is the method of virtually all interactions of us as humans, and the potential method of which any decision is made by an individual capable of conscious thought, this could be the most relevant, beneficial, and widely applicable concept to ever be understood!
Conclusionarily, conceivably, the constructs of consciousness consist of comprehension of concepts, carrying combinations of code, critical to creating corresponding circulation. The code is memory data of virtually anything we encounter and save as information, using our senses. The circulation is memories triggering memories of resemblance.
By use of these concepts of consciousness, virtually any information can be comprehended, even the concepts of consciousness...
Comments (49)
Information doesn't comprehend. Mind comprehends information and uses it to create. But yes, information is closely associated with memory. It seems to be equivalent.
But what is mind if not the is-ness or presence of creatively evolving information? What, in other words, is the mind apart from its contents? We might say that reality is self-organizing, creative information. Of course the word 'mind' remains essential in everyday discourse, so this is an indulgently metaphysical thesis. We might say that temporarily thinking of reality as self-organizing information could be useful/enjoyable. In this frame, 'information' is neither mental nor physical. It is the primary stuff that sorts itself into mental and physical bins for practical purposes. It would be the 'word' in the beginning, without which nothing else is possible. I'm touching on some like this in the thread I started on undefined but distinct symbols at the root of mathematical objectivity.
I agree. Mind and memory are one and cohesive.
Also being exposed by modern deep layered neural networks, we see that there are different mechanisms of learning. Back-propagation techniques allow for neural networks to rearrange and balance themselves out over many iterations of training, but when not learning, these networks of neurons act as nothing more than a very complex transformation matrix. Data comes in, gets transformed, and the output is the reaction.
This physical transformation matrix, made up of neurons, represents a memory of what has been learned. The physical arrangement of switches, weights, and activation all are forms of learned memories; they are not really re-callable memories though, rather hard-wired reactive memories that perform a task. You can perhaps visualize the hardwired network by poking it and seeing what output is generated. Entering the word cat might result in a picture of a cat, for example.
When we look at more modern machine learning techniques, like long-short-term-memory neural networks, more temporal forms of memory are added to the system that allow inputs to be connected over time. Sentence structure, sentiment analysis, and predictions become possible. The system becomes more than just an instinctive reflex and even someone in deep sleep is capable of a reflex.
As we learn more about neural networks, it seems we are learning more about ourselves. Regarding this conversation, my belief is that consciousness is an outcome of neurons just doing their job and the resulting arrangement of it all. The arrangement of these neurons can be represented with just data, the behavior of each neuron can be represented with just data, and the state of current dynamic memory is stored in some physical but ever fleeting way. The system needs to spin though to keep processing the input information, so energy is needed to keep the neurons reacting as programmed in the network that they have been arranged.
Consciousness is then simply some abstract consolidation of the different outputs and inputs, perceived as one thought. It is a meshed loop of outputs feeding into inputs, chained together in a way that is unaware of how fragmented it all is in relation to actual time and space. As the components of each system flow from cluster of neurons to cluster or neurons, perhaps simultaneously at times, the illusion of a singular time line and singular consciousness is established. ie, The right side of the brain may not actually know what the left side is doing, yet we still feel we perceive ourselves having one consciousness.
One curious question though is, what happens when you take away the inputs to such a system and replace it with something unnaturally void? Systems without inputs start to produce some really weird results from my own experiments with neural networks. I suppose phantom limbs and sensory deprivation tanks are possible places of answers.
There is nothing abstract about it. It is the most concrete aspect of our existence. Your consciousness dreamed up and created your post. Embrace it for its creativity.
It's possible I used the wrong word, but I think I still stand by the choice in word.
From the outside looking in, a virtual robot to us appears to not have a conscious. We go so far as to argue that pets and animals do not have conscious either, yet we generally assume that a mentally handicapped person has a consciousness, because we assume they are like us.
I am able these days to program a neural network to dream or to create a post, perhaps even more logical and meaningful than your own. A machine passing the Turing test is no longer an impossibility. That does not prove to me that it or even you has a conscious. From the outside physical world looking in, your consciousness to me is nothing more than a bunch of neurons pulsing away. This is why I use the word "abstract".
This term, consciousness, represents an idea we claim to have, but an idea does not mean we are truly conscious. Having an idea does not imply consciousness, does it? My cat has lots of clever ideas, like the idea of pissing on my pillow when I went on vacation for a week.
