Science and Inquiry discussion

I have been reading and thinking about language, consciousness, and how they are linked. Are they codependent, unrelated or somewhat related? I just finished The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker and aside from being tremendously entertaining has given me a lot to ruminate over. Now reading The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. After 130 pages I am still not sure exactly what consciousness is. Would like to hear your thoughts on this topic please.

Hi Nancy, consciousness has been a topic that has fascinated me all my life and I've studied it both formally (a bit in psychology courses) and (mostly but extensively) informally. I have a ton of thoughts and a perspective on it that is in many ways all my own mostly coming from an evolutionary perspective. I don't think language is necessary for consciousness nor even symbolic manipulation really. I believe the beginnings or consciousness are in even single celled life though in them it is certainly not consciousness or self consciousness but I do believe they are aware of their surroundings, able to sense and respond, feed and reproduce by being aware, something all living things have and something that evolution has built upon to create higher levels of awareness, consciousness and self-consciousness all of which I see as survival enhancers.

There is an interesting set of articles from Scientific American (though a bit dated but still good) that I just read that summarizes several approaches - http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Conscio...

Nancy, I've been reading an excellent book titled The Future of the Mind: The Scientific Quest to Understand, Enhance, and Empower the Mind by Michio Kaku. Right up front, he gives an interesting definition of consciousness:

Consciousness is the process of creating a model of the world using multiple feedback loops in various parameters (e.g., in temperature, space, time, and in relation to others), in order to accomplish a goal (e.g., find mates, food, shelter).

Kaku uses his definition to quantify different levels of consciousness. As an extreme example, a thermostat is Level 0:1 because it has limited mobility and only has a single feedback loop. A flower has a Level 0:10 consciousness because it has about ten feedback loops. A Level I consciousness can measure its own location, for example, reptiles. Most reptiles have about 100 feedback loops. A Level II consciousness also creates a model of their position with respect to others--they are social and have emotions. A wolf is Level II:150 because it is social, and has emotions and about 150 feedback loops. A Level III consciousness can simulate the future and makes rough predictions.

Even if you don't agree with this hierarchy of levels of consciousness, it is an interesting idea!

I'm on the waiting list for that one from the library David. Excerpts I've read from it appear to be headed in the right direction though there seem to be a number of things that are of issue to me.

I've been saying consciousness is a feedback mechanism...the thermostat of the mind for years, I was quite surprised to see it show up in his approach as well.

Thanks David and Kenny for your comments. The definition given by Kaku is much broader than that presented by Jaynes. I like the hierarchy of levels of consciousness. With Jaynes consciousness is kind of an all or nothing quality. I think he is using the term to describe a much loftier concept than how most of us would define consciousness. I guess he is talking about Kaku's highest level(s)....he is certainly not referring to being able to detect sunlight or even my normal state first thing in the morning before I've had my bean juice.

will have to try to get the scientific american articles for nook.

Are you familiar with Jaynes' theory? He asserts that people up to about 1000 BC weren't conscious. Their actions were determined via auditory hallucinations emanating from the right hemisphere (e.g. the gods.) he cites passages from the Iliad and points out that Hector and Achilles and all those guys, whenever they needed to decide what to do, whom to kill, or how, were instructed by the gods. It was never Achilles decided to do this or Agememnon figured out that. Joan of Arc heard voices. God spoke to Moses. the book of Revelations is a good example of right brain manifestations. (my opinion, not Jaynes')
according to Jaynes, the logical, languages left hemisphere wound up taking over and now the only people who admit to hearing voices are schizophrenics and such. Did I hear "altered states of consciousness?"
I am not sure I buy it...too soon to tell and I have already come up with some objections...but there is certainly something to it and it is interesting.

Nancy wrote: "Are you familiar with Jaynes' theory? He asserts that people up to about 1000 BC weren't conscious. Their actions were determined via auditory hallucinations emanating from the right hemisphere (e...."

My question is; in what primate did these voices first appear? Are burials an indication of the presence of the mind voice?

An interesting book I have recently read on this topic was: Through the Language Glass: Why the World Looks Different in Other Languages

How does the language you speak influence your perception, memory, navigation in space, all the inputs that go into your conscious awareness?

For instance:

Whenever Matses speakers use a verb, they are obliged to specify—like the finickiest of lawyers—exactly how they came to know about the facts they are reporting. The Matses, in other words, have to be master epistemologists. There are separate verbal forms depending on whether you are reporting direct experience (you saw someone passing by with your own eyes), something inferred from evidence (you saw footprints on the sand), conjecture (people always pass by at that time of day), or hearsay (your neighbor told you he had seen someone passing by).

Another example was the language Guugu Yimithirr, which does not have egocentric coordinates (aka words like left & right), defying Kant, who postulates that all spatial thinking is egocentric in nature.

