Birth of Consciousness

coberst

Well-Known Member
Messages
427
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Birth of Consciousness

Many non human creatures have emotions—“human emotions however have evolved to making connections to complex ideas, values, principles, and judgments”—thus human emotion is special—the impact of feelings on humans is the result of consciousness—a distinct difference between feeling and knowing a feeling—“neither the emotion or the feeling caused by the emotion is conscious”—these things happen in a biological state—there are three stages here; emotion, feeling, and consciousness of feeling—consciousness must be present if feelings have an influence beyond the here and the now—consciousness is tooted in the representation of the body.

We need not be conscious of the emotion or the inducer of the emotion—we are about as effective in stopping an emotion as in stopping a sneeze.

“Emotions are about the life of an organism, its body to be precise, and their role is to assist the organism in maintaining life…emotions are biologically determined processes, depending upon innately set brain devices, laid down by long evolutionary history…The devices that produce emotions…are part of a set of structures that both regulate and represent body states…All devices can be engaged automatically, without conscious deliberation…The variety of the emotional responses is responsible for profound changes in both the body landscape and the brain landscape. The collection of these changes constitutes the substrate for the neural patterns which eventually become feelings of emotion.”


The biological function of emotions is to produce an automatic action in certain situations and to regulate the internal processes so that the creature is able to support the action dictated by the situation. The biological purpose of emotions are clear, they are not a luxury but a necessity for survival.

“It is through feelings, which are inwardly directed and private, that emotions, which are outwardly directed and public, begin their impact on the mind; but the full and lasting impact of feelings requires consciousness, because only along with the advent of a sense of self do feelings become known to the individual having them.”

Damasio proposes “that the term feeling should be reserve for the private, mental experience of an emotion, while the term emotion should be used to designate the collection of responses, many of which are publicly observable.” This means that while we can observe our own private feelings we cannot observe these same feelings in others.

Core consciousness—“occurs when the brain’s representation devices generate an imaged, nonverbal account of how the organism’s own state is affected by the organism’s processing of an object, and when this process enhances the image of the causative object, thus placing it saliently in a spatial and temporal context”

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Quotes from “The Feeling of What Happens” by Antonio Damasio
 
Core consciousness—“occurs when the brain’s representation devices generate an imaged, nonverbal account of how the organism’s own state is affected by the organism’s processing of an object, and when this process enhances the image of the causative object, thus placing it saliently in a spatial and temporal context."

First, there is emotion, then comes feeling, then comes consciousness of feeling. There is no evidence that we are conscious of all our feelings, in fact evidence indicates that we are not conscious of all feelings.

Quotes from “The Feeling of What Happens” by Antonio Damasio

Hello coberst, and welcome to Interfaith!

I've had the pleasure of exploring the development of consciousness here in the past, a thread called "Morality in Evolution."

I am fairly certain there may be some Hindi yogis who would contest the statement of not being conscious of all feelings...if I understand correctly, they are quite emphatic about being able to control *all* of their faculties. I can accept that these are exceptional persons, and not the rule, but it does remain.

I am thinking that the mind's tendency to imagery certainly plays into the development of written language through symbols, but I understand writing to come along much later than rational thought / consciousness.

Consciousness seems to me based on self-awareness, but even that seems a bit too elemental as I would think that self-awareness is a pretty standard component of animal thought considering the fight or flight response. How self-awareness morphed into something that could then be self-directed with prescient foresight is the million dollar question. Awareness of time, specifically time going forward or time that has not yet occurred; future sense, is what animals typically lack and humans are quite adept with. I am not familiar with Mr. Damasio's work, but from the little you have supplied here I am thinking this component of prescient foresight is lacking in the explanation, and simply being aware of sensory feeling is insufficient to explain crossing the boundary into consciousness (else there would be more conscious animals, no?).
 
Juantoo

Core cosciousness results fom the awareness of feeling. First, there is emotion, which might be the fast beating heart and surge of energy from adrenalin, then comes feeling of these biological happenings, then comes consciousness of feeling. This core consciousness is what all creatures have in order to survive. Humans have what the author calles extended consciousness that is our human self-consciousness.
 
Juantoo

Core cosciousness results fom the awareness of feeling. First, there is emotion, which might be the fast beating heart and surge of energy from adrenalin, then comes feeling of these biological happenings, then comes consciousness of feeling. This core consciousness is what all creatures have in order to survive. Humans have what the author calles extended consciousness that is our human self-consciousness.

OK, then why are no more animals exhibiting rational conscious thought?