Without a doubt, it will be one day be possible to upload a physical snapshot of our brains to a computer and run it. We will be able to run our thoughts backwards in time, and yet we will still perceive ourselves and time as moving forward. We can run our digital brains across millions of computers, in fragments, perhaps even run part of it from the moon and the other part here, and yet we will still perceive things as singular. Cutting away at this digital brain, how much is needed before we then qualify the system as no longer conscious?
I've never viewed a robot in such a way. I can't imagine how can computer can be confused with any sort of life.Quoting Sydasis
Only in the eyes of the programmer who did the programming. The programmer is the human who created the computer program. It's terribly easy to tell the difference.
I'll give you a clue. Consciousness is that which is creating all those programs.
Hi, and welcome to TPF
I think we learn to become self conscious by means of differentiation. Early on infants identify with their care givers and they do not consider them separate entities, but eventually in following others actions, and constructing theories on why things are occur as they do, children learn that care givers are acting purposely, causally and in this manner they learn that they are not their care givers. In making this distinction the child learns its own agency, its ability to act self consciously, to change and not be able to change things according to its desires.
We are building systems that think; every day we make progress in duplicating our capabilities and more. I have no doubt we will one day be able to create synthetic awareness that we will struggle to differentiate from our own. if that makes us gods, so be it.
Perhaps the modern theory that we live in a virtual universe is itself true too, where we are the created, and as such, by your definition, we would then not be conscious. Even for a creationist, if we were created, the only one with a conscious should then be the creator themself.
interesting.
Are other creatures capable of learning conscious in the same way then? Or is there something more to humans that allow us to have that capability. I like to believe while my cat may not have the language to define himself as an individual, I believe he is quite conscious of some things. For example, he is quite clever, and if being clever requires conscious thought, than `nuf said.
In regards to identity or awareness as a concept, it does indeed seem that one may need to first learn that there is a the difference between them and others, before the next step is taken to be conscious of ones own agency, or along the lines as you so put.
Yes, I agree the mind comprehends info, and I think that's how I have it worded, as in this sentence: "virtually any information can be comprehended", it is implied that the mind is that which comprehends the info.
Quoting Sydasis
I think that makes sense, that it could all be represented by data. Do you think that would mean the data could be generated in a computer to simulate consciousness, without imitating the infrastructure of a brain? Perhaps a mimic of consciousness could be computed with only code. Though I suspect it would take a lot of code.
Quoting Sydasis
Would that be basically the method of function for one memory to trigger another related memory, and at times circle back and trigger the same memory?
Quoting Sydasis
That sounds like nearly the function of consciousness as I believe it. If the neurons in the clusters are accessing memories relative and relevant to each other, including memories of concepts and the function of factors within the concepts, then the mind perceives consciousness of those concepts.
Quoting Sydasis
You get dreams, perhaps. Sleeping is a lack of sensory and memory input, and without active stimulation for memories, the brain defaults to memories which have most recently been accessed. Although, I suppose by "system", you may have been referring to conscious data system? Where dreams are subconscious, but then again, your neural networks you mentioned, are quite likely also not conscious. Maybe the weird results you've found, are similar in some way to dreams?
Quoting Sydasis
I disagree. I think the idea which is represented by the term "consciousness" does in fact imply consciousness. Since the only definition and intended meaning by the term "consciousness", is that idea. The only thing that the term really refers to is that idea, which we have of what it means.
Your cat may be a clever one for pissing on your pillow, ha ha, but the idea of a cat, functions differently or to a significantly differing degree, than the idea we have of consciousness.
Quoting Sydasis
very interesting point. Reminds me of something I have been wondering; what is the degree of connection required, between the differing data units which are being accessed, for the system to remain 1 overall memory system? would the minimum required connection be an electrical current perhaps?
Quoting Sydasis
I would say, once you cut away enough that the system can no longer simultaneously access memory data of any unit of the data, and memory of the reaction of that datum (in any circumstances). Though, that is my most basic estimate of parameters required to be conscious of only 1 piece of information. The more generalized term of being conscious, requires memory access to specific concepts, of the existence of the memory system itself, I think.
absolutely. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_uploading
I think the required data is a minimum of 20-petabytes (assuming just the addresses of the connected neurons, the synapse type and the synapse "weight" for each of the brains' 10^15 synapses), which seems feasible with high resolution MRI scanners. Last I heard, it takes 40 hours of supercompute cycles to simulate a minute of brain activity. I'd like to have my brain scanned on my death bed if possible, even if it meant freezing my brain to allow for an accurate scan.
