We obviously have different understandings of "consciousness". Time for me to leave these discussions. Take care friend.Ranvier wrote:A stone has "consciousness" by the mere fact it "exists".
Let's talk consciousness.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8380
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑March 24th, 2023, 11:06 am I think the meaning is obvious. It refers to an event that has no specific cause.
If you say so. This topic is about consciousness, and we're quite a way off-topic here. You asked a question that seems to have an obvious answer, which I offered.
"Who cares, wins"
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
Let us part ways then, friend. I'll leave you with these questions though: "When you burn your hand, what 'perceives' the pain, your hand or your CNS or perhaps the neuron's axon that conducts the action potential?" Does ganglia of the sympathetic nervous system have "memories"? Is it white matter or the gray matter that 'perceives' the pain? How does matter 'perceive' pain? Is it the physical matter or the property of an electromagnetic force to 'perceive'?
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
A concept is a representation of something existent or nonexistent, with the existence of the concept being one thing and the existence of its object(s), i.e. what it is a concept of, being another thing. Moreover, to conceptualize something it not to create it but a concept of it. You don't bring blablocity into existence by bringing the concept <blablocity> or the noun "blablocity" into existence.Ranvier wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 4:29 amI don't suggest this to be the reflection on individual intelligence of intellect, as most people I find hold a similar to yours false belief. I will create "something" to provide evidence of this phenomenon of human mind, not sure what it will be yet but it will come to my mind as I type...
Ok. Imagine that humans have a 7th sense of perceiving reality using an ultrasound. As they walk about city streets, citizens of the city can notice a curious shape around cell phone towers. News media promptly investigate this news story but as of yet there is no compelling explanation for what is now called: blablocity
I have no idea if it's true or even if it could be true but now we have a new concept of: blablocity that "exists". I chose this ridiculous label to ensure a label of this concept doesn't already "exist". Unless it can be conceptualized in both of our minds, hence the use of the label (word) for the concept; and become part of the societal or at least a small subgroup "consciousness", this concept of blablocity can't be "real" and will vanish from existence. Blablocity didn't "exist" before I typed it, yet now we can morn briefly "its" short lived existence in our "consciousness".
I don't think so. The SEP is still the best philosophy website on the Internet.
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
You are right if "it" refers to the concept of blablocity.
Of course, there is no human reality—no human consciousness, no human language, no human society&culture—unless there are humans; but it doesn't follow that there is no reality unless there are humans.Ranvier wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 5:20 pmIf there were no humans on earth, unless there is life elsewhere in the universe, the human "reality" will seize to "exist". As far as humans are concerned our subjective "consciousness" dies with us, unless some aliens discover Earth and resurrect humans from the remnants of our DNA but most likely without being the same "consciousness" as the original.
What's the difference (apart from "conscious" being an adjective and "consciousness" being a noun)?
The word "consciousness" has several meanings, and there is a distinction between transitive consciousness—consciousness or awareness (perception/cognition) of something—and intransitive consciousness—awakeness/wakefulness or "experiencingness", i.e. the state of having (subjective) experiences.
I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me (as a non-panpsychist). I fail to see how a stone's existing entails its being conscious.
No dentist exists in someone's consciousness. Your sense-impressions of or thoughts about dentists are certainly part of the content of your consciousness, but dentists are not.Ranvier wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 5:20 pmBut to answer your question: the dentist "existed" in my "consciousness" before, during, and after the procedure. I'm nearly certain, the dentist "exists" as "something" else in his own "consciousness", and yet "something" else in the [Consciousness] of [Reality]."
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
You: "A concept is a representation of something existent or nonexistent, with the existence of the concept being one thing and the existence of its object(s), i.e. what it is a concept of, being another thing. Moreover, to conceptualize something it not to create it but a concept of it. You don't bring blablocity into existence by bringing the concept <blablocity> or the noun "blablocity" into existence".
