What is in your opinion the main function of consciousness?

The primary function  of consciousness is to be oriented to time and place while being aware of self so that we can survive , interact and live . 

Conciousness is a control function that maps the effects to the causes, so that reactions can be navigated in much the same manner as cause and effect suggest.

That is a very interesting and thought provoking question and one debated for some time and is an argument between science, philosophy and religion. I think there are the camps that consider quantum theory of mind and those that see it as our being one with the universe and god. Personally, I see conciousness as a concoction of neuro transmitters, and the exact potion to enable conciousness is individual and unique. It is simply a neural executive function that has to exist for us to utilise decision making, do we turn right or left? Give humans the right chemicals and we lose conciousness, we seemingly can existfor years in a comatosed state however that is only on life support machines, so actually we cant exist without conciousness - therefore it is simply part of our make up as physical entities.

The burning question is does conciousness exist after death if the body is still in tact, is conciousness an intangible entity one may also call a spirit, is there an alternative parallel universe where conciousness exists after physical death, do we go there during dream states, is this where astral travelling beliefs come from?   I don't think we do, I think dream states are about memories, hopes and experiences. Films like the Matrix naturally come to mind,perhaps conciousness is simply a mass hallucination?

The thalamus stops communicating with cortex when awake fast oscillations  such as alpha, beta and Gamma (7Hz to 100Hz) are replaced by "Delta " 1to 3 Hz rhythm. So consciousness allows a person to primarily recreate the external world such as space , time , distance, direction as a "live" template. In this template we project all images , sounds and sensations. What we think external , is at microsecond level internal however we do not know that . This illusion has kept us away from the reality of consciousness. Following are our recent article: 

It's not that we have too many answers Ravinder, Because the question asks for supposition on the "Main" Function. We all have slightly different views on how consciousness is achieved, of course we are going to disagree on the "Main" reason for it. My answer is dependent on a simple system being extended 6 times or so to become full blown consciousness. My understanding Evolved into full consciousness from a very simple system, it is not going to be the same as yours. Nor does it depend on the thalamus for its operation.

Graeme, Just like the main function of heart is to pump blood , cardiovascular system to deliver nutrients , respiratory system to deliver oxygen , thalamic cortical oscillations and nervous system main function is to generate  consciousness. If you believe it does not depend upon thalamus try spending 15 days without sleep.

To my knowledge no animal or man can live in that scenario. 

What is consciousness is one of the big questions of our time, we all have different theories according to our interests. Quantum theory relies heavily on the conscious observer to create reality. Experiments have been conducted (the double split experiment) which prove observation affects reality.  Certainly that could be seen as its "Main" reason for existing. 

IMO it is more useful to ask, when it comes to

discussions about consciousness: being conscious

of what? Without knowing what consciousness refers to,

the debate is void, like asking: are you an owner,

do you own?

Most of the information about the situations we

are in seems to serve survival. This aspect

of consciousness puts knowledge into action,

as Graeme indicated.

If someone asks you whether you are conscious

of the fact that a brick is right now

about to fall on you, don't answer yes.

Step aside.

Regards,

Joachim

The most confusing aspect of understanding consciousness is that we split our inner self from the external world. This turns out to be the case with modern research in the field.

In all my current articles I have based consciousness as arising out of internal correlates of external information in a three dimensional space. It is clear that no sound , light or touch actually reaches our brain , it is only their electrical codes via the nervous system. So in short we "only " respond to internal coding and since it happens in microseconds describe what is an illusion that it is happening outside 

Mainz, Germany

Dear all,

It strikes me that consciousness facilitates the regulatory functions of the mind, and it is easier to ask about the functions of the mind. To get an overview of the meaning of "consciousness," I think we would at least need to enumerate the kinds of things of which we can be conscious. Talk of consciousness suggests talk of content, and there may be room to doubt that there is some common element or property which all conscious states have in common --other than being accessible to someone who has (particular) conscious states.

Functionalist approaches to consciousness seem always on the brink of showing that consciousness is very mysterious and perhaps unnecessary to overall functioning of the mind; and they tend to end up with the question of the possibility of unconscious beings who act just as though they were conscious--who are behaviorally indistinguishable.