Perhaps. Our brain is a complex map of layers of structures and neurons, and many of these systems I suspect have feedback loops. In machine learning, a recursive neural network is what your describing and I have little doubt our brain makes use of these.
In computers, looping data from the output of a transistor, into the input of the transistor, is a way to keep it in memory. It wouldn't surprise me if those systems existed in us too, especially when talking about something like short-term working memories -- don't know tho
I suppose my main point is that although we see the world as a singular, the "now", our current thoughts are a mix of past, present, and even future, being processed across more than just one space in our heads. There is probably a small spot of the deep brain that really brings the sensors all together, but it would still be a complex system that relies on all its inputs and even outputs.
I wasn't even thinking of dreams, but I believe you may be largely correct. I was thinking of being awake, conscious, and when i explored "sensory deprivation" systems, it seems people lose track of time and their own sansity in quick order.
I get my own semantics on this issue confused at times. Self awareness, consciousness, and the ability for active thought. I don't know
I don't know. One aspect might be latency, as lets say we add enough latency to each fragment of the brain so that the time difference of each data chunk is noticeable. For example, you may see your hand moving before you told it to move, and only moments later then realize why you are moving it; that might introduce the awareness of fractured time to the conscious. Our nerve impulses move very quickly at times, fast enough that we aren't aware of the delay.
In a real world example of added latency, If I put my hand on the stove, my hand is moved quickly, perhaps even before I realize it has moved. I realize it after, but I don't seem to notice that I moved my hand before I was made conscious that I wanted to move it. It's a weak example, as it requires little thought to have such a reflex, but it illustrates my point somewhat I hope.
You might enjoy neuroscientist Sarah Woolley, PhD Columbia University's Zuckerman Institute
fascinating discussion about song bird learning.
https://youtu.be/4gnACxmMD2g
I think that this is fundamentally what the process is that gives us that feeling of consciousness, yes. But not just that, also continuous sensory input too, not just internal access of brain states.
This, however, is not a full explanation since a computer can also have inputs and also access memory.
I do no think the computer has feelings, of consciousness or anything else for that matter.
Thanks, glad to have found this.
Interesting that infants don't identify as a separate entity, but I would think that is because they are incapable of identifying or perceiving anything at all, with a lack brain function to comprehend concepts as complex as that. I would think that the differentiation as an individual, is not so much the means to self-consciousness, but more a requirement of the definition. I would think the means are whatever causes the perceived differentiation of self and other.
Quoting Sydasis
I believe the difference between animals and humans is basically the ease of access of memories. Animals using subconscious reaction, access much fewer memories based on sensory input. With humans ability to access memories easier, we can then access memories of cause and effect of any given factor. So basically, whatever function (quantity of neorons or synapse connection?) in the brain causes our ease of increased memory access, is what I believe makes the difference.
Quoting Sydasis
Wow, pretty intense. I would assume that is equivalent to a human brain which has average activity while conscious. But, I wonder if a much smaller portion of human brain activity could be replicated, such as an instant freeze frame of someones brain activity. Or a single memory, though i'd assume we dont know the human brain well enough to calculate which parts of the brain relate to which memories.
Quoting Sydasis
I can understand that. Considering consciousness is ill explained or commonly understood, this makes the definition very vague, causing a much higher degree of variation of anyone's perspective of what the term means.
Quoting Sydasis
Interesting, but wouldnt that be a result of instinct bypassing consciousness? I imagine instinct as preset triggers built in to the individual, which cause X reaction to Y sensory input. In the eg of touching something hot, X= move hand away to Y= pain, which is preset triggers built in to virtually any human. I suspect this is what causes the latency, since instinct would react faster than consciousness (being the slowest brain activity). So, I think preset reaction triggers bypassing consciousness might be the only way that latency would occur.
Quoting charleton
Why do you assume continuous sensory input is required? I think any human could still be conscious for some time (even if minimal), with complete sensory deprival. As long as they are still accessing memories of concepts involved in their own existence relative to their surrounding.
