Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consul wrote: October 6th, 2021, 4:38 pm
Sy Borg wrote: October 6th, 2021, 3:38 pm
Consul wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:34 pmThe concepts of life and mind are vague, but the concept of phenomenal consciousness is not. (So if mind is equated with P-consciousness, the concept of mind is non-vague too.)
The smallest level of phenomenal consciousness would be so feeble and inconsistent, and very likely intermittent, that the difference between those extremely weak perceptions and none at all is moot when compared with human consciousness. It's akin to us talking about how many atoms are needed before humans can see them.
Even that "smallest level of phenomenal consciousness" is either there or not there! It cannot be half-present and half-absent.

Epistemic indeterminacy or uncertainty about the absence or presence of P-consciousness from the perspective of external observers is one thing, and ontic indeterminacy about its absence or presence is another thing. The former is certainly possible, but the latter is not.
Ok, how about this angle. Think of consciousness on a scale from 0 for rocks to 100 for mammals. If an organism scores 0.0001, I agree that that is technically infinitely larger than zero, an emergence. However, it is also much closer to zero than 100.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by GE Morton »

Consul wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:13 pm
Strawson objects (in Mental Reality, p. 307) that this…"condition (O) is hopelessly vague because what is ordinarily other-observable depends on who is observing, because what is ordinarily other-observable depends on who is observing.
Huh? "A because A"?
There may be rational beings whose highly effi cient activities we could discern only under a high-powered microscope. It would not be plausible to say that their activities cannot be counted as behavior, because they are not ordinarily observable by us. Nor can we rule out the possibility that there are purposive beings, and indeed rational agents, whose physical activities are so small, or perhaps so big, that they would be unobservable by us whatever extensions of our senses we were able to achieve by artificial means. What we can observe cannot matter."[/i]
"What we can observe cannot matter"? Really? If by "we" he means "humans with normal observational faculties suitably situated" (as would normally be meant in such a context), then what other observers does he have in mind? And if the activities in question were "so small, or perhaps so big, that they would be unobservable by us whatever extensions of our senses we were able to achieve by artificial means," then we would be perfectly entitled to impute consciousness to rocks. Or any other pseudo-property we impute to things based on their behavior --- including "purposive beings" and "rational agent." The warrant for applying those, too, is behavioral --- on behavior observable by us.

That argument amounts to a rejection of empiricism, and thus the entire scientific enterprise. It is a reductio ad absurdum.

Whatever mysterious property Strawson imagines his hypothetical creatures might have, if it does not manifest in behaviors of a certain kind, observable by us, then it does not warrant the term "consciousness," and so denoting it is gratuitous.
He also argues plausibly that thinking and imagining are or can be mental actions, and that mental actions are forms of behavior—inner behavior.
That is a somewhat metaphorical use of "behavior," and while acceptable as such, "mental actions" are NOT the sorts of actions which warrant attribution of consciousness, e.g., that we would examine when trying to decide whether cats or tadpoles are conscious.
You're right, because if behavior is what organisms do, then a natural evolution of conscious organisms doing nothing (apart from watching and thinking perhaps) is more than unlikely. Moreover, some forms of behavior do seem to require consciousness. For instance, how could Beethoven have composed his symphonies without experiencing any sounds or mental images of sounds (musical imagination)?
Good point.
By the way, the very concept of (outer) behavior is pretty hard to define. For instance, it's inadequate to say that behavior is corporeal motion, because when animals are playing dead, this is a form of behavior characterized by the absence of corporeal motion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apparent_death
Yes, the specification of the relevant sorts of behavior will be more elaborate than mere corporeal motion.

More later on the McGinn material.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Sy Borg wrote: October 6th, 2021, 3:35 pm
Pattern-chaser wrote: October 6th, 2021, 7:13 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 5th, 2021, 9:17 pm Yes, behaviour gives an excellent indication of what goes on inside.
I have to disagree, as per my previous post. 👆
Why disagree? Autistic people indeed give the impression of being conscious beings (when they are awake haha), so that supports my point.

