I happen to believe that the functionally unified, normative, goal-oriented organization of living systems is what consciousness is in its most primordial sense — Joshs

Whenever we set sail on the sea of consciousness, differences in definitions are often the reefs on which our arguments run aground. I would not normally call what you have described "consciousness." That's not an argument against your position, but we are talking about different things.

The above account suggests instead that affect, cognition and consciousness developed in tandem. — Joshs

I think I was clear in my previous post that emotions are involved in all aspects of our cognitive life. At the same time, it is true that every mammal that has ever existed has had emotions. Emotions were a part of animal cognition long before anything we would call consciousness had evolved.

I realize that if you're talking about how those words are commonly used, then what I said was not right. But when I was talking about instincts/desires/emotions, I was giving definitions that I find useful for the purpose of discussion. — Brendan Golledge

If you want to participate effectively in philosophical discussions, you should use words as they are commonly understood. At the very least, you should specify clearly what non-standard usages you are using.

Lots of people have told me things like, "What you said is contradictory", or "I disagree", but if they don't provide an argument, then I have no reason to change my mind. — Brendan Golledge

I have provided specific arguments in my posts in this thread based on my understanding of cognitive science and psychology while you have provided nothing beyond "seems to me" based on a very incomplete understanding of both religion and science.

enactivist approaches to cognitive psychology insist that cognitive and affective processes are closely interdependent, with affect, emotion and sensation functioning in multiple ways and at multiple levels to situate or attune the context of our conceptual dealings with the world , and that affective tonality is never absent from cognition. — Joshs

Yes, I agree with this strongly. People with damage to those areas of the brain involved in emotions sometimes find themselves unable to make even the simplest decisions. There is no doubt that emotions are interwoven with all aspects of our cognitive life. But that's not what Brendan Colledge wrote. Here's what he said:

I believe values (what we care about) are the root of our emotional experience, and our emotions drive what things we think about, and what we think about drives what we do. So, studying the self is really the same as studying values. And that's really the same as morality. And this is also what religion is concerned with. — Brendan Golledge

Emotions developed early in our species evolutionary history and parts of the brain involved in emotions are located in more "primitive" areas, i.e. in the pre-cortex. In that context, what does "values are the root of our emotional experience" even mean? To over-simplify, the emotions were there first. They are part of the foundation of our thinking and were there long before consciousness.

when I try to share my ideas, most people don't engage or are vacuously hostile. So, I have very little other than my own opinions of my ideas as a check on whether they are right or not. — Brendan Golledge

I am a big fan of introspection, so I have no problem with looking within for answers, but that doesn't compensate for opinions that are just objectively wrong.

Well, obviously all of our instincts, desires, and emotions are wired to keep us alive. But it seems to me that the way emotions do that is that they make us try to make ourselves happy. It seems like a common-sense thing that we prefer to be happy rather than sad. — Brendan Golledge

You make two unrelated statements. First you say the way emotions help keep us alive is to try to make ourselves happy. This is mostly wrong. Then you say that we prefer to be happy than sad, which is generally true, but irrelevant.

I've thought before that instincts appear to be those behaviors which act without thinking (like blinking), — Brendan Golledge

These are reflexes, not instincts.

desires are from the body but require conscious action to act upon (like hunger) — Brendan Golledge

Desires are from all over the place. Some are definitely instinctive others are learned or socially mediated. Acting on those desires may be based on conscious decisions but are not necessarily. In my experience, conscious action is more likely to restrict the fulfilling of desires than support them.

It seems clear at least that Christianity is more inward focused than many other religions. Take Islam, for instance. All the commands are outward focused, like professing a belief in Muhammad, taking a pilgrimage, giving to the poor, etc. The two main commandments in Christianity are to love one's neighbor as one's self and to love God with all one's heart. And the 7 deadly sins (I know this is a Catholic thing) are inward orientations of the soul rather than particular actions. — Brendan Golledge

This seems like a very simplistic analysis. More than that - it's presumptuous unless you are a student of religion, which you indicate you are not.

I'd never heard that quote before. Maybe I should read Franz Kafka. — Brendan Golledge

I've never been able to read Kafka's books. They are bleak and depressing and I find their lessons obscure unless it is just that we should all despair. I don't know where the quote I provided comes from.

