Sure. Here’s a version of the analogy that first got me thinking about it:
If I turn on a lamp at night, it sheds both heat and light. But I wouldn’t say that the point of a lamp is to produce heat, nor that the amount of heat it does or doesn’t produce is relevant to its useful light-shedding properties.
In the same way, consciousness is not the point of the brain and doesn’t do much for us. There’s a fair amount of cogsci literature that suggests that we have little if any conscious control over our actions and reinforces this opinion. But I like feeling responsible for my actions, even if it is just an illusion, hence the low probability assignment even though it feels intuitively correct to me.
(I’m not sure why I pushed the button to reply, but here I am so I guess I’ll just make something up to cover my confusion.)
Do you also believe that we use language—speaking, writing, listening, reading, reasoning, doing arithmetic calculations, etc. - without using our consciousness?
I’m.. honestly not sure. I think that the vast majority of the time we don’t consciously choose whether to speak or what exact words to say when we do speak. Listening and reading are definitely unconscious processes, otherwise it would be possible to turn them off (also, cocktail party effect is a huge indication of listening being largely unconscious). Arithmetic calculations—that’s a matter of learning an algorithm which usually involves mnemonics for the numbers..
On balance I have to go with yes, I don’t think those processes require consciousness
Some autistic people, particularly those in the middle and middle-to-severe part of the spectrum, report that during overload, some kinds of processing—most often understanding or being able to produce speech, but also other sensory processing—turn off. Some report that turned-off processing skills can be consciously turned back on, often at the expense of a different skill, or that the relevant skill can be consciously emulated even when the normal mode of producing the intended result is offline. I’ve personally experienced this.
Also, in my experience, a fair portion (20-30%) of adults of average intelligence aren’t fluent in reading, and do have to consciously parse each word.
I have to go with yes, I don’t think those [symbolic, linguistic] processes require consciousness.
You pretty much have to go with “yes” if you want to claim that “consciousness/self-awareness is just a meaningless side-effect of brain processes.” I’ve got to disagree. What my introspection calls my “consciousness” is mostly listening to myself talk to myself. And then after I have practiced saying it to myself, I may go on to say it out loud.
Not all of my speech works this way, but some does. And almost all of my writing, including this note. So I have to disagree that consciousness has no causal role in my behavior. Sometimes I act with “malice aforethought”. Or at least I sometimes speak that way.
For these reasons, I prefer “spotlight” consciousness theories, like “global workspace” or “integrated information theory”. Theories that capture the fact that we observe some things consciously and do some things consciously.
I’ve got to disagree. What my introspection calls my “consciousness” is mostly listening to myself talk to myself. And then after I have practiced saying it to myself, I may go on to say it out loud.
Agreed, but that tells you consciousness requires language. That doesn’t tell you language requires consciousness. Drugs such as alcohol or Ambien can cause people to have conversations and engage in other activities while unconscious.
No mod to the original comment; I would downmod the “consciousness was not a positive factor in the evolution of brains” part and upmod the “we do not actually rely much if at all on conscious thought” one.
Sure. Here’s a version of the analogy that first got me thinking about it:
If I turn on a lamp at night, it sheds both heat and light. But I wouldn’t say that the point of a lamp is to produce heat, nor that the amount of heat it does or doesn’t produce is relevant to its useful light-shedding properties. In the same way, consciousness is not the point of the brain and doesn’t do much for us. There’s a fair amount of cogsci literature that suggests that we have little if any conscious control over our actions and reinforces this opinion. But I like feeling responsible for my actions, even if it is just an illusion, hence the low probability assignment even though it feels intuitively correct to me.
(I’m not sure why I pushed the button to reply, but here I am so I guess I’ll just make something up to cover my confusion.)
Do you also believe that we use language—speaking, writing, listening, reading, reasoning, doing arithmetic calculations, etc. - without using our consciousness?
Hah! I found it amusing at least.
I’m.. honestly not sure. I think that the vast majority of the time we don’t consciously choose whether to speak or what exact words to say when we do speak. Listening and reading are definitely unconscious processes, otherwise it would be possible to turn them off (also, cocktail party effect is a huge indication of listening being largely unconscious). Arithmetic calculations—that’s a matter of learning an algorithm which usually involves mnemonics for the numbers..
On balance I have to go with yes, I don’t think those processes require consciousness
Some autistic people, particularly those in the middle and middle-to-severe part of the spectrum, report that during overload, some kinds of processing—most often understanding or being able to produce speech, but also other sensory processing—turn off. Some report that turned-off processing skills can be consciously turned back on, often at the expense of a different skill, or that the relevant skill can be consciously emulated even when the normal mode of producing the intended result is offline. I’ve personally experienced this.
Also, in my experience, a fair portion (20-30%) of adults of average intelligence aren’t fluent in reading, and do have to consciously parse each word.
You pretty much have to go with “yes” if you want to claim that “consciousness/self-awareness is just a meaningless side-effect of brain processes.” I’ve got to disagree. What my introspection calls my “consciousness” is mostly listening to myself talk to myself. And then after I have practiced saying it to myself, I may go on to say it out loud.
Not all of my speech works this way, but some does. And almost all of my writing, including this note. So I have to disagree that consciousness has no causal role in my behavior. Sometimes I act with “malice aforethought”. Or at least I sometimes speak that way.
For these reasons, I prefer “spotlight” consciousness theories, like “global workspace” or “integrated information theory”. Theories that capture the fact that we observe some things consciously and do some things consciously.
Agreed, but that tells you consciousness requires language. That doesn’t tell you language requires consciousness. Drugs such as alcohol or Ambien can cause people to have conversations and engage in other activities while unconscious.
Thanks; +1 for the explanation.
No mod to the original comment; I would downmod the “consciousness was not a positive factor in the evolution of brains” part and upmod the “we do not actually rely much if at all on conscious thought” one.