Quoting charleton
I think the difference is that computers do not access memories of factors simultaneously to the interaction of that factor. I guess my theory is that it would be relatively easy to make a computer conscious of any given factor. But to be generally conscious of its own relative existence, would be a bit more complex...
What a wretched existence. Imagine a child born without any sensation. What would they be conscious or? Nothing. Their brain would never form from the blob that nature gave them. All that we are is structured by our experience. Without any sensation we would have nothing; nothing to think about, nothing to react to; nothing to be conscious of.
Were we to chose to go into a sensory deprivation chamber we are still have the sensation of breathing, and heart beat. We have proprioperception, hunger, and a range of other senses way beyond the classical Big Five.
What do you mean.?
I think I agree that a child born with no senses, would not be conscious. So sensory input is required at some point, to provide information for the brain to be conscious of. But, my point was that, "continuous" input is not required. It may be difficult to prove, but based on the prospect that we can be conscious by function of mental processes, using only memories which were created by senses that we do not have active input from at the time of being conscious.
Quoting charleton
True, but it seems likely those additional senses don't play a role in causing the person to be consciously aware in their mind, of their existence relative to the world. Someone in sensory deprivation could still access -to some degree- many memories which were recorded by the main senses, which are at the time deprived. Therefore, they are using past sensory input to be conscious, without current or continuous sensory input.
Quoting charleton
By "factor", I mean basically any information, whether 1 unit, or a constructed compound of information. Basically a very generalized term for anything which a person or computer can have saved as memory.
By "interaction of that factor", I mean the relative cause and effect of that factor.
This is how I describe the most basic form of the concept of being "conscious".
So, to be conscious of any given factor, the memory system just needs to access memory of the factor, simultaneously to accessing memory of the cause and effect of that factor. This, I believe computers do not do typically.
Without senses, the child would not be alive.
Sensing and mind is synonymous. No sense, then unconscious. Sometimes the mind does wakes up and begins to be sense again. Sometimes not.
You have no warrant to conclude this. Since and existence with no sensation is impossible, sensory input is an indelible part of consciousness.
It is, however possible to live with a complete lack of any memory. In rare cases of profound amnesia, consciousness persists with no reference to memories, patients living in the eternal present, conscious but utterly confused living moment by moment.
That (plus the rest of the sentence) is only a theoretical conclusion warranted by rational interpretation of observations, stated for the potential of counter-evidence.
Quoting charleton
How is this counter evidence to what you quoted ("to be conscious of any given factor, the memory system just needs to access memory of the factor")? Are you saying that, since sensory input is required for consciousness, then sensory input must also be part of the definition of being conscious?
If so, I disagree, since only the information involved should be required to be conscious. Yes, humans use the method of sensory input to receive the information, but that doesn't mean senses are the only possible method for gaining information. Information could potentially be directly downloaded (such as with a computer).
Quoting charleton
Interesting, and this would be counter-evidence to consciousness being memory access, but I doubt the amnesia is a complete lack of memories. I suspect they still have long term memories from before the amnesia started, which allows all the requirements of memory data. If they did not have memories of language -they could not speak, or if no memories of what any object (clothing, door, utensils etc.) is -they would not know how to use it. If they had a complete lack of any memory, they would be in a continuous infant-like mental state.
Generally amnesia is partial. Not in all cases. And there are all to many cases where the loss is profound. Nonetheless, pretending that consciousness is nothing more than memory access is absurd.
Theoretically, if you kept this child alive via intravenous, consciousness would likely still arise, though it would remain completely empty. When awake, I think there would be some sort of awareness of existence, kind of like the state of 'empty mind' one achieves when meditating.
As for memory, certainly some form of memory is required for a human being to properly function, but even if you removed all forms of memory, you would still have a consciousness capable of observing sensory input, even though the ability to interpret it may be lacking.
No, consciousness is about having ability to experience.
Ok, but why? Part of the point I posted this, is to get feedback of reasoning or supporting evidence that I'm incorrect, as I haven't come up with much for counter-evidence so far. I explained reasoning that it could make sense, so you can say its absurd, but by what reasoning is it absurd?
Quoting CasKev
I would not consider that state, to fit the common meaning of the term consciousness. True, it would have the capability of having consciousness, but without information for the brain, there's nothing to be aware of. Perhaps similar to a state of meditation and empty-mindedness (though, I think there would still be subconscious brain activity), or in a deep dreamless sleep, I think I would not consider those states to be conscious states.