This suggests to me that asking about the function of consciousness may be the wrong question. Maybe we should say, instead, that "conscious," as contrasted with "conscious of so-and-so," or "thinking that such-and-such" is no proper description (in the spirit of "existence is not a predicate") and that we should instead ask about  the function of being conscious of this, that or the other thing, in the modes of perception and cognition.  

H.G. Callaway

Ravinder: "

Just like the main function of heart is to pump blood , cardiovascular system to deliver nutrients , respiratory system to deliver oxygen , thalamic cortical oscillations and nervous system main function is to generate consciousness. If you believe it does not depend upon thalamus try spending 15 days without sleep."

What is in your opinion the main function of consciousness?. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_in_your_opinion_the_main_function_of_consciousness/1 [accessed Jun 15, 2015].

Sleep is regulated somewhere else besides the thalamus. I am not going to argue with you about it, however, suffice it to say that the thalamus has a role in cortical function and memory. It's involvement in consciousness that you claim, is controversial.

Yes input is filtered whether by habit or simply because the system cannot cope with all the inputs, and puts limits on what is attempted. But I am not talking about pure cause and effect, I am talking about a control strategy around what cause and effect can be sensed and processed.

The main function of consciousness is survival. But as I hope explain, that answer really puts the “cart before the horse”. To understand this without resorting to some teleological crutch such as a “will to live”, one must consider how consciousness arose and how it is contributing to survival. I’ll then argue that consciousness does not need to be orchestrated by some “other plan”. It is simply a potential inherent in properties of matter and energy.

Given a tendency of self reproducing molecules to proliferate and lead to organisms, I’ll start with my interpretation of Jerison’s theory of brain evolution. Consciousness did not arise before the evolution of mammals. It happened due to an extremely unlikely series of events. Mammals seem to have evolved from reptiles at a time when the earth went into a cooling spell for whatever reason. This created an opportunity for animals which could function independently of ambient temperatures. Mammals took that advantage at the cost of greater metabolic complexity.

However, the world then warmed up again. Being homoeothermic was no longer a liability. Early dinosaurs could continued to develop and being metabolically simpler, it was easier for them to develop specialized adaptations to virtually every ecological zone. Mammals, on the other hand, faced more problems - coping with the danger of overheating. Additional adaptations to support cooling were achieved at the cost of still more complexity. This further made other adaptations to various environmental niches more difficult.

Mammals thus began to loose ground to better adapted dinosaurs. Eventually, the only remaining environmental niche was one that animals with excellent audio-visual and movement skills would otherwise avoid - the underground. Vision and hearing are of little value for finding food underground, but the faint dispersion of odors from roots and grubs do percolate through the soil. Therefore, it is likely that mammals’ first underground adaptation enhanced olfactory sensitivity. That was difficult to achieve since millions of years of selective survival had already led to olfactory, auditory and visual receptors as efficient as theoretically possible. The other option of adding more receptors entailed also having more brain material to integrate and interpret the information. Thus it seems that mammals initially adapted by adding more brain cells to the olfactory cortex.

That was the beginning of a series of sensory adaptations that led to mammals having a substantially larger brain than would otherwise have occurred given the hundreds of millions of years when dinosaurs ruled the earth with their small brains. To communicate with each other, mammals improved their hearing by adding more neurons to the open end of the central nervous system - on top of the olfactory cortex. To keep track of their location underground, mammals added more cortex to store the kinaesthetic and tactile information from digging tunnels. This store became a basis for an internal map of their environment - a map which was hardly needed for animals that could directly see and hear the direction of sources above ground.

About 65 million years ago, an ecological disaster, probably the large meteor that struck the Yucatan Peninsula, wiped out nearly all the most highly evolved life on earth. Birds escaped by being able to fly to otherwise inaccessible ecological havens. Mammals escaped in their underground refuge. During their millions of years hiding underground, adults doubtless tried to prevent their juveniles from exploring outside the burrows. During their millions of years hiding underground, juveniles, like juveniles today, disobeyed and wandered outside anyway. In a world abounding with sharp-eyed dinosaurs, their blind adventures were likely short. Suddenly, however, the monsters disappeared, and the juveniles survived to sniff out all sorts flavorful edibles. Yet, millions of years living in no light left little remaining sight. The advantage of being able to see food and predators above ground was so powerful, that mammals once again developed that sensory ability by adding more brain cells on top of the open end of the central nervous system. (That is why the visual area of brain is farthest back. It was added last.) It was also a “straw that almost broke the camel’s back”.

