The more philosophy I study, the more complicated the supposedly simple concept of consciousness becomes.

I suggest that instead of arguing from dimly understood concepts and our intuitions about them, we first or also figure out what we are even talking about.

Many people (without giving it much thought, which is the problem) vaguely conceive of consciousness in a way that makes it impossible --by definition -- to investigate said consciousness.

If consciousness is radically private, then there is literally nothing to say about it.

While I don't take p-zombies seriously as a practical matter, I think the idea of the p-zombie is quite valuable in clarifying what is meant by consciousness -- or for clarifying how confused we tend to be about it when it comes to serious, critical thinking.

At least our lack of clarity becomes clearer, in other words.

If we do pretend to be philosophers and think critically, then we should maybe even expect our feelings to be hurt in the process.

The more philosophy I study, the more complicated the supposedly simple concept of consciousness becomes.

I suggest that instead of arguing from dimly understood concepts and our intuitions about them, we first or also figure out what we are even talking about.

Many people (without giving it much thought, which is the problem) vaguely conceive of consciousness in a way that makes it impossible --by effing definition -- to investigate said consciousness.

While I don't p-zombies seriously as a practical matter, I think the idea of the p-zombie is quite valuable in clarifying what is meant by consciousness -- or how confused we tend to be about it when it comes to serious, critical thinking.

If we do pretend to be philosophers and think critically, then we should maybe even expect our feelings to be hurt in the process. — Yellow Horse

You would agree you and i have feeling/awareness correct? Most philosophers would agree some animal below us that evolved from another animal, that the former has feeling/awareness. What the quote mentioned in the OP is saying, wouldn't feeling/awareness be incremental all the way down to atleast the very basic forms of life such as bacteria and possibly viruses. I would even go one step further that this is pretty good evidence that feeling/awareness is one and the same as existence. What do i mean by existence? A Universe or this universe is existence?

Now do you see what the OP means by feeling/awareness/consciousness?

Did my feelings get hurt?

wouldn't feeling/awareness be incremental all the way down to atleast the very basic forms of life such as bacteria and possibly viruses. — turkeyMan

Why?

The OP offers no support for this dubious contention.

We seem to have a rash of panpsychism on the forums; to which the best response remains the incredulous stare.

wouldn't feeling/awareness be incremental all the way down to atleast the very basic forms of life such as bacteria and possibly viruses. — turkeyMan


Why?

The OP offers no support for this dubious contention.

We seem to have a rash of panpsychism on the forums; to which the best response remains the incredulous stare. — Banno

That was what the OP was implying. Did you see my previous posts or do you want me to repost them? Many modern scientists embrace pan-psychism for similar reasons that i embrace pan-psychism.

You would agree you and i have feeling/awareness correct? Most philosophers would agree some animal below us that evolved from another animal, that the former has feeling/awareness. What the quote mentioned in the OP is saying, wouldn't feeling/awareness be incremental all the way down to atleast the very basic forms of life such as bacteria and possibly viruses. I would even go one step further that this is pretty good evidence that feeling/awareness is one and the same as existence. What do i mean by existence? A Universe or this universe is existence?

Now do you see what the OP means by feeling/awareness/consciousness?

Why do you and i have feeling/awareness? Does a bacteria or virus have some form of feeling or awareness? Does a fish have some form of feeling or awareness?

I'm open to panpsychism, which I offer for context, and I don't think your feelings are hurt. In my experience, though, consciousness is a sensitive issue, connected as it is with religion and in generala hiding place from critical thinking.

Let's say that I grant that you are not a p-zombie or a bot, what does that mean? Even if I use those words, how could you know what those words mean to me in the privacy of my hypothetical mind?

Is consciousness an implicitly solipsistic theory?

wouldn't feeling/awareness be incremental all the way down to atleast the very basic forms of life such as bacteria and possibly viruses. — turkeyMan

Repetition is not constructing an argument...

Again, why should feeling/awareness be incremental all the way down? What feeling or awareness does a rock have?

I'm open to panpsychism... — Yellow Horse

And here I was beginning to like you...

I'm open to panpsychism, which I offer for context, and I don't think your feelings are hurt. In my experience, though, consciousness is a sensitive issue, connected as it is with religion and in generala hiding place from critical thinking.

