So my question is: what makes Tom's justification method to be superior to Sam's justification method? Or in other words, why Tom is more justified to believe "it is called outside" then Sam? — Curious Layman

The level of justification needed by Tom and Sam is very low. I they're wrong, they've dressed conservatively, so they will not be cold. If it's too warm, they can take off their jackets. They can both also easily come back in the house and change if needed. Both Tom and Sam are are adequately justified in their beliefs. For either to put in additional effort to be more sure would probably be a waste of effort.

Dalit — Banno

Daleks? Geez. And they say we have problems.

There has been a fair amount of work in recent years on what has been called a pre-reflective form of minimal self-awareness. Dan Zahavi has made this his central focus, but there is growing concensus that all experience presupposes some primitive sense of self. Infants have been shown to differentiate self from others. — Joshs

Do you have a source for this? A link?

Just tripped across an article in "Discover" - "Can Plants Feel Pain?" Thought people might be interested. Here's a link.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/can-plants-feel-pain

Rather than address specific comments, I'll just say this - the meanings of consciousness @Banno is talking about are not those I intended to discuss in this thread. Here are the meanings Banno identified:

1 aware of and responding to one's surroundings: although I was in pain, I was conscious.

2 having knowledge of something: we are conscious of the extent of the problem.
• [in combination] concerned with or worried about a particular matter: they were growing increasingly security-conscious.

3 (of an action or feeling) deliberate and intentional: a conscious effort to walk properly.
• (of the mind or a thought) directly perceptible to and under the control of the person concerned: when you go to sleep it is only the conscious mind which shuts down.

Again, these meanings are not those this thread were intended to discuss. You say it isn't clear, although no one except Banno and you have had any trouble understanding. Now it should be clear.

It’s an ambiguous term, says Chalmers. This is before he sprinkled in a little experience, feelings, and quality to make it worse. But it becomes more and more apparent that the “consciousness” he speaks of is the organism itself. So when he says “It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience”, he is descending into tautology. — NOS4A2

I haven't read Chalmer's paper. I need to do that.

Not to be glib, but in a word or so, consciousness is a mystery. You know kinda like God, cosmology, mathematics, music, and whole host of other things found in living structures. — 3017amen

I don't think it is a mystery. I think most of the confusion comes from a lack of imagination. People can't help but think that consciousness is something special and that we need to identify special sources for it.

Strict materialists often make the argument that we are essentially machines, that there is very little authentic base for awareness or mind or consciousness (some of this is based on study of brain functions). But thinking of machines, say cars, do they ever wonder if they are basically machines? If we are, we are quite a peculiar kind of machines with tendency to self-doubt and capability for ferocious arguments whether we actually are "just" machines. This would seem somewhat strange behaviour for a car or a hairdryer etc. — hwyl

I don't see that a materialist viewpoint can not be used to address questions of consciousness and self-awareness. We are just machines that manufacture self-awareness. That self-awareness is actually a byproduct we use to achieve our true goal - to manufacturer copies of ourselves.

Self-awareness becomes redundant it is specifies an innate distinction between self and other, an innate awareness of selfhood in this sense. An ameba will hold awareness of this distinction, but we do not say it is self-aware. Lesser vertebrates can become unconscious—e.g., due to sedatives—but when conscious we likewise don’t consider them self-aware in the senses defined in the OP. Defining consciousness by self-awareness, as self-awareness was specified in the OP, constrains “consciousness” strictly to critters that can not only conceptualize information but, additionally, can conceptualize information about (and thereby hold abstract knowledge of) their personal innate awareness of their own selfhood via which other is discerned — javra

I think you're getting to the heart of it. I actually like "self-awareness" more than "consciousness" to describe the phenomena we're talking about, but "consciousness" is the word used most often by others. People don't talk about the hard problem of self-awareness. I wonder if they did it would help get rid of some of the confusion and disagreement.

So, in equating consciousness to self-awareness, one would be forced to state that human infants hold no consciousness. This being something I’m personally very adverse to doing. If, however, consciousness is equated to awareness, then human infants and lesser animals can all be conscious (again, in contrast to being unconscious). But, in so defining, then unicellular organisms can then be deemed conscious as well, since they hold awareness of things, including of that which is other relative to themselves—and, hence, of themselves relative to that which is other. — javra

Human infants are clearly sentient. They have experiences. They have attention and awareness. It is my understanding that young infants have to learn the difference between what is part of them and what is outside. Wouldn't that mean they are not conscious, again, in the sense we are talking about it. As for other animals, as you move down it becomes more and more questionable that what we see is consciousness. In what sense do bacteria have experiences. It's not clear to me they are aware.