I believe values (what we care about) are the root of our emotional experience, and our emotions drive what things we think about, and what we think about drives what we do. So, studying the self is really the same as studying values. And that's really the same as morality. And this is also what religion is concerned with. — Brendan Golledge

I disagree with just about everything in this paragraph.

Out of the Silent Planet — Count Timothy von Icarus

I read this when I was a kid and really liked it. I read it again more recently and was less impressed. Still it’s my favorite title of any book ever.

By "true" in this case I mean that my mental model has a correspondence (or isomorphism) with what is going on within the physical system being mentally modeled. — wonderer1

Before you were using a non-standard meaning for "belief." Now you're using a non-standard meaning for "truth." This is not just a nit-picky linguistic argument. As I understand it, the thought processes you and I are in disagreement about are different neurologically, psychologically, and philosophically.

Nuff said.

Well knowing something about an electronics design I'm considering is often for me a matter of pictures or maybe something somewhat analogous to videos. — wonderer1

I gave a definition of "belief" in a previous post - "attitudes about the world which can be either true or false." You must be using a different definition, which makes fruitful discussion impossible. How can a picture or video be true or false?

...saying I know something is a different matter than expressing what it is that I know. — wonderer1

I'm shaking my head. That doesn't make any sense to me. I can't imagine what kind of thing you might say. Please give me an example.

I imagine that in some cases I could communicate things in pictures and without resorting to words, — wonderer1

I never said you can't communicate without words.

In fact the video game Journey is an example of such a strange communication game, as it doesn't provide for language use between players, but it certainly allows for teaching aspects of Journey-world physics via a sort of monkey-see/monkey-do mechanism. — wonderer1

I'd never heard of the game, which isn't surprising. I not a game-playing kind of person. I looked it up though. It looks interesting. I can't tell if it is relevant to our discussion.

As I said, we're using different definitions. Our posts aren't connecting with each other. It's probably not productive for us to continue.

I find it interesting, in light of your career as an engineer, that you question having beliefs that are not expressed in words. — wonderer1

My stereotype of an engineer is someone who would think that beliefs have to be expressed in words. Be that as it may, for philosophers, beliefs are true or false and truth only applies to propositions which are necessarily expressed in words.

I often believe, and I'd say know things, without the belief being expressed in words. — wonderer1

Not to be cute, but since saying things uses words, how can you say you know things that aren't expressed in words. That's a serious question.

You mentioned once, funneling facts into your head and engineering solutions arising later as a result. If you don't mind me asking, were the results that arose from this process results in the form of words? — wonderer1

Hey, no fair using my own previous arguments against me. But seriously, and as I already acknowledged - my understanding and experience is that

...there is something - thought, emotion, even motivation to act - beneath language. I think, but I'm not sure, that we can access, experience that something. — T Clark

And yes, the results that arise from this non-verbal processing are in words and I would call them, if not beliefs, at least conjectures or understandings. The truth, validity, and usefulness of those results can't be determined without further evaluation and justification, which takes place using words and numbers.

Be warned that there's a good chance I'll pull a newbie OP move and ghost this entire thread, i.e. not respond to anyone's replies. — Noble Dust

I forgot this. You should be warned. I know where you live (Brooklyn), and I know what you look like (Casey Affleck with a beard). I'll just go to every hoity toity liquor store in Brooklyn and show them your picture. There couldn't be more than a couple thousand. I'm sure I can find you and give you a good talking to.

First off, it's good to see you step out from the Shoutbox and toss us some meat to chew on. Also, I'd like to praise your use of the term "quantum" in the title, even though the content of the OP has nothing to do with physics. Everything is better, more interesting, when you bring quanta into it. I think it would be good if the forum required every OP to include "quantum" at least once. Now, down to business.

What is a belief, and what is an attitude? Are they synonyms? Are they different aspects of the same thing? — Noble Dust

My first thought was "no, of course they are not synonyms. I'll provide definitions and set ND straight," but then I went to the web:

...philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to attitudes about the world which can be either true or false. To believe something is to take it to be true; for instance, to believe that snow is white is comparable to accepting the truth of the proposition "snow is white". — Wikipedia - Belief

So, yes, I guess "belief" is a synonym for "attitude" or at least a type of attitude.

