Consciousness schmonsciousness

[From Chris Cherpas (2001.02.20.1120 PT)]

Why isn't "consciousness" just another controlled perception?
We have a perception of ourselves (and others) as "conscious,"
but that can be based on a collection of other perceptions,
such as addressing someone who is asleep, and their not answering
until we wake them up.

Even "attention" need not have any independent status (i.e.,
outside the neural hierarchy). Can we attend without attending
"to" something? And isn't that another controlled perception?

Arguing on the other side of the issue: our culture is full of
notions about a separate self (the observer) who/that is somehow
fundamentally different than everything she/he/it observes (i.e.,
the observer's perceptions are different than the other perceptions).
This seems a bit like a carry-over from the "soul." I'm suspicious
of accepting this way of thinking, considering the strong historical
precedent of spiritual and dualistic philosophies.

Couldn't "consciousness" and "attention" be explained by the same
perceptual control systems by which we explain other perceptions?
If not, why not?

Best regards,
cc

[From Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)]

Chris Cherpas (2001.02.20.1120 PT)--

Couldn't "consciousness" and "attention" be explained by the same
perceptual control systems by which we explain other perceptions?
If not, why not?

Other perceptions are unique and specific: car, brightness, hurt, honesty,
democracy, etc. What I refer to as consciousness/attention/awareness is
simply what is common to all other perceptions of which I know. It is the
knowing of them, which is the same regardless of which perceptions are the
object of knowing.

It is possible to control perceptions of which we are not conscious (etc.).
All of the things we control have to be controlled perceptual signals,
according to PCT, yet we do not consciously experience everything we are
controlling. This suggests pretty strongly that perceiving is not the same
thing as being conscious of what we are perceiving. The PCT model offers,
uniquely, a way to tell whether perception is occurring independently of
whether a person is conscious of the perception.

As to the idea of consciousness being a remnant of the old idea of "soul,"
I have a different take on that. I think consciousness is a universal human
experience, and the idea of a "soul" was one attempt to explain it. In
oriental philosophies, the same idea is called, I believe, the "atman,"
which has little in common with Christian concepts of the soul, but
probably refers to the same phenomenon (and did so long before Christianity).

Many Eastern disciplines use techniques which encourage people to observe
what is in their minds (such as thoughts) without identifying with them,
until a state is reached in which there is pure awareness, or awareness
without object. The thoughts all die away, as do emotions and other kinds
of experience, until the system is at rest and the Observer is simply
observing. This is the state I call "awareness." When the brain systems
become active again, they provide objects to which awareness can attend --
like an observer waiting in a silent and dark room, and then having someone
turn on a radio and a TV. The combination of awareness and perceptions to
be aware of is what I call consciousness.

I know those are arbitrary terms and that this phenomenon is impossible to
establish objectively, at least in ordinary scientific terms. But what does
"objective" mean other than interobserver agreement? If you and I get the
same reading from a thermometer, we tend to think of the reading as an
objective measure of temperature. But what if we agree on the character of
a subjective experience, such as pain or hunger -- or consciousness? Does
the fact that each of us must observe a private version of the supposedly
common phenomenon make it any less objective? Don't we each have to judge
privately what the mercury column in the thermometer reads?

To me, the critical fact is that perception can be shown to be present by
showing that control exists (if you accept the control-system model), while
consciousness may or may not be present at the same time. We have to take
someone's word for the absence of consciousness, but we do that all the
time (take people's word) in science, don't we? If I say I don't remember
driving home, you probably wouldn't think I really do remember doing it but
have decided to lie to you.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Chris Cherpas (2001.02.20.2330 PT)]

Chris Cherpas (2001.02.20.1120 PT)--

Couldn't "consciousness" and "attention" be explained by the same
perceptual control systems by which we explain other perceptions?
If not, why not?

Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)--

Other perceptions are unique and specific: car, brightness, hurt, honesty,
democracy, etc. What I refer to as consciousness/attention/awareness is
simply what is common to all other perceptions of which I know. It is the
knowing of them, which is the same regardless of which perceptions are the
object of knowing.

I can see that as another perception, in which case what is unique
and specific is that it is the only perception of what is common to
all other perceptions. A perception of perceiving seems like a system
concept perception.

Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)--

It is possible to control perceptions of which we are not conscious (etc.).
All of the things we control have to be controlled perceptual signals,
according to PCT, yet we do not consciously experience everything we are
controlling. This suggests pretty strongly that perceiving is not the same
thing as being conscious of what we are perceiving. The PCT model offers,
uniquely, a way to tell whether perception is occurring independently of
whether a person is conscious of the perception.

