And it must be consistent with how the word has been used for centuries. — Apollodorus

I disagree. I has to be consistent with the word's common usage now and it's particular usage in a particular context and a particular conversation.

His take is that "emotion" is primary, and is located in the brain stem, a more "primitive" part of the brain. We've been looking in the wrong place. — Daemon

I think @Possibility would disagree with this.

Discussions on the forum and elsewhere suffer from the fact that definitions are not agreed on at the beginning. If you read the rest of the thread I think you'll see this is true for "consciousness." — T Clark

Well, that much I've noticed already to be honest. I was talking about everyday language in general. When we say things like "I become conscious", "I become aware", "I am self-conscious", etc. it is normally understood what is meant even if there is no precise definition for it in our mind.

Obviously, when more technical language is used, then a definition of the terms discussed should be agreed upon, otherwise meaningful discussion becomes difficult if not impossible. But then you would have to redefine it with every new discussion.

In any case, I still believe that consciousness is related to "awareness" and especially "self-awareness" which is also one of the dictionary definitions for it. So, it isn't all that different from how the word was used in the past.

No, there isn't a single correct definition, so it's a waste of time looking for that. I think you have to state your own working definition, in the specific context. — Daemon

That's what this whole thread is about.

That's what this whole thread is about — T Clark

In that case, you would need to redefine the term with every new discussion.

Interesting that you ‘recognise’ experience as a movie playing in your head. You do realise that this is a construction and not a recognition as such. So is talking to yourself about what is going on - it’s a probabilistic construction using the logic and qualities of language as an approximation. — Possibility

I don't disagree and I generally don't think there is a hard problem of consciousness, but I can't deny seeing the movie in my head. You calling that a "construction" doesn't change the fact that the movie feels like something. Some people think the experience must have a fundamentally different cause than the brain processing

I thought Chalmers was more of a property dualist. Which is a weaker view than substance dualism.

Yes, you can say "fundamentally different", but I had in mind metaphysically different, meaning a completely separate or distinct aspect of nature. I think we have good reasons to believe that experience is physical.

The problem with substance dualism, as I understand it, is that of interaction: how can two completely different aspects or features of nature interact?

With property dualism, this doesn't need to arise. One can speak of those aspects of nature that are experiential and those aspects of nature that are non-experiential. Of course, this can be endlessly debated.

Well, that much I've noticed already to be honest. I was talking about everyday language in general. When we say things like "I become conscious", "I become aware", "I am self-conscious", etc. it is normally understood what is meant even if there is no precise definition for it in our mind. — Apollodorus

I don't think that's true. Although failure to agree on definitions is a particular problem here on the forum, it is also a broader problem for discussions in general. As a civil engineer, I have to be very careful about what words I choose to use. Someday we can talk about the differences between the terms "hazardous waste," "hazardous material," and "hazardous substance." People can get in big trouble if they don't understand the difference.

The term still implies "awareness" and above all "self-awareness". What has changed? — Apollodorus

Have you read the OP? Maybe you should.

In that case, you would need to redefine the term with every new discussion. — Apollodorus

You don't have to redefine it, just agree on what definition you are going to use.

Of course, this can be endlessly debated. — Manuel

Clearly this is true. Thanks for the information.

You don't have to redefine it, just agree on what definition you are going to use — T Clark

Are you suggesting that we agree on a set of definitions and then agree on one of them whenever we choose to discuss anything that involves "consciousness"?

Are you suggesting that we agree on a set of definitions and then agree on one of them whenever we choose to discuss anything that involves "consciousness"? — Apollodorus

No. The purpose of this thread is not necessarily to agree on definitions. It's to get them all out on the table so we can use and discuss them more intelligently in our other discussions. I'm actually a bit more confused than I was at the beginning. Or maybe it's more accurate to say I didn't know how confused I was back then.

I don't know if you've read any of my OPs in the past. What I try to do is be very specific about what the terms I plan to use mean in the context I plan to use them and provide justification. I generally willing to discuss different meanings and terms, but the final decision is mine. Then I try to enforce that meaning throughout the discussion. Oh, the wonderful power of the original poster.