So that's what I propose. We use experience in this broad sense to refer to conscious goings-on. Everything else that is not part of experience at this moment (minus other people who one assumes have experience too) would be non-experiential.

I find it useful. Consciousness tends to have a lot of baggage attached. Experience is a bit less ambiguous. — Manuel

Yes, I agree. The aspect of consciousness I set out to examine is the experience. If I had added that to my list of words in the OP, it might have made it easier for us to keep on target.

I have found "experience" a useful term - we have the experience of being in the world. We are not directly in the world, we experience it and thus are at least somewhat removed from it. There is a space there, a distance. This self-understanding of being in the middle of the act of experiencing the world seems like awareness to me. — hwyl

You're right, experience is a good word in the context of this discussion. Perhaps I should have included it in my list. It helps differentiate between different meanings of "consciousness" and focuses on the type of thing consciousness is. "Consciousness" does not only mean an experience, but that's the aspect of the word I want to examine in this thread.

We all know what consciousness “is” because we all experience it (supposedly), but the problem with experience, is that experience is subjective and may not be conveyed to others, outside of the use of abstract language. — Present awareness

And this is why I started this discussion, to help give us common language to discuss this issue.

I do get a bit triggered when people don't respect the OP. Otherwise every thread becomes the same free for all for people's opinions on whatever they want to sound off about. A bit of discipline and focus would be really nice. Then each thread would have a proper subject. Banno knows better and is capable of staying on topic, but chooses not to. — bert1

I try to be considerate in my posts and make sure I am discussing the issues raised in the OP. I appreciate it when others do the same for me. Thank you.

As in, if I say consciousness is to be defined as what-it's-like to be something and someone replies "that's no good, you can't be a rock. Also, can you tell me what it's like to be a bat?" Then we simply get stuck in discussing the definition as opposed to the phenomena. — Manuel

But this thread is specifically intended to discuss the definition as opposed to the phenomena. That way, theoretically, possibly, one hopes, we can avoid focusing on the definition as opposed to the phenomena in future discussions.

I see why you may want to clarify these terms. I'm not sure how useful it's going to be. The simpler the definition the better. Consciousness can be said to be awareness. Self consciousness means awareness of one's being aware. And so on. But defining a term says little about the phenomenon. — Manuel

Yes, there are different meanings of "consciousness," but I think I've been clear. I'm talking about a particular meaning or meanings related to a particular usage, i.e. the discussions we have here on the forum. I'm looking for the language to use in those discussions to make what I am trying to communicate clear to other participants.

Best, not only. It's the one that is clearest; the one with which no one will disagree... — Banno

But, as you are aware, it's not the one I set out to discuss. It is not relevant to the question at hand.

This understanding of consciousness may be the best we have, but I am only saying that I don't think it is helpful to try to exclude all other usages of the term, because some people may be using it differently. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I agree.

It's not about a single definition but about seeing examples of it in practice. The people involved.
The whole human experience. — Amity

Except that it's not. I've tried to be clear. I want to talk about the meaning of "consciousness" in the sense it is used when one says "the hard problem of consciousness."

I'm afraid that I am having a problem with you wishing to narrow down the idea of consciousness to that of a first aid test. — Jack Cummins

I think Banno is being intentionally contrarian.

Neither of them seem to know who the current Prime Minister is. It's not looking good. — bert1

Depends on where the accident is. Here in the US, no one knows who the British Prime Minister is. Is it still Gordon Brown?

Not so much meaningless as wrong. — Banno

I agree, but there are some who believe that inanimate objects are conscious. When we get in those kinds of conversations, I just want to make sure everyone is talking about the same phenomenon.

Thinkers within philosophy and other disciplines may use the term consciousness in differing ways, and surely, thinking about it should not be reduced to one way of seeing it. — Jack Cummins

You're right, there are many meanings for "consciousness," but I am trying to focus in on one particular aspect, which I don't think has anything to do with first aid training. I know you understand that.

At first glance, this can look absurd. — Amity

I think @Banno was being a smarty-pants. Perhaps I was wrong.

‘Oh, too bad. How’s the rock? And the tree?’ — Wayfarer

I used to be an emergency medical technician. When we gave our reports on patients we would say they were "conscious and alert," although we never had to take a rock or tree to the hospital.

