But you said everything is concious. Jack's assertion wouldn't make any sense under that definition. — Isaac

It would make sense (because panpsychism is not true or false by definition) but it would happen to be factually wrong (if panpsychism is true) or factually right (if panpsychism is untrue)

Are you sure you are adequately distinguishing theory from definition?

Jack's assertion would only make any sense if there were some measurable difference between being concious and not, but you're saying that everything is concious, therefore there's no way one could exist, but not be concious. — Isaac

Panpsychism does not entail that non-consciousness is incoherent, just that it, in fact, does not occur in the world. For a panpsychist, a non-conscious object would be one that cannot experience. The sentence makes sense. For a panpsychist, there just aren't any of those objects.

Measurability is indeed a problem. If consciousness (sense 1) were measurable then we could settle this matter by doing some experiments. And this also explains the appeal to many philosophers (perhaps Banno is among them) of definitions in terms of measurable behaviour. That would help a great deal in settling the question. When I get jumpy is when philosophers (or anyone) try to insist that definitions that do not involve observable measurement should be discarded. Interestingly, the online Cambridge Dictionary does just that - I couldn't see (when I looked a month or two ago) a definition of 'consciousness' that talked only in terms of subjectivity! Newspeak!

I can't think of any use for such a term. What's more, we're definitely still going to want to differentiate between the level of awareness humans etc demonstrate and that demonstrated by rocks. So we're just going to need a new word to do exactly the job 'conciousness' does presently, whilst at the same time the original word becomes entirely useless. Why not just use the word as it already is? — Isaac

Sure, that is a huge problem, and one which dogs these forums. The problem is that there exist half a dozen or more different senses of the same word. I agree that the medical definition is very useful. And indeed much more useful on a daily basis than the definition philosophers of mind often want to talk about.

Very complex. So I deduce the following: there is a paradigm shift between humans and animals: from a potential limited to a finite number of concepts to unlimited potential. So from now it is not about quantity anymore, it's about quality. Am I correct?

So it's not necessarily the number of senses but the degree by which some sense is more sensitive than some other? Dogs' ears and noses are more complex than humans', but we have bigger brains. Some birds can sense the Earth's magnetic field, but humans can't without the aid of technology. So are these birds more or less conscious of the Earth's magnetic field than humans, or could it be said that we are equally conscious, just not in the same way, or by the same method, or the same senses.

The way that birds use their sense of the magnetic field would be different. They use it to navigate, but we can use it to determine the state of Earth's resistance to solar radiation and the state of Earth's core. So does the fact that humans can establish much larger and longer causal relationships with what we are sensing (we seem to have a better grasp of time at least in the long run as most animal's attentions spans are very short) mean that we are more conscious than they? Are humans more conscious of the threats facing this planet and our survival as a species from impending asteroid impacts, nearby supernovas, etc. than other animals? Why or why not? And in this sense is not consciousness just another word for awareness? — Harry Hindu

Very heavy! And in my opinion this raises the following question: CAN THERE BE CONSCIENCE WITHOUT SENSES? Maybe consciousness is the sense of your existence?

I would say that if the notion of having states of ‘less consciousness’ exists, then the notion of having states of ‘more consciousness’ exists. But, you are right I think. Trying to quantify something mental like consciousness does feel awkward. I would say we could make sense of it with an ad hoc definition such as x has states of more consciousness if it displays more a) self awareness and b) comprehension indicating intelligent behavior. Criteria (a) might be hard to measure though. — Kmaca

But isn't this like saying there is a potential for ''infinite consciousness''? I mean I know about my own existence, I know that there is a huge universe there, maybe infinite or even an infinite number of different multiverses. I can imagine less than that, for example just feeling primary needs like hunger but having no idea about the universe and not even about the implications of my own existence. On the other hand, it is hard for me to contemplate ''more'' could mean. Is there more to be conscious of?