By their progression through what ecologists call “an evolutionary bottleneck”, circumstances created something entirely unwarranted: an animal with more information processing ability than would ever be needed for survival; furthermore an animal, especially with the redevelopment of vision, that must have faced a problem becoming ever more prevalent in today’s society - information overflow! (At this point, I may stretch Jerison’s theory.) Then something happened that, for now, we can only call “magic”. Rather than separately dealing with the olfactory, auditory, tactile, kinesthetic, and visual information, these all got integrated into a single form of information that we experience as consciousness.

Now back to the original question:

Once consciousness happened, it enabled mammals to use more information more efficiently and survive better than other mammals and animals lacking consciousness. We can now extrapolate from that to the future of humanity. It will take humanity over a hundred million years to determine if we are more successful than dinosaurs. In the meantime it does seem that consciousness has opened a potential for us to survive situations that dinosaurs could not survive. On a cosmic scale, meteors striking planets are not infrequent events. Humanity is just becoming aware of this fact and that our survival may be similarly extinguished at short notice. Consciousness has given us the civilization and technology that may just make it possible for us to survive, where dinosaurs could not.

Yet we did not get here because all that went before us was driven by some unconscious urge to survive. The “purpose” of consciousness is not survival. Rather, consciousness exists because we have survived. Let’s keep it that way.

I'm intrigued my Michael Graziano's attention schema theory, which basically posits that consciousness is a interoceptive 'sensory' experience, witnessing the dynamic movement of our own attention.

Your question depends on how we define Consciousness - consciousness studies are relatively new in the West but in the East they have been studying Consciousness for thousands of years. Western science is inclined to take a materialistic point of view and think of consciousness as a product of the brain. In the Upanishads, consciousness is thought of an "a non-physical yet powerful entity that is the pivotal point of all life and activates the senses in every living being. It is highly responsive and expressive and activates many levels, especially in humans" Srinivas Arka 2013.

From this point of view, Consciousness animates all of life.

There is an error in my earlier answer on the purpose of consciousness. I was thinking of reptiles as having the same body temperature as the environment and called them "homoeothermic", which is wrong.  Animals that can not regulate their body temperature are poikilothermic (cold-blooded).  Sorry if that caused confusion.

There is a large consensus that humans and higher animals are conscious in multiple ways and there is also a consensus that scientifically we do not know what it is.  We naturally agree that we are conscious but we have no scientific clue why we think so.

I am in the opinion that consciousness cannot be understood within science for the following reason.  The variables into a scientific model have to be 3th person observable. This will not prevent me from trying defining it anyway.

All higher animals began from a fertilized egg and from there begin a cellular growth process in interaction with their environment and after birth the growth interaction process consist mostly of learning from interaction , from life experience.  An animal is an interaction loop as modeled by Von Uexkull functional loop.  The nexus of growth, of learning is the center of attention and there is always at the nexus of the action a choice to be made that is vastly underconstraint and a creative choice has to be made and this creative process at the nexus of growth is what is consciousness.  It obviously cannot be observed scientifically.  The nexus of growth , the nexus of creation is singularity in the sense that it is not observable from a 3th person perspective and it is the 1th person perspective to be at the singularity of the organism.