Let's say that I grant that you are not a p-zombie or a bot, what does that mean? Even if I use those words, how could you know what those words mean to me in the privacy of my hypothetical mind?

Is consciousness an implicitly solipsistic theory? — Yellow Horse

In regards to the last question, if you and i have consciousness, that would prove right there that it is not a solipsistic theory. At this point in my life i wouldn't characterize myself as sad, but i'm confident there are other real (real) people out there because, i would probably choose to be extremely happy and essentially irrational if i thought i was the only being with feeling or awareness. You know you have feeling or awareness and i know that i have feeling or awareness. I believe that even productive (as opposed to unproductive) rationality requires faith.

In regards to the first things you said, i believe the irrationality of religion is apart of a universal desire among those greater than us, that there should be foolishness in the world. Soccer and football are foolishness but most people don't have a huge problem with that. I don't believe everyone who puts their faith in scientists are critical thinkers. If you or i don't 100% (not 99%) understand the math and the lab results behind a scientific theory, we are (right/wrong/or indifferent) putting our faith in scientists.

wouldn't feeling/awareness be incremental all the way down to atleast the very basic forms of life such as bacteria and possibly viruses. — turkeyMan


Repetition is not constructing an argument...

Again, why should feeling/awareness be incremental all the way down? What feeling or awareness does a rock have?

I'm open to panpsychism... — Yellow Horse


And here I was beginning to like you... — Banno

If you agree that bacteria and viruses have feeling or awareness, at what point does the bacteria gain feeling or awareness given the fact that most if not all bacteria have dna? How complicated does dna have to be where it gains the ability to have feeling or awareness? What is it about dna or how complicated does dna have to be in order for it to have feeling or awareness?

actually i was thinking about what you said, and i believe that i need to put more thought into my argument. Perhaps (perhaps) we can continue this discussion at a later time.

the problem with the quote isn't a logical one, but a factual one- the idea that a trait or ability "in some shape must have been present at the very origins of things" isn't how we understand evolution to work. Evolution can/does produce novelty: things that are new, things that were not present previously.

I mean, just replace "consciousness" in the quote with something else- say, flight, or sight. Is it true that flight or sight were present "at the very origin of things"? Of course not, the earliest organisms could not see nor fly. And they certainly were not bipedal or able to use tools, like humans. So the quote is just wrong on the facts, as far as how evolution actually works, and so is not a good or persuasive argument for pan-psychism (or anything else) for that reason.

Sure.

My next point would be that, if a rock is unconscious but a bacteria is conscious, there must be some level of complexity at which an unconscious thing becomes conscious. Hence, that would involve some form of emergentism.

And if you are going to adopt emergentism anyway, add panpsycism?

In regards to the last question, if you and i have consciousness, that would prove right there that it is not a solipsistic theory. — turkeyMan

I think you are missing my point. How do you know what I even mean by 'consciousness'? If, that is, the meaning of the word is supposed to live 'in' a consciousness supposed private and inaccessible?

I really haven't given panpsychism much thought, and my leaning is more towards Freud's 'religion of science.'

But I like the idea of facts (as relatively uncontroversial propositions) as something like 'epistemological atoms.' "The world is all that is the case."

I don't think language can be reduced either to consciousness or its other (the physical, etc.) Distinctions like mental/physical occur within language or are language, whatever language is.

This might sound like linguistic idealism, but that is just to assume/insist that language is 'mental.'

Anyway, panpsychism is secondary to my interest in facts as (perhaps) epistemologically primary --- and neither mental or physical.

I don't have the expertise to judge Freud as a psychologist, but I do enjoy reading him as a philosopher. His explores the religious resistance to science in the text below (and also only joked about the religion of science in letters.)

https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/at/freud.htm

there must be some level of complexity at which an unconscious thing becomes conscious. Hence, that would involve some form of emergentism. — Banno

Emergentism is as odd, prima facie, as panpsychism in the context of a metaphysical phenomenon. "Wet" is a property only at a certain epistemological level of experience- that is to say consciousness, presumably. If we are going by what we know, many properties need a strong correlation with experience in order for it to "arise". Emergence qua emergence (sans observer/experience), may be incoherent. You need a context for which something is emerging. The "jump" to the next level is the magical part. So take your pick, the magic of emergence or the magic of proto-experiential processes.