Notice the construction of your sentence highlighted in red. You don't find your own thinking curious? Again, we didn't define to "exist" or "existence" but ask yourself if thoughts "exist"? Does Moby Dick by Herman Melville "exist"? Does a thought require "energy" to "exist"? If something requires "energy" doesn't it necessitate its "existence"? Does love "exist"? Can someone experience "love" for a fictional character in a story? You conceptualize "reality" in your own way, that's fine but you have to make sure it makes sense. For one, I'm quite convinced that if I devote my life to creating a shape using an ultrasound (blablocity), I can make that happen in "reality" so that you can be satisfied it actually "exists" to your senses.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
You: "Of course, there is no human reality—no human consciousness, no human language, no human society&culture—unless there are humans; but it doesn't follow that there is no reality unless there are humans".
"...it doesn't follow that there is no reality unless there are humans". Is that how you interpreted what I wrote?
I'm sure you can comprehend that "reality" you mention only "exists" in our human "consciousness". The same "reality" appears entirely differently to a bird or fish in the Ocean. I don't want to gent into a lengthy explanation of the meaning of to 'perceive'...but Earth "appears" as something different to the Moon than to Jupiter. The [Reality] "exists" regardless of the absence of those "things": birds, fish, planets.
You: "What's the difference (apart from "conscious" being an adjective and "consciousness" being a noun)?
The word "consciousness" has several meanings, and there is a distinction between transitive consciousness—consciousness or awareness (perception/cognition) of something—and intransitive consciousness—awakeness/wakefulness or "experiencingness", i.e. the state of having (subjective) experiences".
Too much explaining... but both dog and a human are equally "conscious" while awake, about a projectile traveling towards their eye, yet they don't have the same "consciousness".
You: "I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me (as a non-panpsychist). I fail to see how a stone's existing entails its being conscious".
You won't because you as well continue to conflate "conscious" and "consciousness"
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15146
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
I'm seeing two fields of science here - biology and psychology. Still, given the interconnectedness of everything, any description of life that does not speak of its roots in chemistry and relationship with geology is incomplete.Agent Smyth wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 8:55 pmThat's true and on point. My best guess with regard to life and consciousness is that they're one-of-a-kind science, from a materialistic stance that is. Which existing paradigms best match these fascinating aspects of being I can't say.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 4:35 pmThis differences are somewhat artificial. Consider the cognitive gap between Homo sapiens and other animals. It's an illusion caused by the extinction of all other Homo species, and decimation of other intelligent animals that might compete with us.Agent Smyth wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 2:29 amTrue, you have a point, but the issue is marked by a complexity apparent to me in the differences between a rock and (say) a grasshopper and amebas and ...
Likewise, there are various steps between rocks and complex insects like grasshoppers - hydrous organic compounds, complex biochemistry, proto-life (non-reproducing metabolisms and non-metabolising genetics), bacteria, protists, simple parasitic insects, complex independent insects, social insects ...
I am not sure that life and consciousness are separate either. While it is possible to be vibrantly alive and be only capable of basic sensing, and it's possible to be almost dead with a highly active mind, I see the phenomena of life and consciousness as essentially one and the same.
Meanwhile, the kind of consciousness that humans value in themselves and other humans is more the product of conditioning than intrinsic. If you lots in the jungle as an infant and raised by chimps, what aspects of a grown Agent Smith would be recognisable as the person writing on this forum? Not much. Most of what we value about our consciousness are hand-me-downs from family and society. A raw sense of being without such cognition is not valued, and is referred to as a vegetative state. Simple animal consciousness, too, is not valued, except in pets and other protected animals.
So we have the raw phenomenon of consciousness which, frankly, hardly anyone cares about, and you have a distinctly human mentality that has been conditioned from birth. Part of the problem of consciousness is that an essentially social phenomenon is treated as a physics problem.