Rudimentary stabs at toolmaking and use are insufficient evidence to hold out as rational thought, primarily because it is intermittent and sporadic.
 
OK, then why are no more animals exhibiting rational conscious thought?

Rudimentary stabs at toolmaking and use are insufficient evidence to hold out as rational thought, primarily because it is intermittent and sporadic.


What do we do when we reason? I would say as a minimum that to reason is to conceptualize and to draw inferences from that conceptualization. All creatures the tadpole and the human must have this minimum capacity to reason. The tadpole must categorize ‘eat no eat’ and ‘friend no friend’. Categorizing is the first step in conceptualizing and inferring and thus reasoning.

I think that it might be worth while to think of how the most primitive creature might conceptualize. Take a primitive sea creature that has only the ability to perceive light and shadow. That creature has a zone of shadow detection let us say of 5 feet. In this detection zone it can distinguish too big or not too big for eating and decide to get away from the shadow. Perhaps it has another zone of one foot that it can decide friend or foe or eat and not eat. In this zone it must infer to get away or to chase after.

From this we might decide that conception is a structuring process where containers are an important element in conceptualization. A container might be an important element in the imagination of the creature. The creature has the ability to infer based upon a container schema. There is an inner and outer and a border between in and out. The creatures must be able to deal with container schemas and make inferences within this schema.

Also the creature must have some sort of schema for following or predicting the path of something perceived. The creature must be able to infer is the shadow going this way or that way.

So conceptualizing consists of a number of standard forms for organizing the elements of a perception so that the creature can draw inferences. The human has this same capability only greatly more sophisticated. This conception and inference process is the foundation of reasoning.

Where does the human capacity of belief fit into this capacity? This is, in my judgment, the fundamentals of reasoning about matters of fact, matters dealing with perceived input. I think that matters of belief are abstract matters and to go there is a much longer walk.

My short answer is that beliefs are abstract ideas and I would say that abstract ideas are beliefs.

When we reason about abstract matters, some if not all objects reasoned about are abstract objects and not fact objects. Our input generally is mostly abstract ideas and our out put are generally abstract. I think of this process as much like atoms joining together to make molecules and molecules joining together to make compounds. Our abstract ideas join together to make beliefs, i.e. abstract ideas.

I am inclined to say that knowledge consists of matters of fact and beliefs are abstract ideas. Math is all about abstract ideas and religion is all about abstract ideas. Some abstract ideas can be verified by deduction others cannot. However, math is a closed system and its ‘truth’ is the truth of a closed system. Its truth is a matter of definition.

I suspect we might say that all abstract ideas are beliefs. When I speak of the ‘laws’ of nature I am speaking about facts but when I speak about ‘laws’ of morality I am speaking about abstract ideas.
 
So conceptualizing consists of a number of standard forms for organizing the elements of a perception so that the creature can draw inferences. The human has this same capability only greatly more sophisticated. This conception and inference process is the foundation of reasoning.
I am wanting to agree, but how much of this is "knee-jerk" response? If I recall correctly, we have the fight/flight response, the food/no food response, and we have the sex drive response. These are the fundamental drives of even very tiny creatures consisting of little more than a few cells. So I see what you are saying, but I am also thinking that there is an automatic element to these responses that effectively doesn't even require a brain or even sight. Little more than an elemental touch sense is sufficient to facilitate these basic drives.


Where does the human capacity of belief fit into this capacity? This is, in my judgment, the fundamentals of reasoning about matters of fact, matters dealing with perceived input. I think that matters of belief are abstract matters and to go there is a much longer walk.

My short answer is that beliefs are abstract ideas and I would say that abstract ideas are beliefs.
OK, now we are taking many quantum leaps through evolution to arrive at this point of the conversation. A self-referential circle of reasoning doesn't do much to solve the riddle.

Rational thought and the ability to understand forward projected time happened somewhere prior to where our discussion picks up and continues. These elements I have not determined...and your explanation falls short. ;)

It is my considered opinion that "religious" beliefs are more than mere abstract artifacts of reasoning. Let us consider, as far back as we have evidence to suspect religious enquiry (on the order of 50K years, conservatively), a time when humans were hunter-gatherers living in caves and/or other rudimentary shelters, struggling through the depths of an intense ice age, competing with an evolutionary cousin (the Neandertal, who *also* held tendency to religious enquiry), and with all of these environmental influences still found reason to pursue matters of metaphysics.