Whenever we would use the egocentric system, the Guugu Yimithirr use the four cardinal directions: gungga (North), jiba (South), guwa (West), and naga (East). [...]
If Guugu Yimithirr speakers want someone to move over in a car to make room, they will say naga-naga manaayi, which means “move a bit to the east.” If they want to tell you to move a bit back from the table, they will say guwa-gu manaayi, “move a bit to the west.” It is even unusual to say only “move a bit that way” in Guugu Yimithirr. Rather, one has to add the correct direction “move a bit that way to the south.”

This changes your awareness quite a bit, when every second who have to know your orientation with respect to an absolute coordination system.
The linkage between consciousness and language is a difficult topic, depending on which definition on consciousness you settle. :) But I would definitely argue that your language framework can change your conscious awareness qualitatively.

Those are goods questions, Stan. My first reaction was that since humans are the only apes who seem to have a true spoken language, we must be the first ...but then I remembered reading that deaf people also experience these hallucinations and that the part of the brain that perceives them is the exact same part as in hearing people! So perhaps speech and ears are not crucial.
I do feel that language in some form probably is though.

I don't know about burials. I know that some of the auditory hallucinations Jaynes refers to seem to come from deceased ancestors in various cultures, but one culture he described apparently cut off the dearly departeds head, hollowed out his skull, filled it with (their version of) cement and constructed a plaster face on It. So maybe burial isn't Germaine.

I am chopping up my posts because sometimes my gadget loses my words of wisdom in the middle of a long tirade, and that makes me really mad because I forgot what I typed and what my point was...
Amalia that book Through the Language Glass sounds terrific, I want to read that ASAP! IT sounds like those societies you referred to, which I have never heard of, must have a very different view of the world! I have always wondered if people from entirely different cultures have very different ways of thinking about things. Pinker pointed out that all those alleged words for snow the Eskimos have is not really that different from our words like slush, blizzard, powder etc. But saying west, east, etc. Instead of beside me, in front of me etc. Really seems to remove the I from the equation.

I am starting to think that the word consciousness has a very wide range of meanings. It would be hard for us the discuss or argue about it if my definition of consciousness is that I have had one cup of coffee and am now vaguely aware of the dog who is stealing my donut, and your definition involves the Metaphor Me, the Analog I, the ability to picture oneself in a colony on the moon, and the ability to wonder what other people think of you and furthermore whether they are wondering what you must think of them. Jaynes seems to lean toward the latter view, he has pretty strict criteria when defining the term.

Oh and Michio Kaku has a bunch of youtube videos on the topic in relation to his book. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GS2r...

Kenny wrote: "I'm on the waiting list for that one from the library David. Excerpts I've read from it appear to be headed in the right direction though there seem to be a number of things that are of issue to me..."

Just got it from the library....woo-hoo!

You will enjoy the book, Kenny. Here is my review.

I am looking forward to reading it as well. Didn't he also write The Physics of Star Trek?

Yep. Physics of the Future etc...

Jaynes is getting farfetched. it seems the early civilizations did little (left hemisphere) thinking for themselves. The gods (right hemisphere) pretty much told them what to do. He offers a lot of GREAT evidence of this and a hundred years ago in college I bought it hook line and sinker, but now I am wondering if there was less of a difference in their thought processes than in the ways in which they communicated. Does Language = Thought? Not 100% as Pinker gives examples of people with language deficits who, other than having trouble coming out with their points, act as normal as the next guy. But I am sure that the deficits and strengths of ones language do have an effect, and certainly affect the interpretations of others.

Yep, that was kind of my take on his treatise after reading it (or most of it) a billion or so years ago. :)

Didn't want to cloud your opinion earlier....

Gosh, Kenny--you really are an old-timer! :-)

David wrote: "Gosh, Kenny--you really are an old-timer! :-)"

Hee-hee!

next you'll be saying you "invented" consciousness ;-)

Well as far as I know it wasn't around til I got it. LOL!

how do you know you've got it?

My cat told me.

is your cat conscious? I say my cat is conscious. although she may not be conscious of being conscious. sometimes I am conscious of being conscious, but never conscious of being conscious of being conscious.
Until this very moment.

I have to say, I often wonder if all humans are consciour, it the way the neurobioligists mean.

Robbower wrote: "I have to say, I often wonder if all humans are consciour, it the way the neurobioligists mean."

Robbower wrote: "I have to say, I often wonder if all humans are consciour, it the way the neurobioligists mean."
How are they defining consciousness? There is such a wide range of definitions it is hard to even discuss sometimes.