We receive language as a tool that we use to differentiate the undifferentiated raw data of experience [notice that the words "raw" and "data" used here are metaphors]. I want to understand my beliefs, so I use language to dissect my experience of believing [dissect, another metaphor]. — Noble Dust

To nit pick, processing data from our senses begins long (relatively - you know, milliseconds) before we get to the level of language. In my understanding, language comes along at the end of the production line to package up all the processing so we can tell ourselves and others what it means. I don't know if that makes a difference in the context of your OP.

Back to the original questions above. What is a belief? On the surface it appears to be a set of thoughts formed into words (or not) that signify something for me in my world. But I think this is just a surface level understanding. If I use language to dig around deeper into the cadaver of my thoughts, the knife eventually hits the operating table. I've cut through the whole thing. Belief is not a set of thoughts which are then represented by words. — Noble Dust

This gets a bit murky. In my understanding, truth is a factor that only applies to propositions, which are expressed in language. So, can you have a belief that is not expressed in words? I think maybe the answer is "no," but I'm not sure. Are you talking about something different from belief, different from truth? I think the answer to that is probably "yes."

Beneath language, at the quantum level of experience, is something that exists in an undifferentiated form. This is belief. Belief is undifferentiated from reality down here. There is no "higher" reality in a spiritual sense, nor a "true" reality (in contrast to falsehood) in a logical sense, that exists "behind" or "beneath" my beliefs about reality. Belief is reality. There is no difference. — Noble Dust

I teased you about "quantum" previously, but now I'll put the squeeze on you. If you mean "quantum" as a metaphor, ok, but you're opening the door for lots of confusion. If you mean it literally, you're just using the word wrong. As for "something that exists in an undifferentiated form", as I noted previously, that doesn't really exist. Differentiation starts right as signals enter our sense organs. Eyes, ears, noses, skin, and tongues are designed by evolution to sort, classify, and sometimes discard information from the input we get from the world. That processing continues at every step on every level of your nervous system.

So, no. Belief is not reality, at least not in the sense we usually use that word. We do not have access to unprocessed reality. Now we can argue about what we really mean by "reality." That's a common theme here on the forum, one that no one can ever agree on.

To stop picking nits, I do believe there is something - thought, emotion, even motivation to act - beneath language. I think, but I'm not sure, that we can access, experience that something. As you know, I am strongly attracted to the ideas expressed in the Tao Te Ching and other Taoist sources. As I understand it, gaining access to, becoming aware of, that pre-language aspect of our selves is the whole point.

Good OP. Thanks for the opportunity to pontificate.

My father, shortly before he entered seminary, spanked me until I was black and blue when I was six months old, and my mother stayed with him. — wonderer1

I'm sorry it happened to you, but I don't see how it is relevant to your point. Both religious and non-religious people do things like that.

I don't want to pry any deeper, so I'll leave it at that.

No, I didn't say anything about actions by religious institutions. — wonderer1

You wrote:

I could tell you horror stories about the results of a strongly religion based 'understanding' of psychology. — wonderer1

How is that different from what I said? Perhaps you can provide an example of one of the horror stories.

I know dogs have moods, because I've owned many. But then domestic dogs have existed in a symbiotic relationship with humans for 50,000 years. — Wayfarer

This sounds like the No True Scottish Terrier fallacy.

Granted, but not clearly relevant to what I was interested in discussing with ↪Brendan Golledge. — wonderer1

I think it is relevant. You say the validity of the psychological understanding expressed by religious beliefs is somehow invalid because of the consequences of actions by religious institutions. If that's true, and I don't think it is, the same can be said for the physical, chemical, and technological knowledge resulting from science.

First, there is no way of knowing, or of testing, whether animals have emotional states. ‘Thinking animals’ is also a contentious claim, as what ‘thinking’ implies, and whether animals are capable of it, is vaguely defined and probably untestable. — Wayfarer

I am surprised, shocked actually, to hear you say this. I find it hard to believe that anyone who has seen animals, much less owned them as pets, would not understand that animals have the same kinds of emotions we do and that those emotions fill the same role as ours. To deny this conflicts with with my personal experience and my understanding of ethology, human psychology, and biology. Evolution does not build new genetic and organic structures from nowhere. It builds them out of what is already there. The bones of our inner ears started out as the jaw bones of fish. Ditto with our mental capacities.