I don't know if you've read any of my OPs in the past. What I try to do is be very specific about what the terms I plan to use mean in the context I plan to use them and provide justification. I generally willing to discuss different meanings and terms, but the final decision is mine. Then I try to enforce that meaning throughout the discussion. Oh, the wonderful power of the original poster.[/quote]

lol I see. Unfortunately, I only read this OP because I found the topic of interest. How far do you think this thread has progressed in the right direction?

I think you have to state your own working definition, in the specific context.
— Daemon
That makes complete sense to me. — Amity

Also, useful to read TPF Guidelines on 'How to Write an OP':

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/7110/how-to-write-an-op/p1

How far do you think this thread has progressed in the right direction? — Apollodorus

I've found it very interesting and helpful and I've had fun. Others have indicated that they feel the same way. That's all I ever ask.

John Searle says that, like many other terms, consciousness is best defined ostensively, that is, by pointing to examples. — Daemon

Ironically, perhaps, you've used a somewhat non-standard definition for "ostensively." You've addressed any possible misunderstanding by specifically identifying the meaning you are using. That is exactly the process I am describing when I say:

Agreed, but for the purposes of a philosophical discussion, or any specific discussion, it is more important that we agree on a definition than that the definition is precisely correct. — T Clark

I've found it very interesting and helpful and I've had fun. Others have indicated that they feel the same way. That's all I ever ask. — T Clark

Sounds good to me.

I don't disagree and I generally don't think there is a hard problem of consciousness, but I can't deny seeing the movie in my head. You calling that a "construction" doesn't change the fact that the movie feels like something. Some people think the experience must have a fundamentally different cause than the brain processing — T Clark

Yes, there is something - this is what I mean about the difference between talking about consciousness with (faculty) and consciousness of (capacity or content). We can talk about an electron in terms of what it does and any evidence of such, but not what it is. Likewise with energy. We’ve come to accept that this is what we mean by the terms, even if it’s only an aspect (our current perspective) of what the terms really mean.

Consciousness is objectively indeterminate as anything other than a faculty, a possibility or idea. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist, but that its capacity and its contents are variable. When you define consciousness as, say, the experience of a movie running in your head, you’re referring to your capacity to construct what feels like a movie running in your head (complete with soundtrack and script) from what consciousness is.

To say that this experience or consciousness is ‘caused’ by the brain processing is like saying that heat or energy is ‘caused’ by friction. Yes, but not really. Potential energy exists even if no friction occurs. And energy exists as a possibility even if no one intentionally manifests heat potential by arranging matter so that friction can occur. Likewise, consciousness is a faculty that exists even when we’re unaware of, or unable to fully manifest, its capacity. I’m inclined to believe that your consciousness consists of more than a movie running in your head, but that you construct this experience using language as your best approximation of information processed by the brain - that you’re aware of.

I’m also inclined to believe that while the brain processing information seems essential to human consciousness, it is not essential to consciousness, and does not explain it anymore than friction explains what energy is.

This doesn’t really help us to define consciousness, except to recognise the context of what we’re doing when we define it. What we can say about consciousness will always be an aspect of consciousness, limited by our own capacity to experience, and to reconstruct that experience from language.

This doesn’t really help us to define consciousness, except to recognise the context of what we’re doing when we define it. What we can say about consciousness will always be an aspect of consciousness, limited by our own capacity to experience, and to reconstruct that experience from language. — Possibility

Everything you've written makes sense to me. I don't know enough to be able to say whether or not it's correct, but it's the kind of answer I would expect to be right. I hope that makes sense. As I said, I don't buy the whole hard problem thing, but I can understand why people feel that way.

His take is that "emotion" is primary, and is located in the brain stem, a more "primitive" part of the brain. We've been looking in the wrong place. — Daemon


I think @Possibility would disagree with this.

I'd like to know more about this @T Clark @Possibility.

My definition of ostensive definition wasn't a non-standard definition of ostensive definition. HTH.

Can you say why you don't buy the "hard problem" thing? In a new thread if you think that's best.

. Consciousness is your nature; mind is just the circumference created by the society around you, the culture, your education.

