I think there is a deep misunderstanding in society about consioussnes. Many people belief trees have consioussnes due to their communication. Protists communicate. Bacteria communicate. Maybe viruses communicate too in some way, even I´m not sure about that, when we talk about communication between cells. But inside a cell their is much of communication going on, infact their is no clear line where you can differentiate between communication and non- communication. Communication is everywhere and begins on the molecular level, in non- biotic material. When you think deeply about it it even goes in the atomic and the sub- atomic level.
Consioussnes has a much higher complexity then communication. From my point of view it evolved in small animals and gets bigger in modern mammals, birds and cephalopods. It evolved in co- evolution with nervous- systems. — InfiniteMonkey
Cognitive functions can be complex, but 'experiencing' may or may not be simple or complex. We don't know the mechanism that causes consciousness. And communication can be unbelievably complex. How are we measuring complexity?Consioussnes has a much higher complexity then communication — InfiniteMonkey
I mean when you damage your brain you damage your consiousness. — InfiniteMonkey
Again, we don't know what causes consciousness and what does not, so we can't rule out that consciousness is not in other things, nor can we say that consciousness is created by complicated neuronal sytems or brains. We can't say that until we know what causes it and what does not. Not until we can actually test for its presence and also for the lack of its presence. Not 50 years ago in science it was considered taboo to consider ahimals other than humans were conscious - that is, had subjective experiences. We have a bias and we are clearly not done with it.We don't have any proof for other consiousness and it doesn't makes scence. — InfiniteMonkey
The only thing I said is that we can proof that it´s conected with nervous systems and the brain in perticular. — InfiniteMonkey
That´s a very esoteric view. We have no way to think that consiousness is at the basis of anything. — InfiniteMonkey
I think it´s pretty obvious. It´s a sideeffect of neurons firing information. — InfiniteMonkey
Hello, I just wanted to ask you if you could elaborate a bit more on that. Specifically, I'd like to know what it is that makes you believe that consciousness is all that exists. — Daniel
So, you are consciousness experiencing consciousness? or are you different from consciousness? — Daniel
To be honest, I'd like to hear the reason you believe this is true. There must be something that forms the foundation of your belief (an experience, perhaps), and I'd like to know that something if you want to share it with me. — Daniel
b) All knowledge comes through conscious experience. — h060tu
c) Nothing can be known outside of conscious experience. — h060tu
d) Conscious experience is all that exists. — h060tu
Could I conclude that that which is not known is not conscious experience, and hence it does not exist? — Daniel
can something be conscious experience without being consciously experienced first? — Daniel
Now, what do you think is the nature of that which limits limited conscious experience? would it be also a kind of conscious experience or could it be something different from it? — Daniel
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.