No. Consciousness has never been found. It has been assumed so far. — khaled
At the very least we each find our own consciousnesses — Janus
The fact that I can say we all find our own consciousnesses — Janus
behavior that shows consciousness — Janus
Your "box" analogy is kind of weak and seems inappropriate because we observe boxes moving lots of places not just at high altitudes — Janus
because consciousness has never been found anywhere other than in organisms — Janus
No. Consciousness has never been found. — khaled
What I do remember questioning is the necessity for some intermediary process between biological and mental processes. I tried to make it clear that I don't think such an intermediary is needed. To me, there's no mystery. I think biological processes in the human nervous system are enough to explain mental processes, including consciousness. As I said previously, I think the reason that's hard for some people to swallow is that they see consciousness as something special, fundamentally different from other phenomena. I don't see it that way. — T Clark
In order to make a claim about how the nature of consciousness makes it difficult for science to investigate, you have to first make a claim about the nature of consciousness — Isaac
And that claim is that 'the nature of consciousness is ineluctably subjective, and comprises 'an experience of being', — Wayfarer
So you're saying that consciousness is a personal opinion? Doesn't sound right. — Isaac
Still not seeing why that means neuroscience can't investigate that. — Isaac
The scientific revolution of the 17th century, which has given rise to such extraordinary progress in the understanding of nature, depended on a crucial limiting step at the start: It depended on subtracting from the physical world as an object of study everything mental – consciousness, meaning, intention or purpose. The physical sciences as they have developed since then describe, with the aid of mathematics, the elements of which the material universe is composed, and the laws governing their behavior in space and time.
We ourselves, as physical organisms, are part of that universe, composed of the same basic elements as everything else, and recent advances in molecular biology have greatly increased our understanding of the physical and chemical basis of life. Since our mental lives evidently depend on our existence as physical organisms, especially on the functioning of our central nervous systems, it seems natural to think that the physical sciences can in principle provide the basis for an explanation of the mental aspects of reality as well — that physics can aspire finally to be a theory of everything.
However, I believe this possibility is ruled out by the conditions that have defined the physical sciences from the beginning. The physical sciences can describe organisms like ourselves as parts of the objective spatio-temporal order – our structure and behavior in space and time – but they cannot describe the subjective experiences of such organisms or how the world appears to their different particular points of view. There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience – how it is from the point of view of its subject — without which it would not be a conscious experience at all.
So the physical sciences, in spite of their extraordinary success in their own domain, necessarily leave an important aspect of nature unexplained.
cannot be absolutely certain. We cannot be absolutely certain of anything. Our knowledge, to count as knowledge, does not need to be absolutely certain. On the contrary all non-tautologous and/ or non-analytic knowledge is fallibilistic. — Janus
We have every reason to think, and no cogent reason not to think, that other humans and animals are conscious, and that their behavior manifests their consciousness. — Janus
consciousness has been found in organisms — Janus
in any of the ways we associate with being conscious. — Janus
They make a word (like consciousness) and then say because we have that word, there must be an accompanying concept. They search for the pure concept attached to the word, but there is none, the word was just doing a job, and a different job in different contexts. There's no sublime concept attached to it — Isaac
It's what leads to nonsense philosophical dilemmas like...
No. Consciousness has never been found.
— khaled — Isaac
The way I put it is that, yes, humans evolved to have the capacity for language and abstraction, but those capacities can't be reduced to or understood in biological terms.
And co-incident with that - maybe a cause, maybe a consequence - is self-awareness, self-consciousness, the awareness of oneself as a separate being with his/her own identity. — Wayfarer
However, I believe this possibility is ruled out by the conditions that have defined the physical sciences from the beginning. The physical sciences can describe organisms like ourselves as parts of the objective spatio-temporal order – our structure and behavior in space and time – but they cannot describe the subjective experiences of such organisms or how the world appears to their different particular points of view. There can be a purely physical description of the neurophysiological processes that give rise to an experience, and also of the physical behavior that is typically associated with it, but such a description, however complete, will leave out the subjective essence of the experience – how it is from the point of view of its subject — without which it would not be a conscious experience at all.
I gave a very simple definition though right? “Something is conscious if it has subjective experiences” — khaled
First off, nothing about this claim is philosophical, it is empirical. — khaled
Second, can you say someone else is conscious with the same degree of certainty you can say the length of a 1 m long rod is 1 m? — khaled
I gave a very simple definition though right? “Something is conscious if it has subjective experiences” — khaled
Second, can you say someone else is conscious with the same degree of certainty you can say the length of a 1 m long rod is 1 m? Where is your measuring instrument? — khaled
as 'consciousness' is a word — Isaac
If I say, "no one has yet identified hjyhfdrddf" — Isaac
By defining consciousness as a set of observable phenomena and then observing those phenomena. — Isaac
No. That is an extremely complicated and vague definition. What are 'subjective experiences'? — Isaac
All I can say is "I don't get it." Biology doesn't describe subjective experience, that's what psychology is for.
— T Clark
Exactly. — Isaac
What would “subjective experience” stand in contrast to — javra
I’m preferential to using “the property of being aware” — javra
Were one to ascribe the capacity of will to consciousness—this as per common sense understandings—then the issue would be resolved for all intended purposes. — javra
It's a word describing a phenomena we're looking for. — khaled
But that's not the definition most people you disagree with are using — khaled
What you're having right now. (Assuming you are conscious) Also you seem to know what it means considering this:
All I can say is "I don't get it." Biology doesn't describe subjective experience, that's what psychology is for.
— T Clark
Exactly. — Isaac
You wouldn't have replied "exactly" unless you knew what subjective experience meant — khaled
Couldn't we say that a computer, with security camera feed, does this, perhaps, shuttling anomolous movements, recorded ones that is, to special files and throwing out the rest or storing them elsewhere?I know what I think subjective experience means, and I've said as much many times. For me it means something like the logging to memory of sensory inputs. I've been told that doesn't cover it. — Isaac
I know what I think subjective experience means, and I've said as much many times. For me it means something like the logging to memory of sensory inputs. I've been told that doesn't cover it. — Isaac
Couldn't we say that a computer, with security camera feed, does this, perhaps, shuttling anomolous movements, recorded ones that is, to special files and throwing out the rest or storing them elsewhere? — Coben
The subject makes judgements - not simply conscious judgements, but continuously, from a subliminal level up to the conscious level. That is intrinsic to the nature of intelligence - the word itself is derived from 'inter-legere' meaning 'to read between'. That is the human intelligence at work. At it is really a marvellous thing. But we never actually see it working, because we're never outside of it - we only ever look through it, and with it, but not at it. — Wayfarer
Then I must, unfortunately, ask for a definition of logging. Apologies in advance. — Coben
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.