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
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
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
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
I'm open to panpsychism... — Yellow Horse
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
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
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
there must be some level of complexity at which an unconscious thing becomes conscious. Hence, that would involve some form of emergentism. — Banno
if you and i have consciousness, that would prove right there that it is not a solipsistic theory. — turkeyMan
Yet we are conscious, and rocks are not. — Banno
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
Many modern scientists embrace pan-psychism — turkeyMan
How many? — jgill
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
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
Basically you would be arguing that one of us quite possibly has a drastically different degree of feeling or awareness? — turkeyMan
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
whether we were drastically different, it wouldn't change the premise of William James's quote — turkeyMan
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. — turkeyMan
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.