I think a primate looking into a mirror and realizing "that is me" is a pretty high standard and of course most humans are that conscious. Jaynes disagrees, seems to believe thats not a high enough standard.
It seems to me that being aware that one is an individual separate from the rest of the world is a pretty good sign of consciousness. Jaynes and others might require the ability to predict what might happen in the future, or to imagine what would happen in different circumstances.

Yikes, wow, I'm gonna have to think about this one ;) Other than at first glance, language, to me, seems to have more to do with the conscious need to communicate with others than consciousness alone. The need for communication would be a branch of the consciousness. The consciousness, in turn, is the total bulk of an individual's memories, and hence their identity. I'm probably gonna have more occur to me later......

A fun read in Novel form full of language and the ramifications of consciousness is... https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8...

sounds interesting Craig, I put it on my to-read list (which is getting out of control).

Mel, Jaynes and some others put a pretty high threshold on what qualifies as conscious. a lenient definition might be a sentient being who has awareness of the outside world, while some pundits require self-awareness, the capacity to, for example, wonder how others see you, or to picture yourself in a situation. seems like someone threw in something about the capacity for thinking in the subjunctive mood, like "what would have happened IF..." and "if I do this, then he will probably do that."

oh...and Mel...do you really think that consciousness relates to "the bulk of one's memories?" this brings up a thorny issue in that some of us tend to forget a lot of stuff. and there are people who genuinely do have amnesia issues, aside from just the garden variety of forgetfulness that plagues those of us who are getting old, are blonde, or who have been dropped on our heads too many times. What does that imply about their consciousness? anything important?
also, I think it was in Jaynes book, most of the time we are NOT conscious of anything except (perhaps) what is occupying our attention at that time. So we are not conscious of our memories most of the time. I suppose it may be said that, if while driving, we are listening to an interesting audio book, we are not conscious of our driving. like there is some kind of driving program running in the background.

Yes, it does--memory bulk does not have to be large for one to have consciousness, but it does affect the varying Who I Am aspect. Like the lady with dementia who murdered her nursing home roommate? It was just in the news. She is quite incompetent to stand trial, so she probably isn't going to be charged with anything. The pending murder charges that are still on the books for her, though, are second degree, because her mental state makes her incapable of premeditation. Good question, though.

Also, a person with no memory of their past, say, 20 years is consciously and subconsciously making new memories. Some memories can be brought back, and the identity is affected by their presence or absence.

The subconscious is part of the consciousness. It is the underwater to the ocean, if you will.

PS on the subconscious--we do not 'know' the half of our memories. And yet all of that is You. Relates to one of my pet topics: intuition :) It's pretty crazy how much we observe w/o knowing, only to "know" something later and not know why we do, because we do not remember making the observation.

Mel wrote: "PS on the subconscious--we do not 'know' the half of our memories. And yet all of that is You. Relates to one of my pet topics: intuition :) It's pretty crazy how much we observe w/o knowing, only ..."

That is true. I can't remember which book it was by Malcolm Gladwell that talked about that. Outliers, or Blink? Talked about how pilots, soldiers and others who have to make split second decisions amazingly seem to make the right decisions when there is no time for conscious reasoning. Must be the subconscious mind operating off previous experiences, memories and instincts. I used to never trust my intuitions or hunches because they did not seem to have logical roots. It amazed me when they proved correct. I'm sure we've all had those experiences and find that intuition can be a very useful tool. You just can't get it mixed up with emotions though. Because most of the time they are illogical.
So the operations and influence of the right hemisphere of the brain... Intuition, emotion, what?

Yes, emotions can make for the imposition of bias--people often pass a bias off as 'intuition', but even then there is another part of them that knows better. you got it with 'right brain'--although there is more crossing of the two sides of the brain than initially thought, artistic cues do jog intuition for a reason. Our dreams speak in images and poetry to us, so it only stands to reason art would do a similar jogging of the memory in waking life.

Which makes for a thoroughly unscientific and yet brilliant method of problem solving as long as you are not superstitious about it. Do you know of what I speak? lol Yup, tarot cards.

"Asking the cards" is, if anything, the polar opposite of the scientific method. And yet it works because of plain ol' facts. The artistic prompts tell you only what you already know. Things you know from observation you do not consciously remember. Pictures and symbols strengthen the intuition--BECAUSE all it is is the application of "dream language" in waking life. Any problems lie in superstitious interpretation of it--thinking the 'revelation' is coming from an external source. Anything can be misunderstood.

I am not suggesting you throw your money down some psychic's vortex (haha down their vortex)--I'm saying it's well worth it to DIY. you literally don't know the half of what you know! :)

I am so itching for a conflict here. Unfortunately I make too much sense, don't I? lol. because I am NOT condoning the superstitious angle of it. Intuition, on the other hand, is a fact!