In “Mind and matter” (1958).http://web.mit.edu/philosophy/religionandscience/mindandmatter.pdf

 Schrodinger more or less say the same thing:

''The ensuing organic development begins to be accompanied by consciousness only inasmuch as there are organs that gradually take up interaction with the environment, adapt their functions to the changes in the situation, are influenced, undergo practice, are in special ways modified by the

surroundings. We higher vertebrates possess such an organ mainly in our

nervous system. Therefore consciousness is associated with those of its

functions that adapt themselves by what we call experience to a changing

environment. The nervous system is the place where our species is still

engaged in phylogenetic transformation; metaphorically speaking it is the

“vegetation top” (Vegetationsspitze) of our stem. I would summarize my

general hypothesis thus: consciousness is associated with the learning

of the living substance; its knowing how (Konnen ¨ ) is unconscious.'' p.98

On p. 119, he says,

''The material world has only been constructed at the price of taking the self, that is, mind, out of it, removing it; mind is not part of it; obviously, therefore, it can nether act on it nor be acted on by any of its part.''

If consciousness is at the nexus of creation/growths then the world is created by it but it cannot be in the material world as constructed and studied by science although it has to be at the nexus of its construction in each individual.  Consciousness is the constructor that cannot be observed. 

My best guess is that the main function of consciousness has to do with information processing economics, which would provide a good explanation in evolutionary terms. The integrated information theory of consciousness (e.g. Tononi, 2012) predicts that conscious systems are more cost efficient than unconscious feedforward systems. The information that is represented in the brain is integrated i.e. bound together to form one huge chunk of information which may be processed at once. The representation and the processing I believe is the exact same thing, i.e. no further processing is needed by stupid demon processes or homunculi.

I think Roman's answer just above is quite interesting.

Some time ago I wrote a paper concerning the function of consciousness. It turns on 2  types of consciousness--the state of alert wakeful consciousness, and the condition of being conscious of some content. The paper can be accessed through Research Gate and is called "Negative hallucinations, other irretrievable experiences and two functions of consciousness." in The International Journal of Psychoanalysis 70 (Pt 3):461-79 · January 1989. It is a long paper and there is a lot on psychoanalysis. But the main point is that being conscious of something is necessary, but not sufficient for tagging some content as a perception vs. a memory vs. a phantasy vs. a dream percept, etc. For fixing a content properly alert conscious wakefulness is needed!

Thomy,

I certainly gained much from reading your answer on page 2 of this thread - many thanks! However, I'd like to comment on your opening remark as to the necessity of avoiding "teleological crutches" in order to explain the evolution of consciousness, In the first place, organisms are purposive, self-regulating systems, and it is precisely their dependence on some teleological process that accounts for their ability to self-regulate, and which distinguishes them from non-self-regulating processes whose behaviour is determined by the effects of primary causes  and ensuing causal chains alone. Given this, the evolution of consciousness cannot be explained without reference to the self-regulatory constraints and underlying physiological mechanisms that characterize living organisms, those organisms constituting the medium in which evolution (including your account of the evolution of consciousness) depended upon in order to proceed. The function of consciousness is, as you say, survival, but survival, if only of the phenotype, within an uncharitable environment, requires self-regulation as a necessary and (temporarily) sufficient counter-measure. Inescapably, then, accounts of evolution are dependent upon processes affording self-regulation.

Considered from the framework of understanding the brain as a cybernetic system, in which all functional components act either to define and initialize a required or desired internal state that is to be attained or maintained,  or to activate processes capable of accomplishing that task, the general function of consciousness can be quite clearly delineated. Consciousness is a brain-state specifically related to the selecting from a range of currently activated processes those whose output  seems most relevant for describing and matching the properties of the currently ensconced internal state . Once selected, those outputs can be fed forward as reference values to working memory and to further processes that have become contextually associated with the interpreted properties of the internal state now held in working memory. If attaining or maintaining that state requires acting on the external environment so as to control some variable specified by a selected process, the process's output can additionally be fed forward to motor-processes as a reference value that their output in turn is to match, and to sensory processes mediating perception such that attention remains focused on the controlled variable. Having executed the motor-act, conscious comparing of actual changes in the controlled variable against the desired consequences represented in working memory, upon which the motor-act had been configured, the motor-act's effectiveness can be evaluated, and a decision be made as to how, if any mismatch is observed, it might  be adjusted so as to reduce that; this decision can then be used as feedback for controlling the motor-processes on the next attempt. If there is no discernible mismatch between the working-memory representation and the perceived properties of the controlled variable, but the original internal state remains unmatched, it can be inferred that the overall task has progressed to a further required stage, requiring the substituting of other processes to inform working-memory and motor, and sensory processes, as appropriate for accomplishing that stage.

