I wonder if your "integration" is another way of talking about the boundary, about the way the organism is separate from its environment? — Daemon
What is "integration" in the sense in which you are using it? — Daemon
The organism is not really separate from its environment, — Possibility
Integration seems to me the prerequisite here for consciousness. — Possibility
‘Non-conscious sensory mechanisms’ are just members with particularly useful awareness characteristics, like the cell wall. — Possibility
And before p, q and r can be conscious? — Daemon
Neuroscience describes how we as agents produce meaning and identify intention and purpose in other agents. We are driven by stimuli that arouse our emotions that we reason in to feelings, concepts thoughts. — Nickolasgaspar
To be aware of what exist to be aware of stimuli environmental or organic. — Nickolasgaspar
Well what it matter is what it tells to experts, not to us. Our brain has the hardware that allows it to be conscious, it is hooked on a sensory system that provides information about the world and the organism, it has centers that process meaning,memory, symbolic language, pattern recognition. — Nickolasgaspar
When you're unconscious Bert1, is it like anything? It isn't for me. I'm pretty sure that's the same for everybody.
I have been unconscious when asleep, when I hit myself on the head with a pickaxe, and when I had a general anaesthetic. I am confidently expecting to be unconscious when I'm dead.
We've got all this complex machinery in our heads, the most complex thing we know about, and it can be switched off with a pickaxe or anaesthetic.
If it isn't like anything to be you, when you're unconscious, so you understand what unconsciousness is, and you understand the effects of anaesthetics and suchlike, and their relationship to the complex mechanisms, then why would you think that consciousness would be found in the absence of those mechanisms? — Daemon
Has anyone said laziness yet? — StreetlightX
My brain isn't doing the things that constitute consciousness, so it is no longer modelling its environment, or no longer integrating as much information, or whatever your particular functionalist theory of consciousness is. This is not consistent with panpsychism. — bert1
There is no sharp cut-off point between being bald and non-bald
— bert1
of course there is. You just choose not to admit it. Here are the extremes for both cases(Again)
A. a head without hair b. a head with hair.
A a unconscious state b. a conscious state.
Both extremes in both cases display many stages in between. — Nickolasgaspar
Why not? You being unconscious doesn't mean the psyche has left the material. — Haglund
Can you tell me what's false about that? — Daemon
I suspect the OP was asking for theoretical motivations, not psychological ones. — bert1
I don't see them as distinguishable, in the case of panpsychcism. — StreetlightX
'Giving up' does not constitute a position but a lack of one. — StreetlightX
Please tell me what goes in between unconscious and conscious? — bert1
Yes, but you don't say "ouch" because of the experience. You say "ouch" because of a completely physical and traceable series of neural molecular and electrical reactions. You would say "ouch" even if you were a robot programmed to say "ouch" every time you stub your toe. — Isaac
The 'experience' you claim is private is not physically connected to saying "ouch" in any way (if it was, it would be a physical phenomenon). So the fact that your friend doesn't say "ouch" can't possibly stand as evidence either for or against the type of experience he's having - if experiences are private. He might have exactly the same experience as you do when you say "ouch" alongside watching someone say "ouch"... Or not...
Er, semi-conscious? — bongo fury
So presumably your next query would be about the causal closure of the physical — bert1
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.