I see you have had a great debate here. Sorry I've missed it!
Let me bring an argument for panpsychism:
No, a robot wouldn't have more consciousness than a rock. No, my own hand isn't conscious.
In my opinion, panpsychism want to say this: elementary particles have a very small degree of consciousness, but only certain combination of atoms can ''conduct'' consciousness and unite the consciousness of particle with that of another particle forming a stronger consciousness. So, if there's no connectivity inside a rock due to the property of atoms forming that rock, than the rock, as a conscious entity doesn't exist.

A friend once asked me if jellyfish sleep. My reply was that you can't sleep if you are never quite awake. — Banno

And your friend was never the same again. :lol: I truly admire your style of being simple in bringing arguments, I am a simple man myself. But sometimes I really think you intentionally hide things in order to make your arguments plausible.

The jellyfish can be conscious without going to sleep and without having the characteristics of a sleeping creature.

In my opinion, panpsychism want to say this: elementary particles have a very small degree of consciousness, but only certain combination of atoms can ''conduct'' consciousness and unite the consciousness of particle with that of another particle forming a stronger consciousness. So, if there's no connectivity inside a rock due to the property of atoms forming that rock, than the rock, as a conscious entity doesn't exist. — Eugen

That's certainly one variety of panpsychism, probably the most popular. One way to determine which systems have 'united' the consciousness of their individual particles is to hijack the IIT theory and say that it is just those systems that integrate information, which is an interesting possibility. (This is a different take on the IIT model, which identifies consciousness with integrated information. The view I just said is the idea that integrated information is not itself consciousness, but it does define which things are conscious individuals, and determines the richness of experience they are capable of.)

And therefore, so can a rock?

What is it that would allow you to conclude that a Jellyfish is conscious? What observation?

Very complex. So I deduce the following: there is a paradigm shift between humans and animals: from a potential limited to a finite number of concepts to unlimited potential. So from now it is not about quantity anymore, it's about quality. Am I correct? — Eugen

I'm not sure consciousness is a quantity, but quality is a useful way of putting it. The contents of consciousness involve a quantity of concepts, which quantity has influence on consciousness quality.

Intelligence plays a role in the formation of functional algorithms related to the concepts we learn. Chimps are far less intelligent than we are, and so they're both limited by a comparably low number of concepts, and the degree to which their learning can be intelligently used.

What is it that would allow you to conclude that a Jellyfish is conscious? What observation? — Banno

The video below is 10min long. worth a look. A eukaryotic cell is poked with a human hair. Initially it recoils. When that dose not work it decides to get out of there. it finds a new suitable environment, and proceeds to continue life. In the process it shows awareness of pain, decision making, memory - it dose not return to the same place.

I would hypothesize it is a qualia based consciousness. Qualia is polar / directional ( repelled from pain and attracted to pleasure). It is enough for consciousness. I would further hypothesize that qualia is still the dominant quantity of human consciousness. Qualia is necessary for consciousness. Reason is not. Reason alone creates a zombie.

One's reflexes remain functional even when one is asleep. It's how we tell the unconscious from the dead. You would count reflex as a form of consciousness? Was the cell conscious or just reflexing?

Do you have qualia of your pupil contracting in bright light?

Folk will see consciousness everywhere, if they so choose. It perhaps gives an indication of their capacity for critical thought.

One's reflexes remain functional even when one is asleep. It's how we tell the unconscious from the dead. You would count reflex as a form of conciseness? — Banno

Sleep is a form of suspended consciousness, not fully unconscious, as in anesthesia.
Reflex is a single movement. You cant apply that argument to the above video. That is a complex purposeful sequence of actions.

The below video shows a white blood cell chasing bacteria, note the footage is in a petrie dish - out of body no brains involved. 2min long.

.

A couple of things...

1. Consciousness, in a very broad sense, is about awareness, awareness of the outer (all things except the self) and the inner (the self) worlds. The former type of consciousness appears to be very basic - even ameba are capable of sensing and responding to their environs which fits the description of consciousness as awareness of the outer. The other half - self-awareness - is unlikely to be present in an ameba for the reason that self-awareness appears to be an inference i.e. knowldege/awareness of the self is a conclusion to an argument which might take the following form:

i). Thinking going on and experiencing the physical

ii). We become aware of thinking and experiencing the physical

iii). We infer: there's something that's thinking (a thinker) and experiencing (an experiencer). This thinker/experiencer = self. Now the thinker/experiencer realizes/becomes aware of himself/herself/itself

It seems that all beings who are self-aware construct this short but good argument in their heads. It's Descartes' cogito ergo sum if you didn't notice it already.