What is experience, other than memories?
Since you have not supported this with any evidence whatever, its a bit rich trying to pretend that the arguments that have been offered to you already are unreasonable.
Your suggestion is prima facie absurd since there are no memories without the sense experience to collect them in the first place. A foetus can have no memories, and can only begin to form them by the active sensation of the world in which it thrives.
Consciousness must precede memory.
The evidence is the rationality of the explanation and the function of the process. Quite a bit of explanation, and I could post a link to a lot more if preferred.
Quoting charleton
I was addressing your comment of, "Nonetheless..." which seems to insinuate; regardless of the previous reasoning.
But, if including your previous argument, I wouldn't necessarily say it is unreasonable, but I gave reasoning why it would rationally not be a valid argument. As I mentioned, amnesia patients wouldn't be reason against consciousness being a function of memory access. It seems pretty logical that any amnesia patient would have to have some memories to be able to operate as a conscious human. If they are truly void of any memories, they would have no ability to comprehend anything whatsoever, which would fall well short of the definition of consciousness.
Quoting charleton
The method of obtaining memories is irrelevant, if there is a process which causes consciousness, that involves the use of the memories -without use of the method of receiving them. Just because there is a certain process which occurs prior to another process, doesn't disprove the following process.
True, sensory input seems to be the only method humans obtain memories, but that doesn't mean that particular function of obtaining memories, is required for consciousness. It is possible that input function is required for consciousness, but an alternate possibility doesn't disprove the other.
The only way I see that your example could prove consciousness precedes memory, is if a fetus has consciousness, before it acquires memories. Considering consciousness is a state of awareness and comprehension, it seems quite unlikely that a fetus has consciousness.
In other words you have no evidence.
Quoting Tyler
How convenient for you!!! LOL
With a lack of rational comprehension by the one interpreting it, then no evidence.
Quoting charleton
Yes, proving you wrong is convenient, thanks.
The psyche is the psyche (according to gestalt psychology anyway). Its not really divisible into it's supposed subcomponents since it forms a unified whole. As such, it's made up of a constant awareness of my body, both in a physical and spatial (relative to my direct environment) sense, my perceptual field and my inner world of thoughts and emotions. But these aren't really divided. All are constants in my awareness. I can focus, causing certain phenomena to become highlighted, but this doesn't mean that the rest isn't there. This is actually somewhat of a problem when trying to describe the mind, since it's easy to lose sight of this issue when trying to describe the mind with words.
Anyway... Memory access. Well, lets discuss some of the various identified memory systems first.
-Iconic memory
A sensory memory buffer, active in our visual field; it's what causes what's called persistence of vision. Another thing it does: When we perceive a scene, we do so in short 200 millisecond bursts called saccades. Iconic memory allows us to piece together a singular scene out of these partial snapshots.
-Echoic memory
Similar to iconic memory in that it's a sensory memory buffer. This one pertains to hearing.
-Working memory
Or short term memory. It's the workbench of memory systems, the one able to retain chunks of information for a limited amount of time. It's also the place where things are transferred to long term memory.
-Episodic memory
What people usually think about when talking about memories; the one that pertains to time and space.
-Semantic memory
Information storage basically.
-Implicit memory
Storage of tacit knowledge. This one is responsible for learning social behavior according to script theory.
-Procedural memory
Pertains to learning tasks.
OK. Going back to your original question. "Is consciousness nothing more than a particular method of memory access?" Well, no. The various memory systems play a fundamental part in our mental faculties, but aren't the sole bearers of cognition. The mind isn't just a passive operator. Directing our attention is a fundamental part of our consciousness (through figure-ground in sensory perception and through modulation of consciousness thresholds when it comes to the other phenomenological regions). As such, our own agency plays an equally important part in how we see and interact with the world.
Note that I distinguish between the psyche, the mind and consciousness. When I talk about the psyche, I'm talking about the whole form, the entire gestalt. I define mind as being the realm where phenomena present themselves to consciousness and consciousness as the acting agent in the center. But like I said earlier, there's no real divide imho (told you, it would get muddy).