:up:

Yet we are conscious, and rocks are not. If your point is that both emergentism and panpsychism assume some sort of hierarchy, which we might be able to do without, then we agree.

if you and i have consciousness, that would prove right there that it is not a solipsistic theory. — turkeyMan

I realize you are already rethinking your position, but let me respond a little more here.

As far as I can tell, the usual conception of consciousness features it precisely as something undetectable, unverifiable--in principle.

It leads to an 'epistemological apocalypse.'

We tend to shrug off solipsists as too silly to bother with, but they are actually a useful symptom of an otherwise unnoticed useless man-in-the-street metaphysics.

Many modern scientists embrace pan-psychism — turkeyMan

How many?

Yet we are conscious, and rocks are not. — Banno

The aboriginals would disagree with you there.

If the OP replaces 'consciousness' with signalling or communication, then perhaps the trouble vanishes.

I also checked out a biosemiosis paper linked to by @apokrisis and found what I could understand of it quite fascinating.

It seems that (perhaps) life has always been a coder.

Where we should perhaps be wary is in the unwary collapse of language into consciousness and of objectivity into objects.

if you and i have consciousness, that would prove right there that it is not a solipsistic theory. — turkeyMan


I realize you are already rethinking your position, but let me respond a little more here.

As far as I can tell, the usual conception of consciousness features it precisely as something undetectable, unverifiable--in principle.

It leads to an 'epistemological apocalypse.'

We tend to shrug off solipsists as too silly to bother with, but they are actually a useful symptom of an otherwise unnoticed useless man-in-the-street metaphysics. — Yellow Horse

To be fair, i would argue Solipsists is a common problem for people who rise to the top and for whatever reason lack alot of relationships. Perhaps there are other people with that problem. I don't know if i've said this but i don't believe i'm alone because i feel if i was alone i would choose to be alot happier. Assuming i'm the figment of someone else's imagination, i dont fault that person for limiting me to this pseudo happiness i have now. I believe the nature of reality is the chief warlord gets the best stuff. I'm certainly not the chief war lord.

Many modern scientists embrace pan-psychism — turkeyMan


How many? — jgill

123 or possibly 159. Not sure which but its definitely one of those. lol.

Great argument on your part, do i really have to find an article to answer that question as well as that question can possibly be answered? I can find some sort of article if you like.

In regards to the last question, if you and i have consciousness, that would prove right there that it is not a solipsistic theory. — turkeyMan


I think you are missing my point. How do you know what I even mean by 'consciousness'? If, that is, the meaning of the word is supposed to live 'in' a consciousness supposed private and inaccessible? — Yellow Horse

Basically you would be arguing that one of us quite possibly has a drastically different degree of feeling or awareness? Given the quote from the OP and also the stuff i said through out this forum topic regarding the OP's quote from William James, i don't think the difference in my feeling/awareness to your feeling/awareness would effect the argument i gave. I could repost the quotation along with my unpacking of the quotation if you would like?

the problem with the quote isn't a logical one, but a factual one- the idea that a trait or ability "in some shape must have been present at the very origins of things" isn't how we understand evolution to work. Evolution can/does produce novelty: things that are new, things that were not present previously.

I mean, just replace "consciousness" in the quote with something else- say, flight, or sight. Is it true that flight or sight were present "at the very origin of things"? Of course not, the earliest organisms could not see nor fly. And they certainly were not bipedal or able to use tools, like humans. So the quote is just wrong on the facts, as far as how evolution actually works, and so is not a good or persuasive argument for pan-psychism (or anything else) for that reason. — Enai De A Lukal

Would you agree that feeling or awareness is astronomically more needed for life than flight or walking on 2 legs? If we can't agree on the basics, we'll never agree on the more complicated things.

Basically you would be arguing that one of us quite possibly has a drastically different degree of feeling or awareness? — turkeyMan

In a way, yes, but the issue is not so much whether in fact we are radically different on the inside but instead that we can in principle never know one way or the other.

The counter-intuitive idea I'm getting it is that linguistic conventions are 'prior' to so-called minds. Granting that we both have internal monologues, the temptation is to leap from this internal monologue to an immaterial substance.