But (contentious as what I’ve so far written might be) back to the central point: My take so far is that all interpretations of “consciousness” will encompass awareness. This although certain notions of consciousness will specify only certain forms of awareness and therefore label other forms of awareness as not constituting consciousness proper. — javra

First off, I didn't think your discussion of "awareness" was contentious at all. As I noted in my OP, I did not consider it because I thought it was a general term. You're right, though, you can't be self-aware without being aware. I have no objections to keeping it in the discussion. Do you think it adds to the discussion of "consciousness" in a way that "self-aware" does not?

I was not criticising it, but simply read it when waking up in the middle of the night, so my response may have seemed a bit grungy. — Jack Cummins

I didn't think your post was critical at all. This is the kind of conversation I want to have.

The reason why I think your question is so good is that we use the word so often on this site, and I know that I have written threads including the word consciousness. While people are inclined to seek definitions, I am not sure that there are many discussions here about the specific meaning of the term consciousness. — Jack Cummins

As I noted, this is exactly why I started this thread.

I have a different position. My own understanding of consciousness incorporates a possible collective unconscious as a source of consciousness, or of levels of consciousness as dimensions. But, I will stop here, because I am going into what is consciousness and I believe that you are looking more specifically at what we mean by the term consciousness, although it is linked because people probably use the word differently. — Jack Cummins

I like talking about all aspects of consciousness. It tests my understanding of the interactions between human understanding and reality. But, as you note, if we drift off target I'm afraid the main goal of this discussion will be lost.

On the other hand, as I mentioned in an earlier response to one of your posts, I think we do need to talk about the subconscious and unconsciousness. My first take is that they are part of our minds but not of our consciousnesses. I'm not sure about that. If you want to discuss that, that would be fine. As I noted before, I will add more on that if I can just catch up on all the comments.

n short, the OP isn't really about the word "consciousness", nor is it about consciousness, it's actually about language in general and Latin & English in particular. — TheMadFool

I'm happy for us to look at the language issues about "consciousness" and related words as you have done, but no, the post is not about language in general or Latin and English in particular. It's about a mental phenomenon or phenomena.

Headed for bed. I'll pick this up in the morning.

Are you familiar with the original paper, which is here — Wayfarer

I have read various discussions about it, but I haven't read this. I will.

I hope you don't mind if I steal the text you linked from @Pantagruel's discussion.

How is degree of consciousness quantified?
— Pantagruel
I agree with Wayfarer, it's binary not "a matter of degree" like a dimmer. Why think this? I understand things this way:

• pre-awareness = attention (orientation)
• awareness = perception (experience)
• adaptivity = intelligence (optimizing heuristic error-correction)
• self-awareness = [Phenomenal-Self Modeling ~Metzinger]
• awareness of self-awareness = consciousness

Except for the last (sys. 2), every other cognitive modality (sys. 1 (aka "enabling blindspot for sys. 2")) is autonomic and continually manifests a non-zero degree of functioning (thus, quantifiable?); "consciousness", on the hand, is intermittent (i.e. flickering, alter-nating), or interrupted by variable moods, monotony, persistent high stressors, sleep / coma, drug & alcohol intoxication, psychotropics, brain trauma (e.g. PTSD) or psychosis, and so, therefore, is either online (1) or offline (0) frequently – even with variable frequency strongly correlated to different 'conscious-states' – each (baseline) waking-sleep cycle. — 180 Proof

Perhaps it might be useful to talk in terms of what you do or don't agree with or understand about this paper, as that is the one that defined the problem. — Wayfarer

I like this, but I'm not sure if I agree. Or at least I'm not sure this is what other people mean when they say "consciousness."

Quoting from @Pantagruel in that same discussion. I wish I had participated. Maybe I wouldn't need to have started this discussion at all.

Consciousness is a feature of an entity capable of manipulating its environment. And what determines the form and function of that entity? The successive and cumulative manipulations of its environment. An apparent circularity. — Pantagruel

I'm going to steal one of @Wayfarer's responses from that thread too:

Something is either conscius or it's not. Birds, bees, humans are conscious - unless they're not - but one is not 'more conscious' than the other. But I'm sure that birds are more intelligent than bees, and humans more than birds. — Wayfarer

Isn't that sentience?

Very general words - consciousness, love, meaning - are much harder to define, because they're polysemic, that is, they have different meanings in different contexts. — Wayfarer

All of the words I listed have other meanings. I tried to pick the definitions I think are relevant to the kinds of discussions we have on the forum. It would be nice if the people starting those discussions would be clear about these kinds of issues. That's not likely to happen. I mostly started this post to clarify in my own mind what I mean when I use these words.

