A New Thinking Emerges About Consciousness - Washington Post Article

[Guest guest]

You have been sent this message from rchandran as a courtesy

of the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com

 

To view the entire article, go to

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42772-2002May19.html

 

A New Thinking Emerges About Consciousness

 

By Shankar Vedantam

 

 

For centuries, philosophers have been bedeviled by this question:

What makes people aware of themselves, and what gives rise to

intention and free will? In other words, what is consciousness?

 

In the 17th century, the French philosopher Rene Descartes suggested

that consciousness was like an "observer" in the head, a higher

function, separate from the workings of the physical brain. In the

four centuries since, no one has done much better in explaining

subjective experience -- your sensation of the color red, or a twinge

of pain, or your ability to choose your actions. In recent years,

philosophers who study cognition have come to call this "the hard

problem."

 

Neuroscientists -- data-dependent investigators who map brain

function, trace neural networks and explore the biochemistry of

neurotransmitters -- have traditionally treated the question of

consciousness like an unwelcome guest at the dining table. Some have

dismissed it as irrelevant to their understanding of the brain, and

others have contended that objective analysis can never comprehend a

feeling that is entirely subjective.

 

Increasingly, however, some scientists who explore neurons and brain

connections are turning their attention to the philosophers' "hard

problem." Most have come to believe that Descartes was wrong -- that

there is no "observer" sitting in the head. Consciousness, they say,

is highly organized brain chemistry, just as life itself comprises

proteins and cells organized into complex patterns.

 

"Consciousness is real, but like stage magic -- it has a mundane

scientific explanation," said Daniel C. Dennett, a philosopher and

cognitive scientist at Tufts University. "It's all just brain

mechanisms and their activities.

 

"All the work that one imagines being done by the ego are really

done by bits of the brain. Those brain tissues are not conscious and

do not know who you are or care -- but their activity adds up to

'conscious you.' "

 

The most extreme version of this view, which is sometimes called

reductionism, suggests that consciousness is an illusion. A new book

by Harvard professor Daniel Wegner is titled, "The Illusion of

Conscious Will."

 

The feeling you have as you read this sentence, Wegner argues, is an

illusion pulled off by a complex machine in your skull. It not only

reads and understands this sentence, he says, but also makes you feel

as if you have experienced the reading of the sentence. In other

words, the brain, not content with being a remarkably complex machine,

also convinces itself that it isn't a machine at all.

 

But why would it bother? The brain, Wegner contends, produces

consciousness to give itself a feeling of having done something. This

feeling helps the brain recognize similar situations when they arise

-- the next article in the newspaper, for instance. Being aware of its

actions, the brain-machine can better decide whether to read another

article.

 

"When you drive to work, you don't feel there are hundreds of little

gears in a machine in your head that make you do this. You think, 'I'm

going to get up and go to work,' " Wegner said in an interview.

 

"We think the intentions cause the actions, and we get the feeling

we have willed what we do. It could be the intentions and actions are

being caused by the machinery of the brain."

 

Wegner cites numerous examples to show that intentions and actions

are produced by different mechanisms in the brain -- while they are

timed to occur simultaneously, they sometimes don't. During hypnosis,

for instance, people's bodies act apparently without their will. Yet

their movements are still produced by their brains, suggesting that

conscious intention doesn't always precede action.

 

Other experiments have shown that people are not aware of most brain

activity. Until they focused on it, for example, most readers would

not be conscious that they were stringing together the words in this

sentence, applying the laws of grammar and extracting meaning. Wegner

says the relationship between conscious will and action is like that

of a magician's wand and the rabbit he pulls out of a hat -- it only

seems as if the wand made the rabbit appear.

 

But why would the brain ascribe intention to only some of its

actions? "Why do certain areas of the brain not produce consciousness

and other areas at other times produce experience?" asked Terrence

Deacon, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley.