I'm not talking about mind reading but using behavioural cues to determine whether an organism is conscious or not.
Why disagree? Because in many cases behaviour does not give "an excellent indication of what goes on inside", that's why. To an extent, you are attempting 'mind-reading', which is what I am disagreeing with. It's not your use of guesswork, which we all use for much of the time, having no alternative. I disagree with characterising guesswork as something more authoritative, e.g. describing guesswork as offering an "excellent indication" of what is guessed-at.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by Consul »

Sy Borg wrote: October 6th, 2021, 4:47 pm
Consul wrote: October 6th, 2021, 4:38 pmEpistemic indeterminacy or uncertainty about the absence or presence of P-consciousness from the perspective of external observers is one thing, and ontic indeterminacy about its absence or presence is another thing. The former is certainly possible, but the latter is not.
Ok, how about this angle. Think of consciousness on a scale from 0 for rocks to 100 for mammals. If an organism scores 0.0001, I agree that that is technically infinitely larger than zero, an emergence. However, it is also much closer to zero than 100.
Yes, but there is still a binary distinction between C = 0 and C > 0.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by Consul »

GE Morton wrote: October 6th, 2021, 8:07 pm
Consul wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:13 pm Strawson objects (in Mental Reality, p. 307) that this…"condition (O) is hopelessly vague because what is ordinarily other-observable depends on who is observing, because what is ordinarily other-observable depends on who is observing.
Huh? "A because A"?
Sorry, I inadvertently quoted the same because-sentence twice.
GE Morton wrote: October 6th, 2021, 8:07 pm
Consul wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:13 pmStrawson: "There may be rational beings whose highly efficient activities we could discern only under a high-powered microscope. It would not be plausible to say that their activities cannot be counted as behavior, because they are not ordinarily observable by us. Nor can we rule out the possibility that there are purposive beings, and indeed rational agents, whose physical activities are so small, or perhaps so big, that they would be unobservable by us whatever extensions of our senses we were able to achieve by artificial means. What we can observe cannot matter."
"What we can observe cannot matter"? Really? If by "we" he means "humans with normal observational faculties suitably situated" (as would normally be meant in such a context), then what other observers does he have in mind? And if the activities in question were "so small, or perhaps so big, that they would be unobservable by us whatever extensions of our senses we were able to achieve by artificial means," then we would be perfectly entitled to impute consciousness to rocks. Or any other pseudo-property we impute to things based on their behavior --- including "purposive beings" and "rational agent." The warrant for applying those, too, is behavioral --- on behavior observable by us.

That argument amounts to a rejection of empiricism, and thus the entire scientific enterprise. It is a reductio ad absurdum.

Whatever mysterious property Strawson imagines his hypothetical creatures might have, if it does not manifest in behaviors of a certain kind, observable by us, then it does not warrant the term "consciousness," and so denoting it is gratuitous.
Of course, observability is a necessary condition for a science of behavior; but Strawson's point is that it's not a necessary condition for behavior. It's not part of the definition of behavior.
GE Morton wrote: October 6th, 2021, 8:07 pm
Consul wrote: October 6th, 2021, 2:13 pmHe also argues plausibly that thinking and imagining are or can be mental actions, and that mental actions are forms of behavior—inner behavior.
That is a somewhat metaphorical use of "behavior," and while acceptable as such, "mental actions" are NOT the sorts of actions which warrant attribution of consciousness, e.g., that we would examine when trying to decide whether cats or tadpoles are conscious.
Thinking and imagining are conscious actions or passions, so thinking or imagining beings are conscious beings. This is not to say that all experiencing beings are thinking or imagining beings.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consul wrote: October 7th, 2021, 10:20 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 6th, 2021, 4:47 pm
Consul wrote: October 6th, 2021, 4:38 pmEpistemic indeterminacy or uncertainty about the absence or presence of P-consciousness from the perspective of external observers is one thing, and ontic indeterminacy about its absence or presence is another thing. The former is certainly possible, but the latter is not.
Ok, how about this angle. Think of consciousness on a scale from 0 for rocks to 100 for mammals. If an organism scores 0.0001, I agree that that is technically infinitely larger than zero, an emergence. However, it is also much closer to zero than 100.
Yes, but there is still a binary distinction between C = 0 and C > 0.
Yes, but an organism with C=0.0001 will rely so much on automatic reflexes that the difference between them and complex echinoderms and cnidarians would be moot. One might say a flatworm is more like a jellyfish than it is like us, despite being brained organisms.
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6038
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by Consul »