The other, related issue is the domain of discourse in which the words are being used. For example, if you study both psychology and philosophy at an undergrad level (which I did) you will find the conception of mind in 'philosophy of mind' (philosophy) and in 'theories of the unconscious' (psychology) may be very different. They will refer to different sources and explore the subjects from different perspectives. They have different background assumptions and different aims in mind. — Wayfarer

As I said, I at least want to come up with a meaning that applies to the "hard problem of consciousness" people talk about. Which domain do you see that as part of? Maybe that's part of the problem - the people doing the talking aren't clear on that themselves.

The last point, is that I think much of the talk about 'consciousness' has seeped into Western discourse from Eastern sources... And that means at least some of the discussion about consciousness is freighted with (often implicit) references to Asiatic (Hindu/Buddhist) cultural memes. — Wayfarer

What impact does the source of the meaning, e.g. western or eastern, have on the meanings I'm trying to get at here?

I think that your definitions are fairly good, but I just wonder how the unconscious and subconscious fit into the picture, — Jack Cummins

Good point. I want to add some more about that in another post. I just didn't want my first one to be too long.

I am not really sure that I would clearly wish to come up with an overriding definition of consciousness, because it seems like trying to put it into a category. It seems larger than that, — Jack Cummins

I don't disagree, but my post was intended to address a particular need - What do we mean when we talk about the hard problem of consciousness? What do we mean when we talk about rocks being conscious? Actually, that's what inspired me to write about this. There was a discussion that included talk of inanimate objects being conscious. We talk about these things all the time and I'm never sure we're all talking about the same thing. Rather, at least sometimes, I'm sure we aren't all talking about the same thing.

I think some call this phenomenal consciousness or 'what is it like to be consciousness' per Nagel/Chalmers. — Tom Storm

I edited my post to include that as one of the definitions.

The best answer is to be found in a First Aid course. — Banno

At least read the post if you respond.

I think it's pretty clear from this thread and others that 3017 has posted to that 3017 simply is not interested in any sort of reasonable exchange. What do you say? — tim wood

I've enjoyed this thread, although it's been a bit frustrating. If you don't like his stuff, why participate?

I don't know what that means. — 3017amen

According to the OED, and any 6 year old you talk to, nuh-unh means "No; used especially to rebuff or contradict."

Charlie the whale. — 3017amen

Looked it up. The only reference was a song. Couldn't find any lyrics.

Unfortunately, that's incorrect — 3017amen

Nuh-unh.

Think of it this way, as Einstein eluded, if we were all Dr. Spock's or 'Spock-like', we wouldn't contemplate those kinds of things...there would be no need. — 3017amen

Commander Data thought about those things all the time.

By the way, "nuh-unh" is included in the Oxford English Dictionary.

I understand. I think the concepts of ethics and morality, in contemplation of the soul, are still valid but you are correct; I am postulating that seeing the soul as a distinct entity seperate to the body and mind should be discarded. — Brock Harding

Is this a response to me? You should tag posts and/or quotes if you are responding to a particular one.

As I wrote in my previous response, you are saying that your way of seeing things is better than theists. Since you haven't acknowledged and don't understand their way of seeing things, you haven't given them a credible reason for changing. Your approach is a bit arrogant.

What I am suggesting is that there needs to be a "third camp". — thewonder

I enjoyed what you've written. It seems to me your "third camp" is an attempt to find a way to take some of the energy out of the clash of left wing and right wing political beliefs that is playing out in the US now. That's a good thing. You are much more well read in political philosophy and history than I am, so, unfortunately, I don't really have anything to offer on the substance of your post.

A suggestion - use shorter paragraphs. It will make it easier to read. I tend to stay away from posts with long paragraphs. I'm glad I didn't on this one.

I postulate that most, if not all, current philosophy regarding the soul or spirit can be transposed to the ‘mind’. — Brock Harding

There are lots of words referring to our personal experience and essence out there - mind, soul, spirit, self, identity, ego, consciousness, self-awareness, personality, and character. I could come up with more if I took more time. I think you are right that there is a lot of overlap with these concepts, but it's also true that each is different from the rest. Most arose in the context of different beliefs about human nature.

It is my understanding that many, if not most, theologians see the soul as different from the mind. That belief is central to the beliefs of many religions. I'm not the one to discuss those differences. It seems to me that your attempt to "align" science and religion ignores that. You seem to be asking religious believers to give up important aspects of their beliefs to make them consistent with your scientific viewpoint.