Now, every logical bone in my body tells me that such people so encumbered by so many heavy evolutionary influences would not pursue matters of enquiry for imaginary / entertainment purposes. There was no TV, no radio, no competitive sports...life was full enough with "eat or be eaten" and "the strong survive" and "the baby makers make the rules" that religion should never have begun...if it were merely a flight of fancy, a raw exercise of imagination. I am convinced that such a people, overwhelmed as they were with the environmental influences they faced, did not "invent" metaphysics...metaphysics was a reality thrust upon them. That is to say, metaphysics was simply another everyday portion of their known reality.

What that cave dwelling metaphysical understanding morphed into at a later date is a different discussion.

When we reason about abstract matters, some if not all objects reasoned about are abstract objects and not fact objects. Our input generally is mostly abstract ideas and our out put are generally abstract. I think of this process as much like atoms joining together to make molecules and molecules joining together to make compounds. Our abstract ideas join together to make beliefs, i.e. abstract ideas.
But again we are at a circle of reasoning, one that demands an implied understanding of "abstract" among other things.


I am inclined to say that knowledge consists of matters of fact and beliefs are abstract ideas. Math is all about abstract ideas and religion is all about abstract ideas. Some abstract ideas can be verified by deduction others cannot. However, math is a closed system and its ‘truth’ is the truth of a closed system. Its truth is a matter of definition.

I am inclined to disagree. I recently had this discussion with another in the Social Group entitled "Spiritual Skeptics." We left off recently with the thought that maybe the discussion should be brought out onto the forums because it is in a corner of this site that doesn't get much traffic yet.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/groups/spiritual-skeptics.html

Knowledge as I see it demands an ability to demonstrate. The example I used was that of making fire with flint and steel. One can read about it, witness another do so, absorb all kinds of external reference to it...but until one can put the internal reference in the brain's library into external action / behavior, it cannot truly be said to be knowledge.

Knowledge has the ability to supercede attempts by outside propaganda to dismiss it...if I can build a fire from flint and steel, and another comes along and says it cannot be done, I can demonstrate. If another comes along and insists it cannot be done, *in spite of* my demonstration, I still KNOW internally that what I am being told is not correct. I may say whatever depending what threat that source poses to my well-being, but I know what I know despite attempts to undermine that.

The consequence is that we (collectively) don't really know as much as we like to think we do. "We know how to get to the moon." No, "we" don't. There are a handful of people who have labored together to perform that feat, I was not one of them and most likely the person making the statement was not either. "We know evolution is real." No, I don't. I can see where there are components of that explanation that make sense, but I can also see errors in the reasoning and exceptions to the rules sufficient to give me cause to wonder about its accuracy.

Facts are not knowledge, and knowledge is not facts. And the implications on "truth" are apparent...seldom is truth about facts, let alone knowledge or reality. Truth tends to be what people believe it to be; in spite of facts, in spite of others' knowledge, and in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. A person will hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe.

Truth is the self desired reality one creates. Truth is only reality-as-reality-is *if* that is the paradigm one strives for in developing one's truth. In my experience that is almost never the case.

I suspect we might say that all abstract ideas are beliefs. When I speak of the ‘laws’ of nature I am speaking about facts but when I speak about ‘laws’ of morality I am speaking about abstract ideas.

But again I see a circular compounded confuddling...

Beliefs as I see it are kinda like a hedged bet...the weight of "evidence" from our referential library leans our tendency to belief in one direction or another. Our cave dwelling ancestors I believe held an intimate metaphysical knowledge, which helps explain why effort was put into primitive religious endeavor to begin with. As we (collectively) have grown away from our animal roots and intimacy with nature and become civilized, our knowledge has degraded into belief. A consequence of this degradation is a multitude of competing belief paradigms...all struggling to point to effectively the same essential knowledge.
 
Last edited:
juantoo

The ego is our command center; it is the “internal gyroscope” and creator of time for the human. It controls the individual; especially it controls individual’s response to the external environment. It keeps the individual independent from the environment by giving the individual time to think before acting. It is the device that other animal do not have and thus they instinctively respond immediately to the world.

The id is our animal self. It is the human without the ego control center. The id is reactive life and the ego changes that reactive life into delayed thoughtful life. The ego is also the timer that provides us with a sense of yesterday, today, and tomorrow. By doing so it makes us into philosophical beings conscious of our self as being separate from the ‘other’ and placed in a river of time with a terminal point—death. This time creation allows us to become creatures responding to symbolic reality that we alone create.

As a result of the id there is a “me” to which everything has a focus of being. The most important job the ego has is to control anxiety that paradoxically the ego has created. With a sense of time there comes a sense of termination and with this sense of death comes anxiety that the ego embraces and gives the “me” time to consider how not to have to encounter anxiety.