2. Some have posited that consciousness can be of different levels. Clearly an amebic fully outer-oriented awareness is a type of consciousness that can be thought of as less than human consciousness that's capable of both outer and inner awareness.

As to the possibility of consciousness beyond human level consciousness, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate domain, apart from the inner and outer worlds, to expand awareness into. However, some may be of the opinion that advancing toward, what some claim, the true nature of reality which will probably include perfect understanding of the outer and inner worlds, qualifies as progressing through different levels of consciousness.

You are convinced that you see consciousness. I'm not.

The notion of consciousness is explained by opposing it to unconsciousness. — Banno

Yeah but probably not by equating those with wakefulness and sleep. As you say, even computers sleep. But are they conscious when awake?

But to be honest, I don't know if ''more conscious'' even makes sense. — Eugen

A sense of consciousness (enabling modern English speakers to coherently use the word "conscious" and perhaps pre-moderns the word "sentient"? I dunno) arises from our ability to think and talk with symbols, wherein we continually (and harmlessly) confuse thoughts (brain shivers), symbols (words and pictures) and objects. The confusion may be fleeting, or persist into our thinking and talking about the inter-relation of the three.

(The alleged illness) Schizophrenia has often been characterised as an excess of consciousness.

Yeah but probably not by equating those with wakefulness and sleep. — bongo fury

But that is an experience of consciousness and unconsciousness of which we all have first person experience. Moreover it is a clear example of a difference, a change, between the two states. There are ways of distinguishing conscious things form unconscious things.

A computer can sleep, and that's something we could discuss. But not a rock.

I think consciousness exists in all living creatures on a spectrum. They experience a poke in the chops, in a similar way that we do. They feel pain recoil from it, and if they can they move away.

Experience truly is consciousness. We experience consciousness. We have a conscious experience.We cannot have an unconscious experience, nor an unexperienced consciousness.

In humanity, consciousness is somthing that develops over a lifetime. In early teens we become aware of self, but do we ever become self aware? To be truly self aware we have to understand our own consciousness – not just have knowledge of it, and this is a tough ask. Yet who would state that somebody experiences less because they are less aware? Who would state children experience less then adults? How can we know other creatures have less of an experience then we do?

Fair enough. A rock can't even be awake, let alone conscious. :up:

Seems to me you are conflating different things, including consciousness, experience, conscience, awareness, self-awareness...

Methodologically speaking we would better to work out what each of these is and how they relate.

Otherwise we run the risk of doing no more than constructing just-so stories.

OK?

cool

Point out how?

Seems to me you are conflating different things, including consciousness, experience, conscience, awareness, self-awareness... — Banno

What is conflated?

Conflating consciousness with experience. This begs the question, rather than clarifying anything. If I don' t agree with you that a rock is conscious, then I'm not going to agree with you that a rock has experiences.

There seem to be other conflations, left unclear. But... my reaction is basically the incredulous stare mentioned int h Stanford article. Panpsychism does not strike me as workable. And nothing said here has changed that opinion. Instead the thread seems dependent on credulity.

Conflating consciousness with experience — Banno

This part is relevant to your original question, i dont know what the rest is all about.

I did go to some trouble to explain this. I'll try again:

Every experience is a conscious one. Every state of consciousness must be experienced.
Consciousness and experience are inseparable - you cannot have one without the other.

When we speak of consciousness we usually think of reasoned awareness.
When we speak of experience we usually think of emotional awareness.

...none of which, even if accepted, shows that rocks are conscious.

what dose consciousness look like?

If we knew we could tell if a rock is conscious!

Perhaps you should do a first aid course...?

I dont get it?