At the same (just to be clear) I am also against the idea that the word is 'just physical.' I think that meaning exists, but I don't think meaning makes sense as some privately held immaterial substance.

Here is an Aristotle quote that sums up the common sense that I am questioning.

****
Spoken words are the symbols of mental experience and written words are the symbols of spoken words. Just as all men have not the same writing, so all men have not the same speech sounds, but the mental experiences, which these directly symbolize, are the same for all, as also are those things of which our experiences are the images.
****

I say that I am questioning it, but really I am just working through the ideas of various philosophers, including perhaps Heraclitus. Here are some quotes that can at least be read in the context of me suggesting that meaning is public.

****
They are estranged from that with which they have most constant intercourse.
...
Thought is common to all.
...
To the soul, belongs the self-multiplying Logos.
...
So we must follow the common, yet though my Word is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own.
****

Basically you would be arguing that one of us quite possibly has a drastically different degree of feeling or awareness? — turkeyMan


In a way, yes, but the issue is not so much whether in fact we are radically different on the inside but instead that we can in principle never know one way or the other.

The counter-intuitive idea I'm getting it is that linguistic conventions are 'prior' to so-called minds. Granting that we both have internal monologues, the temptation is to leap from this internal monologue to an immaterial substance.

At the same (just to be clear) I am also against the idea that the word is 'just physical.' I think that meaning exists, but I don't think meaning makes sense as some privately held substance. — Yellow Horse

One of the things i was saying earlier is regardless of whether hypothetically we were similar in feeling/awareness or whether we were drastically different, it wouldn't change the premise of William James's quote nor would it change my 2 additions to his quote that explained his quote in further detail. I feel authorized to explain William James's quote considering he is a Pan-psychist. I'm sure me and him disagree on alot of things but we probably agree on why alot of people embrace Pan-psychism.

whether we were drastically different, it wouldn't change the premise of William James's quote — turkeyMan

Let's extend the point I'm trying to make. If the meaning of the James quote was originally 'in' the 'mind' of William James, then neither you nor I could ever make it our own.

If meaning is private, then there's no necessary connection between what James meant and what you take him to have meant.

How are sentences supposed to connect to immaterial mind-stuff?

Instead of using mind-stuff to explain language, it might be better to consider language as an explanation for the questionable hypothesis of mind-stuff. (I'm not saying we are all p-zombies, in case there is any confusion.)

If we go this route (as I think we should), we do not want to fall back into assuming that language is 'really mental.'

whether we were drastically different, it wouldn't change the premise of William James's quote — turkeyMan


Let's extend the point I'm trying to make. If the meaning of the James quote was originally 'in' the 'mind' of William James, then neither you nor I could ever make it our own.

If meaning is private, then there's no necessary connection between what James meant and what you take him to have meant.

How are sentences supposed to connect to immaterial mind-stuff?

Instead of using mind-stuff to explain language, it might be better to consider language as an explanation for the questionable hypothesis of mind-stuff.

(I also added to the post above.) — Yellow Horse

This sort of argument strategy you are using, if it was taken serious by a court or an authority figure could basically make nothing matter in terms of right and wrong. Considering i believe in Scientific determinism, and thus all of our actions are the product of particle collisions, i'm not sure i can claim your view is any more defeating of purpose than my view.

Now that i admit that i've lost all motivation to defend my argument. Time to go do something else like perhaps play video games. Well any way have a good night. Perhaps i'll feel motivated to argue later.

This sort of argument strategy you are using, if it was taken serious by a court or an authority figure could basically make nothing matter in terms of right and wrong. — turkeyMan

Note that I am only trying to demonstrate the problems with precritical thinking about consciousness by showing what such thinking implies.

I don't think my own view implies a nihilism of some sort. Indeed, my view is that all speakers of English (for instance) are profoundly connected just by sharing that language.

The larger idea here is that society is primary, and that man is an especially social animal who is made possible as an interesting individual by his membership in a community.

As far as determinism goes, I don't think a scientific worldview implies philosophical determinism. From what I understand, there is still some controversy on this delicate issue.

Personally I am OK with determinism or its absence.

Even if my actions are all in principle determined, I do not know what I am going to do yet, and I am forced to live with the burden of decision whether or not it is illusory (forgetting for a moment all of the ambiguities here.)