The fact that we do not consciously experience everything we are
controlling might suggest to me that perceiving is different than
being conscious, but I think an argument can be made to the
contrary. If we apply the Test to the perception of consciousness,
I think we get evidence of control. I perceive consciousness as
something about me, whereas others might perceive some kind of
"field" of consciousness that cuts across organismic boundaries.
Either way, consciousness still seems like a system concept.

Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)--

Many Eastern disciplines use techniques which encourage people to observe
what is in their minds (such as thoughts) without identifying with them,
until a state is reached in which there is pure awareness, or awareness
without object.

I think awareness without object is probably a controlled perception.
The fact that discipline is involved suggests that this is so. Each
time thoughts and other perceptions of awareness-with-object arise,
this disturbance is opposed, and the perceiver returns to awareness
without object. The discipline facilitates negative feedback control.

Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)--

The thoughts all die away, as do emotions and other kinds
of experience, until the system is at rest and the Observer is simply
observing. This is the state I call "awareness." When the brain systems
become active again, they provide objects to which awareness can attend --
like an observer waiting in a silent and dark room, and then having someone
turn on a radio and a TV. The combination of awareness and perceptions to
be aware of is what I call consciousness.

In my view, the Observer is also system concept perception. Each time
the person finds s/he is slipping back into thoughts and emotions,
one has the perception that one is no longer acting as a pure
Observer. Error is pretty obvious with practice. And so it
is with riding a bike.

Of course, putting all this in words becomes a rather futile exercise
of trying somehow reproduce a system concept with something like
crudely pieced-together program-level perceptions. However, I'm going
to try anyway. I think it is consistent with system concept control
that we would feel comfortable with a view of ourselves as having a
kind of integrated core -- the Observer -- and that it is relatively
disturbing to see ourselves as a "mere" collection of perceptions
that lack such a common, unifying quality -- that we are forever doomed
to dissociated, multiple identities.

That is, I suspect a bias, a DESIRE for a pure observer. I WANT it to
be true. But that's where the conflict comes in -- it may be an illusion,
like other things we wish were so. I think the ability to
perceive oneself as a perceiver allows an illusion of transcending
perception. An experience we describe as "pure" hints of a controlled
perception -- i.e., free of error.

Bill Powers(2001.02.20.1519 MST)--

To me, the critical fact is that perception can be shown to be present by
showing that control exists (if you accept the control-system model), while
consciousness may or may not be present at the same time.

But this may only amount to perception without an accompanying
perception of perceiving versus perception with the perception
of perceiving. (It's getting difficult to continue in this vein!)

To me, the critical fact is that there are lots of controlled perceptions
we may have never understood as such until we studied them as such;
so, my bias is to think that it is unlikely that we have sufficiently
exhausted the possibilities for consciousness being anything other than
an instance of "it's all perception."

I'm hoping that after another hundred years or so of research, we'll
have improved our understanding of whatever it is we're talking about.

Best regards,
cc (practically unconscious)

[From Bill Powers (2001.02.22.1022.MST)]

Chris Cherpas (2001.02.20.2330 PT)--

I'm hoping that after another hundred years or so of research, we'll
have improved our understanding of whatever it is we're talking about.

Me, too. In the meantime, it's useful to deal with awareness on an as-if
basis. It's as if there is an Observer who is the same regardless of what
is observed. This concept (if you like) helps a person to become detached
from obsessive or too-low-level perceptions, and to "move" in such a way as
to make conflicts easier to resolve. The correctness of our verbal
constructs is sort of beside the point.

Best,

Bill P.

[From Chris Cherpas (2001.02.22.1330 PT)]

Chris Cherpas (2001.02.20.2330 PT)--

I'm hoping that after another hundred years or so of research, we'll
have improved our understanding of whatever it is we're talking about.

Bill Powers (2001.02.22.1022.MST)--

Me, too. In the meantime, it's useful to deal with awareness on an as-if
basis. It's as if there is an Observer who is the same regardless of what
is observed. This concept (if you like) helps a person to become detached
from obsessive or too-low-level perceptions, and to "move" in such a way as
to make conflicts easier to resolve. The correctness of our verbal
constructs is sort of beside the point.

I like. I also think we've been talking on either side of an
inevitable complementarity, if that's a real word. The zen of
it all is that when I am behaving more or less exclusively
as the Observer then it's clear that it's all perception, even
about an Observer. On the other hand, if I don't ever
behave more or less exclusively as the Observer, then I won't
have that clarity. In any case, thanks for the discussion.

After eating donut holes for breakfast this morning, my kids
said they felt really full.

Best regards,
cc