Seems rude. — Jackson
But of course, this doesn't explain much either. It just posits that the "inner aspect" is spread around to everything. It is a position.. — schopenhauer1
It just seems like an incoherent position to me that there could be relations without non-relations (stuffs, or "inner aspects", as you call them). — litewave
It just seems like an incoherent position to me that there could be relations without non-relations (stuffs, or "inner aspects", as you call them). — litewave
I see red. I don't feel myself seeing red — Jackson
Philosophically, we cannot answer why humans have sensations, consciousness, and feelings. We can only answer the how humans became this way -- through mutation, evolution, etc. — L'éléphant
Yep, I agree. — schopenhauer1
Relations between what? — litewave
What does and does not have consciousness is an inter-disciplinary topic covered by biology, psychology, and specialized areas such as neurology. Of course, different levels of consciousness exist among living beings. But human consciousness is the most understood -- so I only referred to human consciousness.So I'll ask: How can the mechanics of biological evolution explain how consciousness comes about when it cannot provide an explanation of what does and does not have consciousness? — javra
What does and does not have consciousness is an inter-disciplinary topic covered by biology, psychology, and specialized areas such as neurology. — L'éléphant
It's hard to have a discussion when one starts with "what does and does not have consciousness", because we know humans have consciousness. — L'éléphant
You do both simultaneously: — Joshs
It seems foolish to say there is no "inner and outer" but maybe prove me wrong. — schopenhauer1
Relations between relations. To exist is to make a difference. — Joshs
Oops, actually, I meant to include Philosophy there. I didn't review my post. But yes, I agree.You're not mentioning philosophy, which I think is of greater importance than the disciplines you've mentioned. — javra
Uhm, yeah that's what I meant -- we do know through the inter-disciplinary studies. Tests and studies show this.Sure, but we don't know this via our inferential knowledge of biological evolution, right? — javra
They do. Let's cite some studies from the medical community. For example, the consciousness of babies is defined as that recognizing the mother's voice and face, then later awareness of body parts, etc. As adults we are aware of our own mortality and what is death. So, we are aware of the future and what happened in the past.To be clear, my question was that of “how does biological evolution explain how consciousness comes about, this when biological evolution (as theory we employ for explanations and predictions) does not of itself provide us with an explanation of what is conscious and what is not conscious." — javra
Except such a difference is undefined and therefore doesn't exist. Its supposed definition refers to other definitions that refer to other definitions etc., thus the initial difference is never defined. A difference between differences between differences etc. — litewave
That’s where probabilistic description comes into play. — Joshs
They do. Let's cite some studies from the medical community. For example, the consciousness of babies is defined as that recognizing the mother's voice and face, then later awareness of body parts, etc. As adults we are aware of our own mortality and what is death. So, we are aware of the future and what happened in the past.
Tell me, what is it that's inadequate as explanation in your opinion? Let's start there. — L'éléphant
I think self consciousness is just a form of consciousness. The "self" is just the modern emphasis on the individual. "I see red" and "I know myself as seeing red" are rhetorically different, but logically both mean, "I see red." — Jackson
No I have not provided you with the how. I've only been talking about examples of consciousness. So, we can proceed then to discuss how biology is the reason why consciousness exists -- as a start.What you provide is not an explanation of how consciousness comes about via the mechanisms of biological evolution - in brief, natural selection acting upon mutations. — javra
What is lacking in our accepted definition/description of consciousness? Because I'm good with it. But if you're not, what's your definition of consciousness in humans, in animals? — L'éléphant
So, we can proceed then to discuss how biology is the reason why consciousness exists -- as a start. — L'éléphant
Biology, evolution -- whatever it takes.This is a significant change in argument. The OP, to which I responded, addresses evolution as explanation for consciousness - not biology. There's a very distinct difference between the two. — javra
I need to revisit those articles, as I'm not sure if they're adequate as sources of how intelligence (hence consciousness) developed. — L'éléphant
Probability is reducible to well-defined pure sets too, so there is nothing undefined ontologically. Something either exists exactly as it is or it doesn't exist. Probability is just a tool to quantify our epistemic uncertainty. — litewave
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.