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
Thoughts qua mental acts of thinking do exist. Thoughts in Gottlob Frege's non-psychological sense, i.e. abstract propositions, do not exist. (I know many philosophers think they do.)
Concrete, material tokens of his book do exist; but Moby Dick as a work of literature considered in abstraction from its incarnation in the form of tangible books does not exist. That is, Moby Dick doesn't exist as an abstract type of text. All we have are concrete tokens of this text.
Of course, what doesn't exist doesn't (really) have any energy.
Thoughts qua mental acts of thinking are energy-involving electrochemical processes in the brain.
Feelings of love do exist.
Yes, it's psychologically possible to fall in love with a fictional or imaginary person.
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
Nothing appears to the Moon or Jupiter (in the phenomenological/psychological sense of the term), because they are not subjects of appearance/experience.Ranvier wrote: ↑March 27th, 2023, 2:45 pmI'm sure you can comprehend that "reality" you mention only "exists" in our human "consciousness". The same "reality" appears entirely differently to a bird or fish in the Ocean. I don't want to gent into a lengthy explanation of the meaning of to 'perceive'...but Earth "appears" as something different to the Moon than to Jupiter. The [Reality] "exists" regardless of the absence of those "things": birds, fish, planets.
Yes, of course, the same reality can appear differently to different perceivers.
The reality existing "in our human consciousness" is the reality of human experience, i.e. the kinds of experiences humans are capable of having.
Yes, dogs and humans can be perceptually conscious of the same thing or event; but, for example, our respective visual impressions of the same thing or event are qualitatively different with regard to the phenomenal colors involved. That is, the subjective visual field of a dog is phenomenally different from the one of a human: The way the world visually appears to dogs is different from the way it visually appears to humans.Ranvier wrote: ↑March 27th, 2023, 2:45 pmYou: "What's the difference (apart from "conscious" being an adjective and "consciousness" being a noun)?
The word "consciousness" has several meanings, and there is a distinction between transitive consciousness—consciousness or awareness (perception/cognition) of something—and intransitive consciousness—awakeness/wakefulness or "experiencingness", i.e. the state of having (subjective) experiences".
Too much explaining... but both dog and a human are equally "conscious" while awake, about a projectile traveling towards their eye, yet they don't have the same "consciousness".
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
"To avoid confusion of thought and ambiguity of language, we should not use the same word to express indiscriminately an effect and its cause, work done and the power to do it. It s well, therefore, to adopt the word "energy", first proposed by Bernouilli and afterwards used by Young, to express power to do work, or force stored and ready for use."Ranvier wrote: ↑March 27th, 2023, 3:46 pm [Reality] or human "realty" is [Energy]. Yes, we have our conceptualized scientific sense of "energy", with many different equations that serve us well to achieve certain outcomes but in the broader sense, everything that "exists" is "energy". For some reason people have no difficulty in accepting food matter as "energy" or light falling on a solar panel to produce electricity but then become mystified by the concept that everything is "energy", including our thoughts. Why is it so difficult? One can't comprehend "consciousness" without conceptualizing the duality of "energy".
(McCulloch, R. S. Treatise on the Mechanical Theory of Heat, and Its Applications to the Steam-Engine, Etc. New York: D. Van Nostrand, 1876. p. 40)
Generally speaking, not being substances, powers and forces aren't independent entities: Where there is power or force, there must be something having it; and there is a relevant difference between having a power or force and being a power or force. Likewise, there is a relevant difference between having energy and being energy; so it's one thing to say that everything has energy, and another to say that everything is energy. It is not possible that everything is energy, because there must be something else having it.
- Consul
- Posts: 6136
- Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
It depends on what you mean by "consciousness". If you mean phenomenal/experiential consciousness, i.e. the state of undergoing subjective appearances/experiences, then I deny that all living beings are conscious beings.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 27th, 2023, 6:18 pmI am not sure that life and consciousness are separate either. While it is possible to be vibrantly alive and be only capable of basic sensing, and it's possible to be almost dead with a highly active mind, I see the phenomena of life and consciousness as essentially one and the same.