 

Deacon, the author of "The Symbolic Species," disagrees with Weg-

ner's mechanistic explanation. Deacon is exploring a new theory, that

the brain has two separate aspects. One part, which handles things it

has mastered, is all about computation. The other part, which is

consciousness, reacts to the world in a process that mimics evolution.

 

In Charles Darwin's theory, species evolve from one to the next

without a guiding hand; competition and selection spur adaptation and

improvement.

 

"Evolution is information coming out of nothing, information coming

out of chaos," said Deacon. The same phenomenon of "emergent"

information in our brain is consciousness, he said.

 

This ability, he said, is useful in dealing with the unexpected.

"When I am outdoors at night and I hear a crackling sound in bushes,

it pushes everything else out of the way," he said.

 

In other words, consciousness helps people pay attention to what's

important. But Deacon admits that this theory, which tries to explain

what consciousness does, doesn't quite get at what consciousness is.

Deacon is among the many who quote David Chalmers's description of

this as the "hard problem."

 

"The hard problem is hard because no explanation of brain processes

will explain subjective experience," said Chalmers, a philosopher at

the University of Arizona. "I am interested in the perceptual aspects

of consciousness. The feeling of pain, the taste of chocolate, the

sight of blue -- all these are subjective experiences."

 

Chalmers believes scientists will eventually conclude that

consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe -- like space,

time or gravity -- and therefore not reducible.

 

"Why does the law of gravity hold? No one can explain that,"

Chalmers said.

 

The neuroscientists all furiously disagree with each other, of

course. The reductionists call arguments about new fundamental

properties of the universe "woolly-headed" and a back-door return to

Descartes' "observer" in the brain. Their detractors criticize them

for being "more neural than thou," which is actually the title of one

paper.

 

Beyond the hard problem is what New York University philosopher Ned

Block calls "the harder problem" -- how to understand consciousness in

other creatures, especially those with brains very different from

ours. And as technology improves, Block said that question may one day

be posed about complex machines, or humans with visual and

neurological implants.

 

And so it goes. Despite the neuroscientists' new theories, the hard

problem isn't getting any easier.

[Guest guest]

Namaskar My Friends

 

Someone please correct me if am wrong here however as most of us know India

has had the answer to all this for thousands of years. Has also been proven

for thousands of years on an individual basis

 

Consciousness is not something that needs to be proven by one person to

another. Consciousness is an individual experience and is experienced at

different levels at different times in our lives during the normal process

of physical mental emotional and spiritual Evolutionary Growth leading to

Enlightment

 

In order to know and comment on Consciousness in a balanced manner a person

needs to be able to experience higher states of consciousness than what they

are commenting on. They need to be able to look back and be able to see both

sides so that responsible statements can be made that will help the Mankind

instead of frustrateing people

 

If the individual makeing the analysis and statements on the entire range of

Consciousness is not sitting in Samadhi or Beyond each day and they are not

actually experienceing the Higher States then their analysis is basicly

incomplete

 

This is because analysis, opinions and statements are only complete to an

individuals referral state of consciousness

 

In addition generalized comments regarding Consciousness as it applies to

all are not acceptable because everyone at any given time is experienceing

different levels of consciousness in their Evolutionary Growth

 

As taught by Spiritual Adepts in India understanding or experienceing

Consciousness or Higher States of Consciousness is meant to be an individual

experience that is experienced individually through daily practice and not

to be picked apart to be proven scientifically to others

 

Problem identified seems to be with the analysis of scientists and

philosphers from an Anglo Type Society who seem to have no understanding of

Yoga and the subject matter they are commenting on in their published papers

 

combined with the fact that some are continually allowed to publish papers

 

Kind of like and almost exactly like when England tried without success to

re write Indian Literature and History and Culture and Belief Systems and

Spirituality in their attempts to control and manipulate all that is India

 

If anyone has the time would be interested in any and all comments

 

Would be really interested in comments on Consciousness and the State of

Samadhi

 

Aum NamaSivaya Sivaya Nama Aum

 

Pranams My Friends

 

DharmaDev Arya

 

 

 

ramvchandran <rchandran

advaitin <advaitin>

Monday, May 20, 2002 4:41 AM

A New Thinking Emerges About Consciousness - Washington

Post Article

 

>You have been sent this message from rchandran as a courtesy

>of the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com

>

> To view the entire article, go to

>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42772-2002May19.html

>

>A New Thinking Emerges About Consciousness

>

> By Shankar Vedantam

>

>

> For centuries, philosophers have been bedeviled by this question:

>What makes people aware of themselves, and what gives rise to

>intention and free will? In other words, what is consciousness?