> I think I understand what you mean, that all the components are combined and constantly a part of the entire structure. But I dont think that means the parts can't be divisible, since as long as there is a constant distinguishable function, shared between certain components, they could be virtually divided in theory, by categorization. Or, if you mean psyche is not physically divisible to allow the whole to still function; I think this is not necessarily true either, since some categorized functions could be removed, and there would still be the overall whole of the psyche (unless your definition of psyche includes every single component). For eg, someone with a dysfunction, that does not have 1 specific component (perhaps sense of smell), would likely still be considered to have their psyche.
-Interesting categorization of memories
Quoting Ying
> Is what you describe here, basically the concept of free will?
So do you believe there is a part of the psyche which is unexplained (and phenomenal as you mentioned), which guides the direction of memories which are being accessed during consciousness?
I would suggest that this concept is a bit of an illusion (kind of like consciousness as a whole). As far as I can understand, the driver of attention within consciousness is similar, if not the same as the driver of subconscious action (such that animals act on). Basically just emotions, which are feedback triggers linked to memories (episodic?) to determine which action to take, or which alternate memory to access.
The difference with human consciousness, would be that we can access much more memories, and more specific aspects of memories, making that which is triggered, less distinct and predicatable.
If this is correct, then granted, feedback triggers are likely a required variable for the sum of consciousness.
But, including guiding-triggers as part of the method, consciousness would still be: but a method of memory access, wouldn't it?
In theory. See, that's a problem. Because one would be describing a hypothetical as opposed to a phenomenological (the way we actually experience ourselves) mind. That's why I prefer a phenomenological approach; abstraction doesn't really work when describing the mind as is, imho.
Are you looking at your computer screen? Notice how the screen becomes posited in a sort of clear foreground while other objects fade into a less defined background? Ever notice how you are constantly shifting this gaze by paying attention to different objects? Yeah, that's not just a peculiarity of your eyes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_space
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figure%E2%80%93ground_(perception)
Only if you ignore all other mental faculties present, as I stated already.
>But I was describing the phenomenological mind in the 2nd half of that paragraph, here:
"Or, if you mean psyche is not physically divisible to allow the whole to still function; I think this is not necessarily true either, since some categorized functions could be removed, and there would still be the overall whole of the psyche"
Quoting Ying
>Yes, gaze and focus shift without attentive direct, but wouldn't that be explained by triggers in the brain guiding reaction (as a result of evolution)? Just as any automatic reaction by preset triggers in animals, which we call instinct. Instinct, or subconscious (if more prevalent) reaction, as I explained, by feedback triggers.
Quoting Ying
>Are you referring to your 1st paragraph? If so, I thought that paragraph was describing the "phyche"? Which I think you described as being the larger whole, therein including those extra aspects of mental faculties.
Whereas you specified consciousness "as the acting agent in the center", so potentially not including extra mental faculty.
If all extra mental components are to be considered part of consciousness, it seems unlikely they are a minimum basic requirement. Since, similar to my earlier argument, the whole can exist with those components removed.
What I was getting at is that the psyche as such forms a singularly unified entity. The problem with describing said entity is that this singularly unified status and the interrelationships between mental faculties is hard to express with words. Take sight for example. We might be discussing sight, but it's not an insular mental faculty. It's completely integrated with all the other mental faculties, too. This makes talk about the mind in that way exceedingly difficult.
So. Your comment that certain functions could be removed doesn't really add or detract to what I said.
Look. Can you spin your eyes in a circle? Congratulations, you just employed your psychological agency. Otherwise, do tell what instinct is fulfilled by eye spinning.
As for our neurological scaffolding...
Ever heard of the optic tectum? That's a part of the brain responsible for object location. Object identification takes place in the visual cortex. Action potentials pass through the optic tectum before reaching the visual cortex. And here's the kicker. It's possible to make a conscious effort to bypass the visual cortex (object identification) in favor of a faster response time. You can test this yourself btw.
https://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime
>Spinning eyes in a circle would be a "conscious decision", but I was referring to subconscious or instinctual action (as I specified "without attentive direct"), because I thought that is what your point was about gaze shift etc.. When you mentioned gaze shifting, was your point, that it occurs without conscious thought, or with?
If non-conscious gaze shift; objects would grab attention according to relevance, based on instinct and subconscious order of priority of what is important to notice.