- Agent Smyth
- Posts: 71
- Joined: March 21st, 2023, 6:43 am
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
To my reckoning science has an interesting mix of conceptual schema that's reminiscent of the proverbial dog in the manger, loosely speaking that is. I'm not up-to-date wirh current (neuro)science but at first blush it seems as though consciousness is the neglected child of the field so to speak.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 27th, 2023, 6:18 pmI'm seeing two fields of science here - biology and psychology. Still, given the interconnectedness of everything, any description of life that does not speak of its roots in chemistry and relationship with geology is incomplete.Agent Smyth wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 8:55 pmThat's true and on point. My best guess with regard to life and consciousness is that they're one-of-a-kind science, from a materialistic stance that is. Which existing paradigms best match these fascinating aspects of being I can't say.Sy Borg wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 4:35 pmThis differences are somewhat artificial. Consider the cognitive gap between Homo sapiens and other animals. It's an illusion caused by the extinction of all other Homo species, and decimation of other intelligent animals that might compete with us.Agent Smyth wrote: ↑March 26th, 2023, 2:29 am
True, you have a point, but the issue is marked by a complexity apparent to me in the differences between a rock and (say) a grasshopper and amebas and ...
Likewise, there are various steps between rocks and complex insects like grasshoppers - hydrous organic compounds, complex biochemistry, proto-life (non-reproducing metabolisms and non-metabolising genetics), bacteria, protists, simple parasitic insects, complex independent insects, social insects ...
I am not sure that life and consciousness are separate either. While it is possible to be vibrantly alive and be only capable of basic sensing, and it's possible to be almost dead with a highly active mind, I see the phenomena of life and consciousness as essentially one and the same.
Meanwhile, the kind of consciousness that humans value in themselves and other humans is more the product of conditioning than intrinsic. If you lots in the jungle as an infant and raised by chimps, what aspects of a grown Agent Smith would be recognisable as the person writing on this forum? Not much. Most of what we value about our consciousness are hand-me-downs from family and society. A raw sense of being without such cognition is not valued, and is referred to as a vegetative state. Simple animal consciousness, too, is not valued, except in pets and other protected animals.
So we have the raw phenomenon of consciousness which, frankly, hardly anyone cares about, and you have a distinctly human mentality that has been conditioned from birth. Part of the problem of consciousness is that an essentially social phenomenon is treated as a physics problem.
- Ranvier
- Posts: 772
- Joined: February 12th, 2017, 1:47 pm
- Location: USA
Re: Let's talk consciousness.
You: "Yes, dogs and humans can be perceptually conscious of the same thing or event; but, for example, our respective visual impressions of the same thing or event are qualitatively different with regard to the phenomenal colors involved. That is, the subjective visual field of a dog is phenomenally different from the one of a human: The way the world visually appears to dogs is different from the way it visually appears to humans".
I'm not sure what this has to do with both human & dog being equally "conscious" of the same threat and the difference in their "consciousness"? Are you suggesting that a congenitally blind human doesn't really have human "consciousness" due to absence of sight?
I must admit, I was hoping more for: thank you, no one has ever pointed out such perspicuous distinction between the word "conscious" and "consciousness" before. But I imagine you're too brilliant for such utterance.
You: "Generally speaking, not being substances, powers and forces aren't independent entities: Where there is power or force, there must be something having it; and there is a relevant difference between having a power or force and being a power or force. Likewise, there is a relevant difference between having energy and being energy; so it's one thing to say that everything has energy, and another to say that everything is energy. It is not possible that everything is energy, because there must be something else having it".
Why is it "impossible"? Substantiate your claim. I can submit just the opposite to be true: "You're both the power & force, as well as you have the power & force". Just as well, you are "energy" (food for some predator) and you have "energy" to do work or think.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023