>

> In the 17th century, the French philosopher Rene Descartes suggested

>that consciousness was like an "observer" in the head, a higher

>function, separate from the workings of the physical brain. In the

>four centuries since, no one has done much better in explaining

>subjective experience -- your sensation of the color red, or a twinge

>of pain, or your ability to choose your actions. In recent years,

>philosophers who study cognition have come to call this "the hard

>problem."

>

> Neuroscientists -- data-dependent investigators who map brain

>function, trace neural networks and explore the biochemistry of

>neurotransmitters -- have traditionally treated the question of

>consciousness like an unwelcome guest at the dining table. Some have

>dismissed it as irrelevant to their understanding of the brain, and

>others have contended that objective analysis can never comprehend a

>feeling that is entirely subjective.

>

> Increasingly, however, some scientists who explore neurons and brain

>connections are turning their attention to the philosophers' "hard

>problem." Most have come to believe that Descartes was wrong -- that

>there is no "observer" sitting in the head. Consciousness, they say,

>is highly organized brain chemistry, just as life itself comprises

>proteins and cells organized into complex patterns.

>

> "Consciousness is real, but like stage magic -- it has a mundane

>scientific explanation," said Daniel C. Dennett, a philosopher and

>cognitive scientist at Tufts University. "It's all just brain

>mechanisms and their activities.

>

> "All the work that one imagines being done by the ego are really

>done by bits of the brain. Those brain tissues are not conscious and

>do not know who you are or care -- but their activity adds up to

>'conscious you.' "

>

> The most extreme version of this view, which is sometimes called

>reductionism, suggests that consciousness is an illusion. A new book

>by Harvard professor Daniel Wegner is titled, "The Illusion of

>Conscious Will."

>

> The feeling you have as you read this sentence, Wegner argues, is an

>illusion pulled off by a complex machine in your skull. It not only

>reads and understands this sentence, he says, but also makes you feel

>as if you have experienced the reading of the sentence. In other

>words, the brain, not content with being a remarkably complex machine,

>also convinces itself that it isn't a machine at all.

>

> But why would it bother? The brain, Wegner contends, produces

>consciousness to give itself a feeling of having done something. This

>feeling helps the brain recognize similar situations when they arise

>-- the next article in the newspaper, for instance. Being aware of its

>actions, the brain-machine can better decide whether to read another

>article.

>

> "When you drive to work, you don't feel there are hundreds of little

>gears in a machine in your head that make you do this. You think, 'I'm

>going to get up and go to work,' " Wegner said in an interview.

>

> "We think the intentions cause the actions, and we get the feeling

>we have willed what we do. It could be the intentions and actions are

>being caused by the machinery of the brain."

>

> Wegner cites numerous examples to show that intentions and actions

>are produced by different mechanisms in the brain -- while they are

>timed to occur simultaneously, they sometimes don't. During hypnosis,

>for instance, people's bodies act apparently without their will. Yet

>their movements are still produced by their brains, suggesting that

>conscious intention doesn't always precede action.

>

> Other experiments have shown that people are not aware of most brain

>activity. Until they focused on it, for example, most readers would

>not be conscious that they were stringing together the words in this

>sentence, applying the laws of grammar and extracting meaning. Wegner

>says the relationship between conscious will and action is like that

>of a magician's wand and the rabbit he pulls out of a hat -- it only

>seems as if the wand made the rabbit appear.

>

> But why would the brain ascribe intention to only some of its

>actions? "Why do certain areas of the brain not produce consciousness

>and other areas at other times produce experience?" asked Terrence

>Deacon, an anthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley.