Evidence indicates that there is an “intrinsic symbolic process” is some primates. Such animals may be able to create in memory other events that are not presently going on. “But intrinsic symbolization is not enough. In order to become a social act, the symbol must be joined to some extrinsic mode; there must exist an external graphic mode to convey what the individual has to express…but it also shows how separate are the worlds we live in, unless we join our inner apprehensions to those of others by means of socially agreed symbols.”

“What they needed for a true ego was a symbolic rallying point, a personal and social symbol—an “I”, in order to thoroughly unjumble himself from his world the animal must have a precise designation of himself. The “I”, in a word, has to take shape linguistically…the self (or ego) is largely a verbal edifice…The ego thus builds up a world in which it can act with equanimity, largely by naming names.” The primate may have a brain large enough for “me” but it must go a step further that requires linguistic ability that permits an “I” that can develop controlled symbols with “which to put some distance between him and immediate internal and external experience.”

I conclude from this that many primates have the brain that is large enough to be human but in the process of evolution the biological apparatus that makes speech possible was the catalyst that led to the modern human species. The ability to emit more sophisticated sounds was the stepping stone to the evolution of wo/man. This ability to control the vocal sounds promoted the development of the human brain.

Ideas and quotes from “Birth and Death of Meaning”—Ernest Becker
 
I see the SuperEgo was neglected. I will grant it is the inferior muscle in most of our minds, but it *can* be developed with exercise…

Id, ego, and super-ego are the three parts of the "psychic apparatus" defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model, the uncoordinated instinctual trends are the "id"; the organised realistic part of the psyche is the "ego," and the critical and moralizing function the "super-ego."

The Id comprises the unorganized part of the personality structure that contains the basic drives. The Id is unconscious by definition. In Freud's formulation,
It is the dark, inaccessible part of our personality, what little we know of it we have learnt from our study of the dream-work and of the construction of neurotic symptoms, and most of this is of a negative character and can be described only as a contrast to the ego. We all approach the id with analogies: we call it a chaos, a cauldron full of seething excitations... It is filled with energy reaching it from the instincts, but it has no organization, produces no collective will, but only a striving to bring about the satisfaction of the instinctual needs subject to the observance of the pleasure principle.
[Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (1933)]

The Ego comprises that organized part of the personality structure which includes defensive, perceptual, intellectual-cognitive, and executive functions. Conscious awareness resides in the ego, although not all of the operations of the ego are conscious.
According to Freud,
...The ego is that part of the id which has been modified by the direct influence of the external world ... The ego represents what may be called reason and common sense, in contrast to the id, which contains the passions ... in its relation to the id it is like a man on horseback, who has to hold in check the superior strength of the horse; with this difference, that the rider tries to do so with his own strength, while the ego uses borrowed forces

[Freud, The Ego and the Id (1923)]

The Super-ego comprises that organized part of the personality structure, mainly but not entirely unconscious, that includes the individual's ego ideals, spiritual goals, and the psychic agency (commonly called 'conscience') that criticizes and prohibits his or her drives, fantasies, feelings, and actions.
Freud's theory implies that the super-ego is a symbolic internalization of the father figure and cultural regulations. The super-ego tends to stand in opposition to the desires of the id because of their conflicting objectives, and its aggressiveness towards the ego. The super-ego acts as the conscience, maintaining our sense of morality and proscription from taboos. Its formation takes place during the dissolution of the Oedipus complex and is formed by an identification with and internalization of the father figure after the little boy cannot successfully hold the mother as a love-object out of fear of castration.
The super-ego retains the character of the father, while the more powerful the Oedipus complex was and the more rapidly it succumbed to repression (under the influence of authority, religious teaching, schooling and reading), the stricter will be the domination of the super-ego over the ego later on — in the form of conscience or perhaps of an unconscious sense of guilt
(The Ego and the Id, 1923).

The partition of the psyche defined in the structural model is one that 'cuts across' the topographical model's partition of 'conscious vs. unconscious'. Its value lies in the increased degree of diversification: although the Id is unconscious by definition, the Ego and the Super-ego are both partly conscious and partly unconscious.
What is more, with this new model Freud achieved a more systematic classification of mental disorder than had been available previously: -
"Transference neuroses correspond to a conflict between the ego and the id; narcissistic neuroses, to a conflict between the ego and the superego; and psychoses, to one between the ego and the external world"
- [Freud, "Neurosis and Psychosis" (1923)].
Id, ego, and super-ego - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

;)
 
Back
Top