I don't propose we get into a discussion about this here. I'm interested in the subject but I'm not qualified to make my case any better than I have here. It would also be out of the scope of this discussion as expressed in the OP.

Thanks for the recommendation, although I don’t do very well with horror movies. I tend to sit hunched over with my hands covering my eyes.

horror stories about the results of a strongly religion based 'understanding' of psychology. — wonderer1

The world of science and technology is full of its own horror stories.

I enjoyed your OP. It's well-written and clear. I found a lot to disagree with and I think you make many over-broad statements that aren't necessarily consistent with my understanding of ethnology, human psychology and cognitive science, and sociology. I also think your tone is a bit presumptuous - expressing your opinions as fact. On the other hand, I was surprised to find I agree with you on some important points. Some thoughts:

All thinking animals (such as birds and mammals) appear to be hardwired to try to improve their emotional state. That one seeks after the "good" and tries to avoid the "bad" seem to be intrinsic to what "good" and "bad" are. Thus, hedonism is the default value system for animals such as ourselves.

Hedonism works fine for most animals because they aren't as smart as us and have very limited ability to imagine good and bad beyond their physical needs. But humans have imagination, so that we can invent good and bad that have no relation to our actual needs. — Brendan Golledge

I agree that a lot of human and animal motivation and behavior is hardwired, but I think your take is over-simplistic. As I understand it, animal, including human, behavior doesn't aim at improving their "emotional state." It aims at maintaining the equilibrium of their living systems - homeostasis. Emotions are, among other things, a sign that things are out of balance and a motivation to act.

It seems to me that the most generalized way of avoiding belief in falsehoods that feel good is to disbelieve in the statement, "Feeling good is intrinsically good." This would mean belief in an objective morality. That means that there is a distinction between what is actually good and what feels good...

Choosing an objective morality is very hard, because all values are arbitrarily asserted. This is because of the is-ought dilemma. There is no way to take a physical measure of goodness. So, moral argumentation only works when the person you're arguing with already shares at least some of your arbitrarily asserted moral values. Humans are extremely social creatures, so we most-often take our objective morality from social pressure, which is usually (but not currently in the west) rooted in tradition. It is hard to do anything else but look outside of ourselves for guidance, because values are arbitrarily asserted, and the primary thing inside of ourselves that we can use as a reference is that we want to feel good, which is not a basis for an objective morality, as discussed above. So, people are always looking outside of themselves for some guidance on what they ought to do. — Brendan Golledge

This is confusing. You say you are looking for objective morality, but you also acknowledge that moral values are arbitrary. Perhaps a better word would be "formal" rather than "objective."

If humans are hardwired to lie to themselves to make themselves feel good, then it becomes clear that our opinions are not to be trusted. A great deal of our energy is spent in foolishness, and most of our personal opinions are false. — Brendan Golledge

This is one of those presumptuous statements I was talking about. As I've said, we are not hardwired to make ourselves feel good by lying. Can our opinions be trusted? Sure, maybe, sometimes, often. This is the biggest issue in western philosophy and you've side-stepped it with six words - our opinions are not to be trusted. You say we spend a lot our time in foolishness - more pontification on your part.

I believe that religion at its highest is conscious attention paid to one's inner state. Buddhism and Christianity (I pay most attention to Christianity because it is in my tradition) are the religions most concerned with this. This is why these are virtually the only two religions that have a concept of monasticism; these religions believe more so than other religions that inner work is good for its own sake. These two religions provide their own objective moral framework for the believer to use as a yardstick in his own inner work. — Brendan Golledge

Now we get into the part where I agree with some of what you say. My goal in life is to become more self-aware, what you call paying conscious attention to my inner state, and philosophy is one of the ways I pursue that goal. I can't speak with any authority about Buddhism or Christianity, but I question your assertion those two religions are the ones most concerned with that. My personal adult experience is with Taoism, and, as I understand it, it is all about self-awareness.

