It is presumptuous to assume there's a reason for consciousness BESIDES the how. Why think that? Are you looking for an excuse to believe it "had to be" a product of design?That's a how answer masquerading as a why answer. — Unseen
Are you suggesting you don't know you're communicating with a conscious being and wonder if I might be a rock? — Hanover
Since you can decipher my behavior from a rock, why not use the distinctions you recognize to answer your own question.
How do you elevate a chemical reaction (in an amoeba, for example) to a chemical condition outside its cellular border to having an experience? You're painfully close to personifying a single-celled creature's reaction to an environmental condition. A Roomba's navigation system may be more sophisticated than an amoeba's but we don't imagine that the Roomba is experiencing cleaning your floor. — Unseen
Do you believe that a rock molecule has the capacity to receive an isolated bit of information from its environment (eg temperature change, directional force) that it embodies, and in doing so transmits information to its environment - whether or not it is aware of that information AS temperature change or directional force as such? — Possibility
I can't. The differences in your behaviour from that of a rock do not allow me to make any general conclusions about consciousness, as far as I can tell. But you may have noticed something I have missed. That's why I am asking you (and Unseen if s/he cares to answer).
What is the relevant difference between the behaviour of humans and the behaviour of rocks, such that you attribute consciousness to the former but not the latter? — bert1
It is based upon the false premise that you cannot decipher a meaningful difference between rock behavior and my conversation with you here and that has somehow caused you to wonder whether rocks are thinking, conscious things. — Hanover
Why do you think a nervous system is necessary for consciousness?
— bert1
Because alteration of an organism's nervous system predictably affects its consciousness. — Hanover
If we tweak a car's engine it will affect its motion. This does not mean that things in motion are dependent on combustion engines. The consciousness in humans may be created by, be a side effect of, nervous systems. Or it may be that the nervous system affects or is a vehicle for human consciousness (and other animals). Right now we don't know. We can't measure consciousness. So we measure behavior and functions. And we have had a long bias to assume consciousness to be present only in things like us. In fact up into the early 70s it was taboo in science to talk about animal consciousness (or emotions, intention, etc.). But we don't know.Why do you think a nervous system is necessary for consciousness?
— bert1
Because alteration of an organism's nervous system predictably affects its consciousness.
— Hanover
I know it [that some creatures are not conscious] with about the same certainty as I know that I'm not writing from the surface of the moon.
— Unseen
You use the term 'certainty' differently to me. I'd say you have a working hypothesis based purely on assumptions. — ChrisH
My argument is NOT that there is no difference - it’s that we need to better understand and explore the many, many, MANY incremental differences in how information is processed and embodied between a rock molecule and human being as an evolution rather than as a single line in the sand. — Possibility
I'm not sure what you are doing here or why you answered my question to Unseen if you find this stuff uninteresting. — bert1
If we tweak a car's engine it will affect its motion. This does not mean that things in motion are dependent on combustion engines. The consciousness in humans may be created by, be a side effect of, nervous systems. Or it may be that the nervous system affects or is a vehicle for human consciousness (and other animals). Right now we don't know. We can't measure consciousness. So we measure behavior and functions. And we have had a long bias to assume consciousness to be present only in things like us. In fact up into the early 70s it was taboo in science to talk about animal consciousness (or emotions, intention, etc.). But we don't know. — Coben
The relevant difference between the behaviour of humans and the behaviour of rocks is the expressive ego; something that is presumed as the base of sentience. It's not.What is the relevant difference between the behaviour of humans and the behaviour of rocks, such that you attribute consciousness to the former but not the latter? — bert1
The better question, and the one I assert, is why would I think that? The onus seems to be the one on making the claim. — Hanover
It's ridiculous to assert that maybe rocks have experiences, — Hanover
The relevant difference between the behaviour of humans and the behaviour of rocks is the expressive ego; something that is presumed as the base of sentience. It's not. — Shamshir
Consciousness doesn't denote expression.
Just like how the body is constantly conscious, even during deep sleep, but isn't expressive without commands from the ego. — Shamshir
The consciousness of rocks is no different from the consciousness of the dreaming man; aware but non-controlling. — Shamshir
Assumptions can be quite logical and rational. — Unseen
Let's compare the ego to water.I don't understand 'expressive ego'. — bert1
That's the idea.OK, I think I might know what you mean. Consciousness is necessary for expression or behaviour, but expression/behaviour is not necessary for consciousness. Is that the idea? — bert1
Everything wills, but not everything is willed.Maybe. I favour a version of panpsychism in which all behaviour is caused by will, although much behaviour is a mechanical emergent of many wills interacting. Indeed the behaviour of a rock would be such a mechanical emergent I think, so the whole-rock-consciousness may indeed be as you say, I'm not sure. — bert1
I don't believe free will is possible, so what sort of will are you talking about and how does it work? — Unseen
Assumptions can be quite logical and rational. I assume there's no hippopotamus in my coat closet for rational and logical reasons. I just looked in my closet and showed that it IS possible to prove a negative. — Unseen
What is the relevant difference between the behaviour of humans and the behaviour of rocks, such that you attribute consciousness to the former but not the latter? — bert1
The behavior of a rock differs not so slightly from the behavior of a person. I understand that every object is subject to physical laws, but surely you see a difference between a ball bouncing off a wall and a person throwing a ball. — Hanover
Are you saying all behaviors are instinctual, and that free will is an illusion and really just another instinctual response to our perceptions?Everything wills, but not everything is willed.
It may sound confusing, but it is as simple as going with the flow.
In part, some things are strongly willed and steered.
But on the whole, things go with the flow - willingly, but not willed. — Shamshir
Free will is not an illusion, but its freedom is limited.Are you saying all behaviors are instinctual, and that free will is an illusion and really just another instinctual response to our perceptions? — Harry Hindu
An amoeba has no "senses" in the sense we generally use the term. Just responses. — Unseen
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.