But you said everything is concious. Jack's assertion wouldn't make any sense under that definition. — Isaac
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
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
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
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
A friend once asked me if jellyfish sleep. My reply was that you can't sleep if you are never quite awake. — Banno
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
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
What is it that would allow you to conclude that a Jellyfish is conscious? What observation? — Banno
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
The notion of consciousness is explained by opposing it to unconsciousness. — Banno
But to be honest, I don't know if ''more conscious'' even makes sense. — Eugen
Yeah but probably not by equating those with wakefulness and sleep. — bongo fury
Conflating consciousness with experience — Banno
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.