. Mind means the conditioning. You can have a Hindu mind, but you cannot have a Hindu consciousness. You can have a Christian mind, but you can't have a Christian consciousness. Consciousness is one; it is not divisible. Minds are many because societies are many; cultures, religions are many. Each culture, each society, creates a different mind. Mind is a social by-product. And unless this mind dissolves, you cannot go within; you cannot know what is really your nature, what is authentically your existence, your consciousness.

. The effort to move into meditation is a struggle against the mind. Mind is never meditative, it is never silent, so to say 'a silent mind' is meaningless, absurd. It is just like saying 'a healthy disease'. It makes no sense. How can there be a disease that is healthy? Disease is disease, and health is the absence of disease.

. There is nothing like a silent mind. When silence is there, there is no mind. When mind is there, there is no silence. Mind, as such, is the disturbance, the disease. Meditation is the state of no-mind. Not of a silent mind, not of a healthy mind, not of a concentrated mind, no. Meditation is the state of no-mind: no society within you, no conditioning within you. Just you, with your pure consciousness.

. In Zen they say: Find out your original face. The face that you are using is not original; it is cultivated. It is not your face; it is just a facade, just a device. You have many faces, each moment you change your face. You go on changing it. The changing has become so automatic by now that you don't even observe it, you don't notice it.

. When you meet your servant you have a different face from when you meet your boss. If your servant is sitting on your left side and your boss is sitting on your right, you have two faces. The left face is for the servant and the right face is for the boss. You are two persons simultaneously. How can you have the same face for your servant? Your one eye has a certain quality, a certain look. Your other eye has a different quality, a different look. It is meant for the boss and the other one is meant for the servant. This has become so automatic, so mechanical, so robot like that you go on changing your faces, you have multi-faces, and not a single one is the original.

. In Zen they say: Find out your original face, the face you had before you were born, or the face you will have when you are dead. What is that original face? That original face is your consciousness. All your other faces come from your mind.

. Remember well that you don't have one mind; you have multi-minds. Forget the concept that everyone has one mind. You don't have, you have many minds: a crowd, a multiplicity; you are poly-psychic. In the morning you have one mind, in the afternoon a different mind and in the evening still a different mind. Every single moment you have a different mind.

. Mind is a flux: river like, flowing, changing. Consciousness is eternal, one. It is not different in the morning and different in the evening. It is not different when you are born and different when you die. It is one and the same, eternal. Mind is a flux. A child has a childish mind, an old man has an old mind; but a child or an old man have the same consciousness, which is neither childish nor old. It cannot be.

. Mind moves in time and consciousness lives in timelessness. They are not one. But we are identified with the mind. We go on saying, insisting, 'My mind. I think this way. This is my thought. This is my ideology.' Because of this identification with the mind, you miss that which you really are.

. Dissolve these links with the mind. Remember that your minds are not your own. They have been given to you by others: your parents, your society, your university. They have been given to you. Throw them away. Remain with the simple consciousness that you are ¯ pure consciousness, innocent. This is how one moves from the mind to meditation. This is how one moves away from society, from the without to the within. This is how one moves from the man-made world, the maya, to the universal truth, the existence.

This may all be very true and enlightening. However this thread is about language and concepts (which you have touched on) not about consciousness. Even if this thread were about consciousness, this is a philosophy forum and philosophy is characterised by argument, not authoritative wisdom. There is no argument in your post.

. I do not move by arguments ... arguments are futile friend ...

. That which is ... is ... was ... and it will ever be ... regardless your so-called philosophical arguments ...

. I'll stop ... if you philosophize me ... how does the sugar tastes. Do it, so I don't have to prove it ...

In other contexts your post would fit perfectly. And maybe it is welcome here as well, I don't know. I thought you would like to know what a philosophy forum is about so you can make informed decisions in the future about what you want to post in them.

Mind is a social by-product. And unless this mind dissolves, you cannot go within; you cannot know what is really your nature, what is authentically your existence, your consciousness. — Anand-Haqq

OK. That is one mind talking, even if it is from the source of consciousness.
For me, 'real nature' includes the brain and mind as tools which enable awareness of the world; the experiences, thoughts and feelings.
This kind of consciousness involves sentient elements, some label 'qualia'. The subjective feel of what it is like to be 'human'.