I believe that many Christians mistake their own private conscience as the voice of the Holy Spirit. This would explain how it is possible that there is so much confusion in the church, while each individual believer is so sure that he's right. Anyway, this insight made prayer easy for me. I just sit quietly without distractions and wait for some thought or "voice" to pop into my head. I consider what it has to say and maybe have a dialogue with it. This is how one orders one's inner world. — Brendan Golledge

You describe your inner world as if it's the only way to see these things. It's not. On the other hand, I also have experienced that voice pop into my head. For me, that voice is not how I "order my inner world." It is a sign that I have done so.

There are books that have been written on how to do inner work, but I think this is the most important piece of advice. It is simply to be quiet, not distract yourself with anything, and pay attention to the thoughts that spontaneously arise from within one's self. With practice, you will be able to teach yourself about yourself. — Brendan Golledge

That's my cue to roll out one of my favorite quotes. I try to use it at least once a month here on the forum.

You do not need to leave your room. Remain sitting at your table and listen. Do not even listen, simply wait, be quiet, still and solitary. The world will freely offer itself to you to be unmasked, it has no choice, it will roll in ecstasy at your feet. — Franz Kafka

your opinions are probably flattering lies — Brendan Golledge

Such disrespectful arrogance. Why should anyone listen to you?

there is a structure to one's inner world which can be studied, understood, and manipulated. However, one's inner state can't be shared with other people the same way one can take measurements of physical bodies, so that one's study has to always be personal. — Brendan Golledge

I don't disagree that it might be difficult to study our and other's inner lives, but it certainly is not impossible. We do it all the time - colloquially and scientifically.

a genuine area of study in its own right, which as of yet has no name. — Brendan Golledge

I don't know what this means.

When properly understood, I think religion, psychology, and morality are all actually only one subject. — Brendan Golledge

This doesn't strike me as a particularly true or particularly useful way of looking at things.

In the hyperreal number line, it's wrong. — alan1000

It's not wrong, it's inapplicable.

I like Ghost Dog (1999) as well. — Jamal

"Ghost Dog" is the other Jarmusch movie I've watched besides "Paterson." I didn't love it, although I at least liked it enough to watch the whole thing. If I don't like a movie much, I generally give it half and hour and then stop watching.

A point is an abstract mathematical entity which doesn't correspond with any phenomenon in the world of our everyday existence
— T Clark
I disagree. — noAxioms

Even if we disagree, the OP still doesn't make sense. Whatever a point is, a line is the same kind of thing and a line is continuous by definition. A line is expressed as f(x) = mx + b, which means it is defined for any real number "x."

The individual in question says easily debunked nonsense constantly out of ideological drive. It is better to feed the comments to ChatGPT and let the machine do the job than waste brain cells on drivel. — Lionino

Perhaps you should consider not participating.

Are you claiming that something which is an abstraction cannot exist? — MoK

It exists in your mind, your imagination, but not in the physical world. I can imagine a point. I can also imagine a line, which is continuous.

I don't think we're getting anywhere. I'm going to leave it at that.

The center of mass of your body is a point. The center of mass of your computer is a point as well. There is a distance between these two points. The question is whether this distance is discrete or continuous. — MoK

A point does not exist in the everyday world. It is an abstraction, and idealization - imaginary. It has no size. It 's zero dimensional. It does not take up space. A center of gravity is a point and, as such, is also an abstraction, imaginary. And, as I noted, a continuum is also a mathematical idealization. It doesn't exist. It's imaginary.

A continuum exists in the same manner that a point does.

By continuum I mean a set of distinct points without an abrupt change or gap between points — MoK

A point is an abstract mathematical entity which doesn't correspond with any phenomenon in the world of our everyday existence. The same is true of a continuum.

Saying that 'the object doesn't exist without an observer' isn't necessarily the same as saying that it vanishes or becomes non-existent in the absence of one. — Wayfarer

I wouldn't toss this in except I know you are sympathetic to a Taoist way of seeing things. I think Lao Tzu is saying something similar to what you are. These are from Stephen Mitchell's version of the Tao Te Ching.

Verse 1 (excerpt)
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

The unnamable is the eternally real.
Naming is the origin
of all particular things.

Verse 40
Return is the movement of the Tao.
Yielding is the way of the Tao.