If conscious viewing (such as rolling eyes); that's when the quantity and diversity of causes becomes very in depth and complex. But if you believe in determinism, then all conscious choices such as spinning your eyes, do have a rational calculable cause, even if its so complex, that we cant pin point it.
A basic (thought maybe incomplete) answer to your question might be: the instinct that is being fulfilled by spinning my eyes in that context, would be task accomplishment. The instinct of task accomplishment and motivation, was likely developed through evolution for individuals to attempt to accomplish something within a complex environment, therein causing them to be more likely to survive.
I'm guessing you dont believe in determinism, since you seem to believe we have free agency?
Earlier today, I happen to have watched this 10 min video about such concepts, which I'd recommend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCGtkDzELAI&list=PLMdCqdiXqqRxnFCY4AuUCiPRBwChmYFmV&index=7&t=2s
Quoting Ying
>This is interesting. So, basically we consciously choose to bypass conscious activity...
That's one of the issues I postpone judgment on since I'm not particularly interested in running around in a philosophical cul de sac.
The psychological agency I'm talking about, the one that allows you to distinguish objects from their sensory surroundings, has nothing to do with determinism though, be it neurological or otherwise (ontological). Figure-ground is a phenomenological act, and that's all it needs to be, since the rest is "bracketed" out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracketing_(phenomenology)
So your saying the psychological agency of figure-ground is a phenomenological act, because it's an act in the mind relevant to the way we experience the world right?
And your saying determinism is irrelevant to figure-ground?
But in the context here, of distinguishing and explaining consciousness. If the functions of the mind, including figure-ground, are worked out, that is evidence for determinism and against any unexplained agency.
Determinism seems pretty relevant to consciousness, if there is a functional explanation for it.
>But what is imagination or inference, other than combining pieces of memories?
And what are emotions, other than triggers for memories?
Did you read the link about bracketing? No? Well then, I guess you should. Otherwise we are going to keep talking past each other.
Yeah, that's a non sequitur. Figuring out how the mind operates on a phenomenological level doesn't imply ontological determinism in any way whatsoever.
Anyway, since you want to argue, fine. You conceded this point already when you stated:
... So, since you insist on some form of determinism, you'll have to account for said "conscious decision" as being predetermined in some way or the other or risk being inconsistent in your views (which would be your problem, not mine). And if you're going to insist on some kind of "illusion of choice", well then, we are back to bracketing, making the whole "illusion" part nonsense.
Pro: Some sort of mental determinism is implied by the experiments of Benjamin Libet (you can look this up yourself).
Counter: We still don't know how the brain operates specifically. Neural activity can be measured and correlated to certain functions but claims of the sort Libet makes are very liable to be post hoc fallacies.
Contra: Determinism doesn't exist because we have what's called "free won't", the ability to veto actions at any point.
Counter: Free won't also is predetermined by as yet to be uncovered neurological structures (Weaksauce argument, I know. But: "Because of his love of humanity the Skeptic wishes to cure by argument, so far as he can, the conceit and precipitancy of the Dogmatists. Accordingly, just as the doctors who treat physical symptoms have remedies that differ in strength, and prescribe the severe ones for people with severe symptoms and milder ones for those mildly affected, so too the Skeptic sets forth arguments differing in strength." -Sextus Empiricus, "Outlines of Pyrrhonism" book 3, ch. 32)
What does this leave? Well, I don't know. Better to postpone judgment imho. So let's just bracket the issue and move on to phenomenology instead of running around in circles.
>Yes, I did. Maybe I misunderstand something, but I gather bracketing is basically choosing to focus on the minds experience, not on the function of that which is bracketed.
So related to your statement: "Figure-ground is a phenomenological act, and that's all it needs to be, since the rest is "bracketed" out.",
do you mean figure-ground is just an experience, and we'll leave it at that?
If so, this is why I then mentioned: "But in the context here, of distinguishing and explaining consciousness...",
because I think the point, is to work out the function of the minds processes.
Quoting Ying
>Explaining the mechanical function of the mind, implies determinism because if there is a scientific and measurable method which causes the mind to operate the way it does, then functions of the mind like choices, and decisions are predictable and determined.
Quoting Ying
>Yes, I thought that was the whole point of that part of the discussion.