Mind, as such, is the disturbance, the disease — Anand-Haqq

The mind can certainly disturb and it can be the source of ill health. However, it is not a disease in itself.
It can be seen as a tool whereby we attend to and process the world; we observe, assess, evaluate with a view to action based on best evidence available. That includes decision-making. Which path to follow.
But it's even more than that...

You are two persons simultaneously. How can you have the same face for your servant? Your one eye has a certain quality, a certain look. Your other eye has a different quality, a different look — Anand-Haqq

No. I am one physical person with a brain and mind. My eyes might have different qualities.
But it is the quality of mind that matters. I note and respect differences. It is true that we can change our 'face' according to circumstance and context - that is done for all kinds of reasons. Call it a survival instinct or being flexible, taking others needs into account...as well as our own.

Remember well that you don't have one mind; you have multi-minds. Forget the concept that everyone has one mind. You don't have, you have many minds: a crowd, a multiplicity; you are poly-psychic. In the morning you have one mind, in the afternoon a different mind and in the evening still a different mind. Every single moment you have a different mind. — Anand-Haqq

Who or what is it that tells you to 'Remember well that...'
I consider it to be a case of one mind, different 'selves' or 'voices'.
That one mind can and does change. That is its nature.
Adapting to the environment and different experiences.

We go on saying, insisting, 'My mind. I think this way. This is my thought. This is my ideology.' Because of this identification with the mind, you miss that which you really are. — Anand-Haqq

Who is this 'we' you talk of ?
That is a generalisation, not always applicable to individuals.
Some don't have a single ideology, they have a 'way of thinking'. This can involve looking at life holistically. Also being sceptical of what they are being told e.g. 'Remember well that...'.

Dissolve these links with the mind. Remember that your minds are not your own. They have been given to you by others: your parents, your society, your university. They have been given to you. Throw them away. Remain with the simple consciousness that you are ¯ pure consciousness, innocent. This is how one moves from the mind to meditation. This is how one moves away from society, from the without to the within. This is how one moves from the man-made world, the maya, to the universal truth, the existence. — Anand-Haqq

No. I will pass on dissolving links with the mind. Without it, I could not respond.
Again, one mind, different 'selves' or 'voices'. Not about to be discarded.
I can exist and move between any internal and the external world quite happily.

Thanks for your thoughts. Worth considering if only to clarify my own :cool:

I do not move by arguments ... arguments are futile friend ... — Anand-Haqq

In one sense, your post is an argument in that you are setting out statements as to what mind means to you.

He draws on his experience with patients who lacked any cerebral cortex, observing that they are nevertheless able to experience emotions. He notes that while the absence of cerebral cortex allows "feeling" to exist, the removal of only a few cc's of the brain stem causes irrevocable unconsciousness.

His take is that "emotion" is primary, and is located in the brain stem, a more "primitive" part of the brain. We've been looking in the wrong place. — Daemon

These efforts to locate ‘emotion’ in a more ‘primitive’ part of the brain may be outdated - recent research in neuroscience and psychology shows ‘emotion’ to be a whole brain process linked to the construction of concepts and language development. There is, however, an aspect of this process - referred to as ‘affect’ - that is nevertheless considered a fundamental correlate of consciousness.

The circuitry within the neural reference space for core affect binds sensory information from the external world to sensory information from the body, so that every mental state is intrinsically infused with affective content. — ‘Affect as a Psychological Primitive’, Lisa Feldman Barrett and Eliza Bliss-Moreau

It’s important to point out, though, that what is referred to here as ‘core affect’ or feeling is NOT ‘emotion’. The article quoted above gives some relevant details, and argues that “emotion is just one class of affective feeling”. It is also pointed out late in the article (in section 6.2. ‘Core affect as a fundamental feature of conscious experience’) that “affective circuitry offers the only path by which sensory information from the outside world reaches the brainstem and basal forebrain” - which sort of ties in to what Solm is saying.

But any conclusion that ‘emotion is primary, and is located in the brain stem’ seems to me a misinterpretation of the research. I would argue that it isn’t ‘emotion’ that is primary, but affect.