All things are born of being.
Being is born of non-being.

Isn't this a bit loose? What exactly does an 'objective way' entail? Even Hoffman and most idealists would say there is an objective world. Isn't the key issue what is the nature of the world we have access to and think we know? — Tom Storm

The existence of an objective reality is a presupposition we make in order to allow ourselves to make our way in this more or less existent world.

A couple of thoughts.

My daughter and I are reading "The Power Broker" together. It's 1200 pages long, but we only read 100 pages a month and then get together to talk about it. Neither of us would have the perseverance to read the whole thing otherwise. It's about Robert Moses who was in charge of building parks, highways, and public housing in New York City and surrounding areas starting in the late 1920s through 1968. It's fascinating. He was a monomaniacal proponent of cars and an opponent of public transportation. He transformed the City and much of Long Island and the rest of the state into his personal automobile dependent kingdom. He also had a tremendous influence on other cities in the US as well as overseas. I don't know how much of what you call motornormativity you can blame on him, but he certainly was a pioneer.

Here in the US, being able to drive is a cultural rite of passage. When I was 16, I got my license on the day after my birthday. The sense of freedom it gives is powerful. Of course, that is partly because getting around without a car is difficult, but still, it's very compelling.

What do we think? — Wayfarer

After making my previous post I went on to read the following responses. It's pretty clear people here generally define "consciousness" differently. This is what has lead to much of the disagreement here. It's hard to separate those disagreement from more substantive ones.

Consciousness is the capacity for experience — Wayfarer

This is the way I've been using the word in this discussion and, as I understand it, this is the issue Chalmers is talking about when he says "hard problem."

For sure. Chalmers thoroughly treats this and eventually has to go to that weird proto-panpsychism type of thinking to get a 'by degrees' system that would account for 'consciousness' we see in the world. — AmadeusD

I think it's a simple question without a current answer - do deer see pictures and hear sounds in their head in a similar manner to how humans do?

i was just pointing out more clearly this extends in both directions. Dismissing is probably the thing to be guarded against though, i guess, rather than twisting oneself in circles over a nonexistent problem. — AmadeusD

I have made what I think are reasonable objections to the hard problem many times here on the forum. I never convince anyone and no one ever convinces me or those who agree with me. At this point I usually say the whole thing is just metaphysics, but I'm not sure that's true in this case.

Another problem with this particular issue - different people use different definitions of "consciousness" without clarification. The hard problem refers specifically to the difficulty of explaining how biological/neurological processes are expressed as experience. It doesn't necessarily apply just to humans or even our near relatives.

Solving a problem that isn't there is always going to look abysmal, but equally would ignoring one that is. — AmadeusD

As I wrote in my response to Wayfarer - both sides of the discussion think their position is self-evident and dismiss the other argument.

Not seeing a problem does not amount to grounds for dismissing it. — Wayfarer

I think both sides of the discussion think their position is self-evident and dismiss the other argument.

nothing you’re saying indicates that you are facing up to that problem. — Wayfarer

As you know, many of us don't think there is any problem to face up to.

Bad faith arises when individuals attempt to escape the burden of this radical freedom by denying their own capacity for choice...Do we go on living in bad faith and deny the issues for the sake of not ending this thing? — Rob J Kennedy

It's not clear to me if you want to discuss whether Sartre's idea of bad faith is a good way at looking at freedom and responsibility (Hint - no, it's selfish, lazy, and irresponsible). If that's not what you're looking for, I'll leave it at that.

As I see it, none of that has anything to do with your personal situation. How can doing something because some philosopher might think you should be an act of radical freedom? You don't owe Sartre anything. You also can't use him to get you off the hook for a personal decision.

Philosophy is not a problem solver, it is a way of think that can be used to solve problems. — Sir2u

Yes, exactly.

I don't think apokrisis meant it as a definition or criterion of demarcation, but of he did then it's of little relevance as an explanation of consciousness. — bert1

Perhaps he'll come and set me straight.

I only brought it up, cuz I flashed on that being us, — Mww

Have you seen "My Dinner with Andre?" Two guys talking for an hour and a half. It's a movie I enjoyed, although the philosophy discussed is a little goofy.