Which is why I did theorize an account for the conscious decision, with the follow-up of that paragraph as here;
"If conscious viewing (such as rolling eyes); that's when the quantity and diversity of causes becomes very in depth and complex. But if you believe in determinism, then all conscious choices such as spinning your eyes, do have a rational calculable cause, even if its so complex, that we cant pin point it.
A basic (thought maybe incomplete) answer to your question might be: the instinct that is being fulfilled by spinning my eyes in that context, would be task accomplishment. The instinct of task accomplishment and motivation, was likely developed through evolution for individuals to attempt to accomplish something within a complex environment, therein causing them to be more likely to survive."
Quoting Ying
>This seems to only suggest that there is insufficient knowledge on the topic at this point, which is true, but doesn't really evidence against the evidence.
Quoting Ying
>This sounds like it involves part of the concept of consciousness. Free won't would be a result of conscious thought, which is unexplained, but the point of my initial post is to attempt to explain consciousness, and likely therein explain free wont.
Quoting Ying
Is the point of this discussion not directly related to this? as the mechanical function of the mind, choice, and consciousness.
Note to self: Don't assume silly things.
Anyway, my bad. Sorry about that. :)
No. What I'm talking about is called the primacy of experience. It's looking at phenomenological content on it's own, temporarily disregarding other issues like neurological substructures. A precise correlation between such substructures and their phenomenological contents isn't an exact science at this point anyway, because of how FMRI functions. This way of looking at the mind and it's contents isn't new or anything, as it's employed by both phenomenologists and gestalt psychologists (figure-ground is a concept from gestalt psychology).
We still have to pick our clothes in the morning, regardless of any kind of determinism. The same holds for breaking habits. You might not believe in will, but you're going to need it if you're going to quit smoking. We have what might be called "apparent choice" in such cases (if determinism is true or whatever). Here's the thing, though. That choice is a phenomenological act, and as such, there's nothing "apparent" about it. So, there's that (Didn't I go through this already?). Anyway, you basically stated:
"...if there is a scientific and measurable method which causes the mind to operate the way it does, then functions of the mind like choices, and decisions are predictable and determined."
Well, there is a so called "scientific" method to measure the mind. The field of psychometrics. Probably not what you mean though. :)
>No problem. Everything is an assumption to some degree (or so I assume).
>Is the purpose of this, to focus on the ways that different aspects of phenomenology react with each other, or react with external factors? Basically taking the concepts of mind functions to a more generalized degree, since the specifics aren't proven?
>But that which causes the result of picking clothes, would be dependent on determinism. And I think the implications are quite significant whether determined or not.
If determined the choice of clothes is based on:
Subconscious influences (positive or negative influences of memories related to the clothes being chosen),
+ Conscious consideration (working memory analyzing more detailed effects of the result of clothing chosen)
+ State of Mind (current emotions/mood influencing decision, and amount of each type of neural activity used)
=predetermined and predictable (if vast quantity of affecting variables were known)
Or if free will:
some factor is involved in the brain, causing the outcome of decision to be incalculable. This factor must be unknown to current math and science, and I would think would be an amazing discovery.
Basically, same concept for quitting smoking.
That sounds like an accurate label for what is currently known about it.
I'm confused why you say there's nothing apparent about a phenomenological act?
Isn't the idea behind phenomenology, to leave things unspecified, and so would indeed be "apparent", or seems to be a way but is uncertain?
It seems like from a phenomenological perspective, "choice" would be left to that specificity, of "apparent", whereas from a deterministic perspective, "choice" would be analysed for the scientific mechanical cause and effect.
>That sounds similar to what I mean, as I think that would be a way of measuring and predicting results of mind activity. But I'm more concerned with the neurological function of the brain, in relation to memory storage.
In it's base, it's a fundamentally different stance on the question "what is the mind"? Instead of starting at concepts, phenomenology proposes that we start at our everyday, daily experience of ourselves. You can do the same thing with the question "what is life?" Instead of focusing on concepts, you focus on the sequence of ones everyday, mundane experiences. The same holds for how it's used in gestalt psychology. Perception for instance is studied as it's own thing, with it's own phenomenological properties, as a mental function. Considerations about non phenomenological entities don't figure into such accounts. They don't need to after all, since the mind functions as a unified whole.
That was badly worded on my part. Sometimes figures of speech don't translate well. Anyway, let's restate that: there's nothing fake or hypothetical about the choices we make because those choices are actual phenomenological acts.