No worries abt this. SIS, u're an Atheist and i definitely am
not expecting you to subscribe to my view abt consciousness being
tied to the soul or the spirit.
But then the spirit being tied to consciousness cannot explain
the phenomenon of brain injury to lost of consciousness. I assume u
believe tat the human spirit is tied to consciousness. Care to
touch on tis ?
This is coming to as close to a definition that i agree with. My
concept of it deviates slightly. Let me explain; Even a person who
has lost his or her memories is aware of of his state of being.
It's a recognition of individualism. The I-story.
Tat doesn't contradict the explanation above though it may limit
your conclusion due lack of experience. basically u know who u r
and your interaction with the environment
I
will not fault you on this as the arguements on evolution are
not strong for consciousness. But before u slam me for disagreeing
with you, let me reiterate that we are fighting from the same side.
I'll explain why. Believing in theistic evolution, the biggest
hurdle to cross is the consciousness as creationist would proposit
that theistic evolution is unable to encompass that aspect.
Now, you mention that intelligence is linked to consciousness. Now
this is my question, linking and being a part of consciousness have
differing consequences. Which one do you choose?
My stand is intelligent leads to consciousness. It is like
stronger legs means travel longer or longer arms means reach
further. One of the consequences of being intelligent is having
consciousness. It is an inevitable progression and attribute of
intelligence.
This is in view with my previous question on top. I will play
fair and lay all my cards on the table as i rather have a good
discussion vis-a-vis a nit pick deabate. Firstly, This is all well
if cosciousness is part of intelligence. But if it isn't (which
surprisingly i think many scientist agree with me given the amount
of research put in to the studying of consciousness), we might have
a problem here. But if your assumption in that consiousness
is part of intelligence. It is easier to reach a
conclusion. Let's go on to what u typed:
My assumption is clearly, it is. Tat is why I put up the
challenge to show an example where intelligent does not have a
direct correlation with consciousness. From wikipedia my stand can
also be found below. It is the same website u have given
We generally agree that our
fellow human beings are conscious, and that much simpler life
forms, such as bacteria, are not. Many of us attribute
consciousness to higher-order animals such as dolphins and
primates; academic research is investigating the extent to which
animals are conscious. This suggests the hypothesis that
consciousness has co-evolved with life, which would require it to
have some sort of added value, especially survival
value. People have therefore looked for specific functions
and benefits of consciousness. Bernard Baars (1997), for instance,
states that "consciousness is a supremely functional adaptation"
and suggests a variety of functions in which consciousness
plays an important, if not essential, role: prioritization of
alternatives, problem solving, decision making, brain processes
recruiting, action control, error detection, planning, learning,
adaptation, context creation, and access to
information.[citation needed] Antonio Damasio (1999)
regards consciousness as part of an organism's survival
kit, allowing planned rather than instinctual
responses.[citation needed] He also points out that
awareness of self allows a concern for one's own survival, which
increases the drive to survive, although how far consciousness is
involved in behaviour is an actively debated issue. Many
psychologists, such as radical behaviorists, and many philosophers,
such as those that support Ryle's approach, would maintain that
behavior can be explained by non-conscious processes akin to
artificial intelligence, and might consider consciousness to be
epiphenomenal or only weakly related to function.
Regarding the primary function of conscious processing, a recurring
idea in recent theories is that phenomenal states somehow integrate
neural activities and information-processing that would otherwise
be independent (see review in Baars, 2002). This has been called
the integration consensus. However, it has remained unspecified
which kinds of information are integrated in a conscious manner and
which kinds can be integrated without consciousness. Obviously not
all kinds of information are capable of being disseminated
consciously (e.g., neural activity related to vegetative functions,
reflexes, unconscious motor programs, low-level perceptual
analyses, etc.) and many kinds can be disseminated and combined
with other kinds without consciousness, as in intersensory
interactions such as the ventriloquism effect.
A new theoretical framework, Supramodular Interaction Theory (SIT;
Morsella, 2005, Psychological Review) is unique in that it
identifies the primary, essential function of conscious processing
by contrasting the task demands of consciously penetrable processes
(e.g., pain, conflicting urges, and the delay of gratification) and
consciously impenetrable processes (e.g., intersensory conflicts,
peristalsis, and the pupillary reflex). With this contrastive
approach, SIT builds upon the integration consensus by specifying
which kinds of interaction require conscious processing and which
kinds do not (e.g., some intersensory processes). SIT proposes that
conscious processes are required to integrate high-level systems in
the brain that are vying for (specifically) skeletomotor control,
as described by the principle of parallel responses into skeletal
muscle (PRISM). Accordingly, regarding processes such as digestion
and excretion, one is conscious of only those phases of the
processes that require coordination with skeletomotor plans (e.g.,
chewing or micturating) and none of those that do not (e.g.,
peristalsis). From this standpoint, consciousness functions above
the level of the traditional module to cross-talk among
high-level, specialized and often multi-modal, systems.
These abilities, especially social and cultural development needs
extended ability for imaginations (manipulations on mental images)
[2]
Ervin Laszlo argues that self-awareness, the ability to make
observations of oneself, evolved. Emile Durkheim formulated the
concept of so called collective consciousness, which is essential
for organization of human, social relations. The accelerating drive
of human race to explorations, cognition, understanding and
technological progress[3] can be explained by some features of
collective consciousness (collective self - concepts) and
collective intelligence