The various roles for consciousness identifiable from the foregoing "cybernetic" account are characteristic of goal-orientated behaviours generated in response to exogenous stimuli, and primarily involve perceptual processes controlled by reference signals from relatively concrete cognitive representations of perceptual input that couple it with contextual and affective associations formed during previous experiencing of, and acting on, such input, affording its recognition in terms of its significant implications and known consequences for the individual. The content of working-memory, the configuring of motor-acts, and the evaluating of their effectiveness, therefore, is determined on the basis of immediate and recalled perceptual imagery. The cybernetic model, however, extends to include more abstract, hierarchically higher cognitive representations (categorical representations based on generic features and statistical regularities) and metacognitve processes (symbolic, syntactic etc.,) as generators of imagery represented in working-memory - the "objects of consciousness" that typify creative thinking,  problem-solving, strategic planning, introspection and other intellectual activity. Unprompted by exogenous input, and conducted without overt actions by which to test and assess the actual relevance and matchedness of whatever imagery is in working memory to the individual's current overarching internal state, steering the progress of thought by way of logical reasoning and/or intuition can nevertheless lead to eliminating mismatches in a self-regulated,  teleologically governed manner.

i like to think of consciousness as a world-modeling process that is vital to all living things.  in order to function, living things must coordinate a physical body with a physical environment and a social body with a social environment made up of the behaviors, strategies, and motivations of other organisms in the environment.  consciousness therefore is a necessary process at multiple levels of functionality: in the single cell, in an individual organ, in a unique member of a species, in a social group, in a national identity, in a species’ behavior as a whole, etc.    at each level an identity emerges as a dichotomized relationship of self-and-world with which to coordinate an internal stasis-preserving functionality within an ever-changing external environment.  each level of selfhood requires an appropriate world-model within which to behave, recreate, adapt, self-nourish, self-protect, etc.. 

Приношу извинения за несвоевременный ответ.

Несколько комментариев. Все представленные положения, разумеется, содержат то или иное рациональное зерно. Но, с моей точки зрения, ни одно из них не является полным и адекватным. Так как, если мы говорим об  «основных функциях Сознания», то все остальные существующие функции  Сознания – должны автоматически следовать из представленного определения (должны входить в него).

Поэтому представляю к обсуждению следующий вариант ответа.

1. Исходные положения: основное, с чем работает Сознание – это Информация, так как визуальные картины, звуки, мысли, ощущения, т.д. – все это Информация.

2. Поэтому основные функции Сознания – это работа с Информацией: А. Восприятие. В. Обработка Информации и принятие решений. С. Управление (реализация решений) – вызов реакций. др. Все остальное – частные случаи.

 С уважением  и благодарностью за внимание.

____________________________________________

I apologize for the untimely answer.

Here are some comments. All presented provisions, certainly, contain a rational thing. But, from my point of view, none of them is full and adequate. As if we speak about "the main functions of Consciousness", all other existing functions of Consciousness – should automatically come from the presented definition (should enter it).

Therefore I represent the following version of the answer to discussion.

1. Starting positions: the basic the Consciousness works with is Information. As visual pictures, sounds, thoughts, feelings, etc. are also Information.

2. Therefore the main functions of Consciousness are the work with Information: A. Feelings. B. Information processing and decision-making. C. Management (realization of decisions) –is  a call of reactions. All the rest – is  special cases.

With respect and gratitude for attention.

Михаил Миание,

this is trivial and no answer for nothing.

Lets define REALITY as ''All that exist'' plus ''All that is create NOW''.  Each one of us are a part of this reality and correspond to ''all that form you body and its relation'' plus ''all that is create NOW at its nexus/axis of growth/learning of your interaction/body'', the later is your consciousness. 

The main function of consciousness is the  Nature’s way for us to focus on the external world, interact with it, and survive.