Sy Borg wrote: October 7th, 2021, 7:03 pm
Consul wrote: October 7th, 2021, 10:20 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 6th, 2021, 4:47 pmOk, how about this angle. Think of consciousness on a scale from 0 for rocks to 100 for mammals. If an organism scores 0.0001, I agree that that is technically infinitely larger than zero, an emergence. However, it is also much closer to zero than 100.
Yes, but there is still a binary distinction between C = 0 and C > 0.
Yes, but an organism with C=0.0001 will rely so much on automatic reflexes that the difference between them and complex echinoderms and cnidarians would be moot. One might say a flatworm is more like a jellyfish than it is like us, despite being brained organisms.
There is still a real difference between nonsentience and minimal sentience, even if there is little or no behavioral difference between the first sentient species and its immediate nonsentient ancestor species.

Anyway, what is your consciousness scale supposed to measure?
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
John_Jacquard
Posts: 19
Joined: September 27th, 2021, 8:09 pm

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by John_Jacquard »

GE Morton wrote: October 5th, 2021, 11:32 pm
John_Jacquard wrote: October 5th, 2021, 10:58 pm
Any explanation involves the use of symbols to represent a pattern of information.
Yes, it does. But so does every other true declarative sentence.
But a symbol has no literal connection to the pattern of information it represents .
True. It doesn't need one; the relationships between words and things are arbitrary, established by conventions in a given speech community.
The attribute of explanation being possible in reality.
What are you claiming that explanation is an attribute of?
( why should reality be able to be explained? )
"Reality" is not "able to be explained." There is no ability of "reality" involved. WE are able to explain things. You're using the passive voice to attribute an ability to "reality" that belongs to us.
I'm not referring to the superficial level of detail pertaining to
Symbols representing information.
For instance physical matter is a symbol that represents information.
All aspects of reality itself involve symbols that represent a pattern of information .
I'm not looking at a subjective superficial instance.
( for example a specific individual using language within their narrow subjective experience)
I'm referring to reality itself .
User avatar
John_Jacquard
Posts: 19
Joined: September 27th, 2021, 8:09 pm

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by John_Jacquard »

Sy Borg wrote: October 7th, 2021, 7:03 pm
Consul wrote: October 7th, 2021, 10:20 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 6th, 2021, 4:47 pm
Consul wrote: October 6th, 2021, 4:38 pmEpistemic indeterminacy or uncertainty about the absence or presence of P-consciousness from the perspective of external observers is one thing, and ontic indeterminacy about its absence or presence is another thing. The former is certainly possible, but the latter is not.
Ok, how about this angle. Think of consciousness on a scale from 0 for rocks to 100 for mammals. If an organism scores 0.0001, I agree that that is technically infinitely larger than zero, an emergence. However, it is also much closer to zero than 100.
Yes, but there is still a binary distinction between C = 0 and C > 0.
Yes, but an organism with C=0.0001 will rely so much on automatic reflexes that the difference between them and complex echinoderms and cnidarians would be moot. One might say a flatworm is more like a jellyfish than it is like us, despite being brained organisms.
How significant do you hold the development if a particular individual's centralized nervous system ?
( regarding your consciousness scale ?)
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by Sy Borg »

John_Jacquard wrote: October 8th, 2021, 2:32 pm
Sy Borg wrote: October 7th, 2021, 7:03 pm
Consul wrote: October 7th, 2021, 10:20 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 6th, 2021, 4:47 pm
Ok, how about this angle. Think of consciousness on a scale from 0 for rocks to 100 for mammals. If an organism scores 0.0001, I agree that that is technically infinitely larger than zero, an emergence. However, it is also much closer to zero than 100.
Yes, but there is still a binary distinction between C = 0 and C > 0.
Yes, but an organism with C=0.0001 will rely so much on automatic reflexes that the difference between them and complex echinoderms and cnidarians would be moot. One might say a flatworm is more like a jellyfish than it is like us, despite being brained organisms.
How significant do you hold the development if a particular individual's centralized nervous system ?
( regarding your consciousness scale ?)
Not sure what you are asking. Whether I think the evolution of the CNS makes a difference? It depends on the CNS, be it a simple nerve cord of a flatworm or a mammal's large and complex system.

