We are aware of an imaginary yellow and blue disks — hypericin
We can measure neural activity that correlates with reported states of awareness, and which are absent when the subject is not aware. — hypericin
We don't definitely know that the camera is not aware, just as we don't know the camera is not inhabited by a malignant spirit. We just have no evidence pointing to either case. — hypericin
This is not just "some theory" this is central to human experience and self-understanding — Janus
Humans generally experience themselves as being aware — Janus
If you are not able to be conscious of your own awareness, then that says something about you, not about others or humans in general. — Janus
What is generally disagreeable hereabouts is the thinking that begins with subject or introspection or private sensations. — Banno
All discourse is just stories; so what? — Janus
Although I'm a bit more modest than Descartes; I would say we know that thinking (and feeling and awareness) are going on; the self is a more problematic proposition. — Janus
And again I would pick you up on assuming that everyone is the same. What you find yourself able to do is not necessarily representative of human capacities in general. — Janus
"We" means a collection of "I"... It's telling that you couldn't express your idea here without using a personnal pronoun.
If one doubts that there is a self, who is doing the doubting? A doubt implies a person having it, a "mind" rejecting a belief. It can't be an independent doubt, free-floating in the universe. — Olivier5
Then it's unclear what 'aware of' could possibly mean here. We know nothing of their properties, but are 'aware of' them? — Isaac
Can we? — Isaac
Then why did you say that the camera wasn't aware. We're trying to pin down the meaning of 'aware' here. So if a camera might be aware, is there anything which definitely isn't? Or is 'awareness' a property literally anything might have, or might not have? — Isaac
Qualia are fine, until folk say absurd things about them. Red and smooth and sour and so on - all good. But then folk will claim that they are private, ineffable, and it all loses coherence. — Banno
If you don't understand that qualia are private and ineffable, then you don't understand qualia. — hypericin
Here's my question for those who would have us talk of qualia: what is added to the conversation by their introduction? If a qual is the taste of milk here, now, why not just talk of the taste of milk here, now? — Banno
phenomenal consciousness..." - what is it? — Banno
Are you saying @180 proof and I lack awareness, or lack the concept of awareness, or what? And how do you know this? What basis do you have for your claim?Even people like 180 Proof and Banno, who are well educated and sophistacated thinkers in many ways, genuinely don't seem to have the concept. — bert1
Are you saying 180 proof and I lack awareness, or lack the concept of awareness, or what? And how do you know this? What basis do you have for your claim? — Banno
I don't mind how things must be, I care for how they are. — Olivier5
A doubt implies a person having it, a "mind" rejecting a belief. It can't be an independent doubt, free-floating in the universe. — Olivier5
we know everything of their properties, since unlike physical objects their properties exactly match what is subjectively disclosed. — hypericin
They are yellow and blue — hypericin
Can we? — Isaac
Can't we? — hypericin
Awareness is only "observed" directly by an aware subject of itself, all other observations of it are inferred. — hypericin
there is no observation that can conclusively disprove awareness, anything in principle might be aware. But, lacking any compelling evidence that they are aware — hypericin
You're misrtaken, bert. I don't avoid the concept when it's relevant to clarifying or examining another concept. Unlike you, bert, folk psychological terms like "awareness" or "consciousness" are neither fundamental nor a priori in my understand of myself, others or nature; such concepts refer to emergent properties or processes. An example from an old post that just popped-up in a TPF search. A definitional sketch to somewhat disambiguate these fuzzy folk concepts:I'm saying, reluctantly, that you lack the concept of awareness. I think you are aware. But I don't know this for sure. You both seem to avoid the concept. — bert1
We are embodied phenomenal-selves (i.e. metacognitive agents), riders on the storm :fire:• pre-awareness = attention (orientation)
• awareness = perception (experience)
• adaptivity = intelligence (error-correcting heurstic problem-solving)
• self-awareness = [re: phenomenal-self modeling ]
• awareness of self-awareness = consciousness — 180 Proof
These are all abiguous though, they can be construed in a way that avoids the concept. — bert1
If that's what you mean, bert, I admitted that I don't. in the preface to that old post where I disuss my understanding of awareness. So what I or @Banno don't "have the same" conceotion of awareness as you – probably because we find "your concept" unsatisfactory for one reason or another. If that's all you're saying, it's a fairly trivial, unphilosophical statement. I'm prepared to make the most reasonable case I can for my concept of awareness. Are you prepared to do tthe same? It doesn't seem to me you are, bert. :chin:If you have the same concept I have .. — bert1
I'm not a mind reader. Spell it out, sir.What do you think I mean by the word 'consciousness'? — 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.