Hello

 I like the question and I smile for it depends on how we define consciousness. As most of you know consciousness, in the east  is seen from a different perspective. “Consciousness is thought to be the essence of Atman, a primal, immanent self that is ultimately identified with Brahman—a pure, transcendental, subject-object-less consciousness that underlies and provides the ground of being of both Man and Nature" (Sen in Velmans, 2009, p. 1). 

Therefore from the perspective of Consciousness, its function in creating all this  is said to be “to play”. In other words IT creates this incredible world of which we are a part so that those who choose to reflect on their inherent nature, can find their way home and become one with IT once again. 

 

Can this be considered science or of interest to science? I feel it can be because we can also explore from a perspective which encourages us to think, feel and see things in their true perspective, through science, logic and intuitive experience.

Tina,

I agree with you.  Here how I see this.

The Atman = Brahman is the E = m c?2  of the  Upanishads philosophy.  No science is not there yet but maybe we can see trace of this in existing science.  The core developing axis of the scientific world view is cosmic/biological evolution.  This is the scientific view on Brahman. Brhaman or Universe, the All that exist is at its core what is creating everything NOW (All that exist , exist NOW.  The past is the existing structure of the universe NOW which record its formation and is thus accessible NOW).  If we look at the scientific view of Atman then we could also see a core construction of the individual and call this consciousness if this is taken to be the axis of creation of this individual NOW.  If we assume that the orin of the individual axis of interacting growth is the same as the universal axis then yes Atman=Brahman.  There is a lot to precise in that view for it to make sense in science.

Ravinder Jerath, Louis Brassard,

I thank for the answer. But it is impossible to get to a concrete structure of Consciousness. The approach was necessary for me in order to describe all existing properties of Consciousness on its basis and finally to create the General Theory.

Благодарю за ответ. Но из него нельзя выйти на конкретную структуру Сознания. Мне же обозначенный подход был необходим, для того чтобы на  его основе описать все существующие свойства Сознания и, в конечном итоге, создать Общую Теорию.

 Tina Lindhard, I thank for the answer.

Of course, how we will define Consciousness – in many respects predetermines further researches, but purely spiritual statements can't enter science at the moment.

Благодарю за ответ. Конечно, то, как мы определим Сознание – во многом предопределяет дальнейшие исследования, но в чистом виде духовные представления на данный момент в науку войти не могут.

Dear Михаил Миание ,

The drawing hand is your consciousness. It is conceiving/painting a theory of consciousness.  It is the hand being drawn.   

Our article published in peer-reviewed Journal "Communicative & Integrative Biology". A few major points discussed in the paper:

(1) Brain is not the source of consciousness.

(2) Consciousness is ubiquitous in all living organisms, starting from bacteria to human beings.

(3) The individual cells in the multicellular organisms are also individually cognitive entities.

(4) Proposals like “artificial life”, “artificial intelligence”, “sentient machines” and so on are only fairytales because no designer can produce an artifact with the properties like internal teleology (Naturzweck) and formative force (bildende Kraft).

(5) The material origin of life and objective evolution are only misconceptions that biologists must overcome.

Dear Bhakti Niskama Shanta  , If all what you have written is true why do you sleep? 

              I think if we paint all aspects of consciousness with a single brush, we will  not look at any thing with a curiosity to understand the process. It is going back to primitive knowledge. Can you imagine what progress we will have if we still think the earth is flat ? 

What is your evidence to support that what is written is in the paper not true? 

The general function of consciousness is to define its  specific function, with respect to behavioral decision making, implied by the properties of the qualia currently defining it.

It seems to me that this is what Louis' posting of the Escher hands picture is seeking to convey. Am I correct, Louis?

You can find a lot of good discussion on this paper at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/online_sadhu_sanga/Mcv2O-yhqLE

Richard,

Take the  self-drawing hands as representing the human body which build itslelf in its interraction.  With conscousness being at the center of action and symbolize by the tip of the pen.  What come out of the pen is the body and the body move the pen.  Not unlike a musician building its capacity, building itself, . to play a piece by practicing the piece.  What is practicing is its capacity which is the result of past practice.  At each instant of this practice, consciousness imprint novelty which is stabilized into the musician body. 

We know, what is there outside. Relatively true information - it means certainty and security. Furthermore we build the world and our self as a mirror of our sensations.