>

> Deacon, the author of "The Symbolic Species," disagrees with Weg-

>ner's mechanistic explanation. Deacon is exploring a new theory, that

>the brain has two separate aspects. One part, which handles things it

>has mastered, is all about computation. The other part, which is

>consciousness, reacts to the world in a process that mimics evolution.

>

> In Charles Darwin's theory, species evolve from one to the next

>without a guiding hand; competition and selection spur adaptation and

>improvement.

>

> "Evolution is information coming out of nothing, information coming

>out of chaos," said Deacon. The same phenomenon of "emergent"

>information in our brain is consciousness, he said.

>

> This ability, he said, is useful in dealing with the unexpected.

>"When I am outdoors at night and I hear a crackling sound in bushes,

>it pushes everything else out of the way," he said.

>

> In other words, consciousness helps people pay attention to what's

>important. But Deacon admits that this theory, which tries to explain

>what consciousness does, doesn't quite get at what consciousness is.

>Deacon is among the many who quote David Chalmers's description of

>this as the "hard problem."

>

> "The hard problem is hard because no explanation of brain processes

>will explain subjective experience," said Chalmers, a philosopher at

>the University of Arizona. "I am interested in the perceptual aspects

>of consciousness. The feeling of pain, the taste of chocolate, the

>sight of blue -- all these are subjective experiences."

>

> Chalmers believes scientists will eventually conclude that

>consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe -- like space,

>time or gravity -- and therefore not reducible.

>

> "Why does the law of gravity hold? No one can explain that,"

>Chalmers said.

>

> The neuroscientists all furiously disagree with each other, of

>course. The reductionists call arguments about new fundamental

>properties of the universe "woolly-headed" and a back-door return to

>Descartes' "observer" in the brain. Their detractors criticize them

>for being "more neural than thou," which is actually the title of one

>paper.

>

> Beyond the hard problem is what New York University philosopher Ned

>Block calls "the harder problem" -- how to understand consciousness in

>other creatures, especially those with brains very different from

>ours. And as technology improves, Block said that question may one day

>be posed about complex machines, or humans with visual and

>neurological implants.

>

> And so it goes. Despite the neuroscientists' new theories, the hard

>problem isn't getting any easier.

>

>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- ShiningLotus <shininglotus wrote:

> Namaskar My Friends

>

> Someone please correct me if am wrong here however

> as most of us know India

> has had the answer to all this for thousands of

> years. Has also been proven

> for thousands of years on an individual basis

>

 

When I read the article in the Washington post, I felt

like writing to the letters to the editor. Because of

time constraints I could not. The author does not know

or did not care that Consciousness was the topic

discussed in Veda-s. Unfortunately the author's name

is 'Shankar Vedantam" - What an irony!

 

Hari Om1

Sadananda

 

 

 

LAUNCH - Your Music Experience

http://launch.

[Guest guest]

Yes am agreeing with this totally

 

Aum Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya

 

Thank You

 

DharmaDev Arya

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

advaitin <advaitin>

Wednesday, May 22, 2002 3:35 AM

Re: A New Thinking Emerges About Consciousness -

Washington Post Article

 

>

>--- ShiningLotus <shininglotus wrote:

>> Namaskar My Friends

>>

>> Someone please correct me if am wrong here however

>> as most of us know India

>> has had the answer to all this for thousands of

>> years. Has also been proven

>> for thousands of years on an individual basis

>>

>

>When I read the article in the Washington post, I felt

>like writing to the letters to the editor. Because of

>time constraints I could not. The author does not know

>or did not care that Consciousness was the topic

>discussed in Veda-s. Unfortunately the author's name

>is 'Shankar Vedantam" - What an irony!

>

>Hari Om1

>Sadananda

>

>

>

>LAUNCH - Your Music Experience

>http://launch.

>

>

>Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

Atman and Brahman.

>Advaitin List Archives available at:

http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

>Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>