How much does a rudimentary brain offer that a relatively sophisticated nerve ring does not? Hard to know.
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14997
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consul wrote: October 8th, 2021, 1:04 pm
Sy Borg wrote: October 7th, 2021, 7:03 pm
Consul wrote: October 7th, 2021, 10:20 am
Sy Borg wrote: October 6th, 2021, 4:47 pmOk, how about this angle. Think of consciousness on a scale from 0 for rocks to 100 for mammals. If an organism scores 0.0001, I agree that that is technically infinitely larger than zero, an emergence. However, it is also much closer to zero than 100.
Yes, but there is still a binary distinction between C = 0 and C > 0.
Yes, but an organism with C=0.0001 will rely so much on automatic reflexes that the difference between them and complex echinoderms and cnidarians would be moot. One might say a flatworm is more like a jellyfish than it is like us, despite being brained organisms.
There is still a real difference between nonsentience and minimal sentience, even if there is little or no behavioral difference between the first sentient species and its immediate nonsentient ancestor species.

Anyway, what is your consciousness scale supposed to measure?
It refers to phenomenal consciousness. That is what we're talking about, yes?

If we say an organism, such as an ameoeba, has no P-consciousness (a common, but huge, assumption based on indirect evidence) and we say humans and other intelligent mammals are at 100, then other organisms will fairly naturally fall into the scale. Yes, this is based on the same huge assumptions that see most humans denying that most life forms experience anything of their lives whatsoever.

There might be a real difference between a flatworm and a jellyfish, but I reckon the difference between a flatworm and a chimp is far, far greater.
GE Morton
Posts: 4696
Joined: February 1st, 2017, 1:06 am

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by GE Morton »

John_Jacquard wrote: October 8th, 2021, 2:27 pm
For instance physical matter is a symbol that represents information.
All aspects of reality itself involve symbols that represent a pattern of information.
Well, that is startling reversal of roles. You've apparently adopted novel understandings of what is a "symbol" and what is a "pattern of information." Physical objects ("aspects of reality") are not "symbols" of anything. A symbol is a token, invented or chosen by us, to represent some "aspect of reality." Information is knowledge gained by us concerning some "aspect of reality," often communicated via symbols.

You have the cart pulling the horse there.
PoeticUniverse
Posts: 638
Joined: April 4th, 2015, 7:25 pm

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by PoeticUniverse »

GE Morton wrote: October 8th, 2021, 7:05 pm You have the cart pulling the horse there.
Or Descartes before Horace.
User avatar
John_Jacquard
Posts: 19
Joined: September 27th, 2021, 8:09 pm

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by John_Jacquard »

GE Morton wrote: October 8th, 2021, 7:05 pm
John_Jacquard wrote: October 8th, 2021, 2:27 pm
For instance physical matter is a symbol that represents information.
All aspects of reality itself involve symbols that represent a pattern of information.
Well, that is startling reversal of roles. You've apparently adopted novel understandings of what is a "symbol" and what is a "pattern of information." Physical objects ("aspects of reality") are not "symbols" of anything. A symbol is a token, invented or chosen by us, to represent some "aspect of reality." Information is knowledge gained by us concerning some "aspect of reality," often communicated via symbols.

You have the cart pulling the horse there.
You are describing a symbol and pattern of information related to a tiny scale of detail related to reality.

[ zoomed into the level of detail of a particular individual's experience]

But I'm not taking about symbol representing a pattern of information , just from that tiny scale of detail .
I am referring to all scales of detail of reality .

( the totality of all scales of detail )
User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 1798
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: Is consciousness really the mystery it seems?

Post by Papus79 »

I just finished watching an hour long interview with Dr. Christopher Kerr, where he and his staff (hospice physicians) did significant longitudinal studies recently on the dying and particularly the unusual sorts of neurological and memory activations that they experience. I know people have talked about the issue of terminal lucidity with those who've had deep dementia and Dr. Kerr's take on this is interesting - ie. he's considering that terminal lucidity is really just an extension of what other dying people without dementia are going through, just that it becomes much more pronounced in those who had dementia because they're no longer submerged beneath it. It's almost like the types of terminal mystical experiences people have (as stated in the interview typically starting about two weeks before their death where they're seeing deceased loved ones) seem to have, at least functionally, something almost nootropic / neurogenic about their results - almost in the way you might think of with psilocybin experiences and results but much more profound and less symbolic or disorganized.

The interview I just mentioned (on Thanatos TV EN):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2aWjH7iNg8
Humbly watching Youtube in Universe 25. - Me
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021