That is, must consciousness always only occur, or exist, in a first person, present tense mode? — charles ferraro
That is, must consciousness always only occur, or exist, in a first person, present tense mode? — charles ferraro
does consciousness always only occur, — charles ferraro
or exist, — charles ferraro
Questions: But at what crucial point in the process does self-consciousness arise? And who experiences it? Were Neanderthals self-conscious in the same way and to the same degree as Homo Sapiens? What evolutionary purpose(s) does self-consciousness serve? — charles ferraro
What's your definition of consciousness? — charles ferraro
People using different meanings are already muddying the discussion and causing misunderstanding. — T Clark
The user illusion is the illusion created for the user by a human–computer interface, for example the visual metaphor of a desktop used in many graphical user interfaces. The phrase originated at Xerox PARC
Some philosophers of mind have argued that consciousness is a form of user illusion. This notion is explored by Tor Nørretranders in his 1991 Danish book Mærk verden, issued in a 1998 English edition as The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size — Wikipedia
People are thus what Metzinger calls naïve realists, who believe they are perceiving reality directly when in actuality they are only perceiving representations of reality. The data structures and transport mechanisms of the data are "transparent" so that people can introspect on their representations of perceptions, but cannot introspect on the data or mechanisms themselves — Wikipedia
Consciousness is an illusion — Daniel C. Dennett
If you're talking about me, I was attempting to clarify the discussion, which has been muddy right from the start and is now only getting muddier. — Daemon
I have already given my definition of consciousness — charles ferraro
People are thus what Metzinger calls naïve realists, who believe they are perceiving reality directly when in actuality they are only perceiving representations of reality. — Wikipedia
Is there a simple, reliable criterion one can use to isolate and identify precisely those characteristics the human mind contributes to the objects of experience? — charles ferraro
Representationalism notoriously courts scepticism: Why should awareness of one thing (an inner object) enable awareness of a quite different thing (an external object), and how can we ever know that what is internally accessible actually corresponds to something external? On Husserl's anti-representationalist view, however, the fit and link between mind and world – between perception and reality – isn't merely external or coincidental: “consciousness (mental process) and real being are anything but coordinate kinds of being, which dwell peaceably side by side and occasionally become ‘related to' or ‘connected with' one another” (Husserl 1982: 111 — Joshs
For Husserl, physical nature makes itself known in what appears perceptually. The very idea of defining the really real reality as the unknown cause of our experience, and to suggest that the investigated object is a mere sign of a distinct hidden object whose real nature must remain unknown and which can never be apprehended according to its own determinations, is for Husserl nothing but a piece of mythologizing (Husserl 1982: 122). Rather than defining objective reality as what is there in itself, rather than distinguishing how things are for us from how they are simpliciter in order then to insist that
the investigation of the latter is the truly important one, Husserl urges us to face up to the fact that our
access to as well as the very nature of objectivity necessarily involves both subjectivity and
intersubjectivity. Indeed, rather than being the antipode of objectivity, rather than constituting an obstacle and hindrance to scientific knowledge, (inter)subjectivity is for Husserl a necessary enabling condition. “ — Joshs
Is there instead in each case only what appears to me in the mode in which it appears to me and nothing behind it, no thing-in-itself? — Joshs
Is there a Consciousness in General?
Or does consciousness always only occur, or exist, from a given frame-of-reference, from a particular point-of-view or perspective?
That is, must consciousness always only occur, or exist, in a first person, present tense mode?
And if only the latter is the case, then why is it the case?/quote] — charles ferraro
Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. In the process of integrating external information, and conceiving a world view ( status quo ), it also adjusts and aligns a self in relation to that information. So the process is self creating. It is principally self interested.
To put it another way, consciousness is not about arbitrarily integrating external information ( the objects of experience ), but about resolving how that information relates to self. This is where phenomenology comes in; cognition is disruptive to self ( Capra ), but there is an inbuilt bias to integrate, so consciousness must find a solution that reestablishes integrity, in order to maintain the self as much as possible.
What is it about consciousness that it must always be personified, or require personhood? — charles ferraro
Our minds are not able to create the existence of a naturally occurring objective fact, but our minds are able to interpret, in a variety of ways, the meaning of the existence and nature of a naturally occurring objective fact. — charles ferraro
Is there instead in each case only what appears to me in the mode in which it appears to me and nothing behind it, no thing-in-itself?
— Joshs
No, I think the relational nature of the universe would exclude such a view (epistemic solipsism). There is a thing in itself, but we have no direct access to it, needing to conceptually construct the thing in terms of the information we have about it ( idealism ). We get closer and closer to the thing in itself but can never have perfect understanding, perhaps because the thing in itself is an evolving process, as are we. — Pop
In the process of integrating external information, and conceiving a world view ( status quo ), it also adjusts and aligns a self in relation to that information. — charles ferraro
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.