Mel wrote: "Yes, emotions can make for the imposition of bias--people often pass a bias off as 'intuition', but even then there is another part of them that knows better. you got it with 'right brain'--althoug..."

Sorry Mel, I can't put up too much of an argument because, although I think supernatural phenomona is baloney, I imagine often tarot cards, oija boards, and horoscopes " work" because they act as vehicles for the subconscious.
I do have to question your dismissal of "biases," however. This is probably a politically incorrect view, but biases are often based on previous experiences. A bias may not be good, but it might be better than taking a shot in the dark. My preference for dodge pickups with Cummins engines, for example, is a bias based on both my experience and a conglomeration of jabber from other people based on their experiences. And the sound of their purring (biases are not always rational, I will concede.) My sweetheart has a similar bias toward Chevies. So obviously a bias is not always to be trusted...but that could be said of intuition as well. Since you aren't really sure where the intuition is coming from, it is only natural to question it.

The issue is biases emphasize subjectivity. While I don't think humans are capable of being *fully* objective, it's important to aim for it, and catering to one's biases does the opposite, since the negative experiences, having counterparts in the lives of others, are subjective. (sorry bout the run on sentence). In the end, it is a lean back into a comfort zone, even if the experiences themselves are relevant.

PS that can be said of intuition, yes. but since biases tend to be more conscious and "on the surface," it follows that they are less observation based than intuition, and thus less fact based.

I guess I am having a little trouble with the semantic distinction.

Just got Through the Language Glass from half.com. Thanks for the recommendation Amalia. I am already surprised by the lack of words for colors in some languages. Lumping blue, purple and black all into the word "black?" Referring to honey as "green?" The "wine-dark sea?" Is the peculiarity due to language or perception?

Color language is fascinating, but it points to other language-based perceptions.

Imagine a culture with words for only black and white (dark and light). Now apply that percption to other perceptions in our own languages. Politics: Left/Right. Ethics: Right/Wrong. Sexuality: Normal/Abnormal. People: Good/Bad.

Might we be 'color-blind' in many of these areas?

Just asking.

It might be easier to look at consciousness as the interaction between the outside world that starts inside our bodies and the subconscious mind where the conscious mind is only a small part of the subconscious mind looking on as a disinterested party that comes up with clever thoughts that can base bias and perceptions on the color of skin or hair. One step forward two steps back.

I am about half way through and it sounds like people, even though they make lack words for some colors, still perceive the differences. But that is an interesting point you make Robbower...things aren't always black or white. the Right/Left distinction always gave me trouble. if you criticize Bush you're a "liberal," if you criticize Obama you're a "conservative".... what do they call those of us who can't stand either one? (a curmudgeon perhaps.)
In science we have positive and negative charges, x and y chromosomes, very specifically defined elements and planetary orbits and genetic codes and the speed of life. so much easier to deal with than social theories, which become fashionable or unfashionable depending on politics and who can produce the latest best seller. Not just Black and White but (ugh) 50 Shades of Gray.

Nancy, I read the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind over 35 year ago when I began pursuing a career in psychology. The ideas presented left a profound impression on me. For years I have tried to get someone to read it. I look forward to hearing your impression. I found it enlightening.

Elyse, I read it 100 years ago when I was in college. it figured heavily in a seminar about the right and left hemispheres of the brain. I recently began reading it again and found a a little more far-fetched than I remembered, but still a lot of food for thought. I am traveling out of town for work this summer so I returned it to the library unfinished rather than risking losing in in the mad shuffle.
What runs through my mind is
1. this switch from hearing the voice of authority from the right brain, to reasoning out (or rationalizing) our decisions mainly in the left hemisphere, seems to have occurred in the blink of an evolutionary eye. Is the change cultural or neurological?
2000 years ago John wrote the book if Revelations, which sounds like a long, wild hallucination if ever there was one. The ancient peoples reportedly (I am thinking of the Iliad, specifically, but Jaynes cites many more examples) took directions directly from the gods. This was apparently not regarded in any way as "strange," but rather as perfectly normal.
Nowadays, of course, hearing voices is seen as a sign of schizophrenia or other mental disturbance. I have a friend whose lady friend claims that Jesus told her they should get married. I'm ashamed to confess that neither my friend nor myself put a whole lot of stock into all this lady claims Jesus tells her, but far be it from me to deny that she hears it.
2. Jaynes cites examples wherein certain areas of the brain are stimulated, causing people to clearly "hear" voices. Oddly, this is true of deaf people as well, so it is not necessarily audio. I think he said that the stimulation did not cause this effect on everyone. So is this something that people used to be more in touch with that area of the brain, and over the centuries has gone out of style in favor of left brain. logic?
Any thoughts?
I need to finish the book...and review what I've already read....