Do you understand that "materialist" is not a distinct category from "philosopher"? — wonderer1

I dont understand the problem.

A plumber can have opinions about other plumbers that don't comport with those plumber's attitudes.

A materialist philosopher can have opinions/views on philosophers in general. Am i missing something here? I mean, analytic/continental philosophers are at loggerheads often in this way..

I dont understand the problem. — AmadeusD

That's ok. My question was directed @Gnomon.

That's ok. My question was directed Gnomon. — wonderer1

That's nice dear.

Do you understand that "materialist" is not a distinct category from "philosopher"?
Your writing frequently suggests that you don't understand this. — wonderer1

For me, it is. I view Philosophy as the study of the meta-physical (immaterial) aspects of nature, such as Consciousness. However, I do understand that Materialism is a metaphysical philosophical position ( a belief system), in that it is a non-empirical generalization from limited evidence.

For all practical purposes, I am a materialist. But for philosophical endeavors, I am not limited to the evidence of the 5 senses. And I don't deny such immaterial entities as "consciousness, mind, & psychic states". Besides, when scientists make theoretical postulations, they are doing Philosophy, not Science, as distinct categories --- distinguished by their range of evidence. :smile:

PS___ Philosophically, I don't categorize forum arguments into the traditional opposing dual divisions of Materialism vs Spiritualism. Instead, I propose a new, more comprehensive & inclusive category, that I call "Enformationism".


Materialism :
In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/materialism/v-1

Nice. I rarily see people connecting consciousness with experience. (In the sense of human feeling, as you say.) — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I quoted Christof Koch in my post above : "consciousness is the feeling of life". :smile:

I confess, I think you've lost me here.

I quoted Christof Koch in my post above : "consciousness is the feeling of life" — Gnomon

Well, the word "feeling" has millions of meanings, and such a definition of conciousness is quite vague. Yet, it could be acceptable, if neurophysiologists (like Koch) did not correlate consciousness with the brain --see neuronal correlates of consciousness (NCC)-- in a way that everything, even subjective experiences, ends up in the brain. Which brain BTW is almost identified with the mind (!). But this is expected, since this is their field of specialization. However, I know about known scientists --not neurophysists/neurobiologists, but I have read about some them too-- who are examining consciousness outside the the traditional scientific and in a totally new frame of mind. Maybe Koch is among them. I have to read more from him than just "Consciousness is everything you experience", which I just read, and which I liked it. :smile:
Thanks from bringing up this ref.

Well, the word "feeling" has millions of meanings, and such a definition of conciousness is quite vague. — Alkis Piskas

I doubt that Koch was trying to provide a technical or dictionary definition of "Consciousness". But "feeling" encompasses how each of us experiences a unique interpretation of the world : a worldview. Likewise, Nagel's "what it's like" notion is vague, but comprehensive, in summarizing how sentient beings experience their world.

Both "feeling" and "what it's like" are referring to the essential characteristic of consciousness : a personal subjective perspective on the world. Presumably, each individual brain & sensory apparatus delivers a unique mind-picture of the world, constructed from processing various inputs of energy/information from the material environment. So, IMHO "consciousness" can't be specified ; it can only be generalized, as something that is not universal, but extraordinary in the near-infinity of the physical universe. :smile:

Hence in my opinion, those who believe in a "Hard Problem of Consciousness" misunderstand the purpose of science, and that this hard problem is better understood as being a "Hard Feature of applicable Physics" — sime

I doubt that Chalmers was talking about Physics when he coined the phrase "hard problem". Consciousness is not "hard" in a physical sense, but in the holistic philosophical sense of : not subject to simplistic reductionism. :smile:

onsciousness is not "hard" in a physical sense, but in the holistic philosophical sense of : not subject to simplistic reductionism. :smile: — Gnomon

Given he also identifies a few “easy” problems of consciousness I think you’re safe here :)

You are right. The word "definition" was not a good choice of mine. But I certainly didn't mean a technical definition. I meant rather a description.
Now the difference with Nagel's famous description of "what it is like" --which I like very much-- is that it des not include any term, even as simple as "feeling". "What it's like to be ..." is independent of any concept or connotation. It is the closest to "experience" that we are talking about.

Now, if we want to describe consciousness in more concrete terms, we have to think about its central element. Something with which it is always connected. Something that without it, it doesn't exist (as feeling, as experience, etc.) In other words, the presence of that element makes consciousness possible. And the opposite, its absence indicates also absence of consciousness. And this element is perception.

Yes, it is that simple. :smile:

And from this central, basic element we can now define consciousness as the state and ability to perceive. It also covers the physical aspect of "consciousness" as considered by neurobiologists and science in general, about which I talked in an earlier message.

I usually expand a little the above definition, to make it more plain and refer to humans, as follows: the state and ability to perceive our outside world (surroundings) as well as our inside world (thoughts, emotions, etc.)

Now, if we want to describe consciousness in more concrete terms, we have to think about its central element. Something with which it is always connected. Something that without it, it doesn't exist (as feeling, as experience, etc.) In other words, the presence of that element makes consciousness possible. And the opposite, its absence indicates also absence of consciousness. And this element is perception. — Alkis Piskas

I think you have the right idea, but I have one quibble : physical Perception is sub-conscious until metaphysical Conception. We only become consciously aware of sensory inputs when they are converted into meaningful mental images. Is there a word that combines the two aspects into a single central philosophical element of Consciousness? Perhaps "Apprehension" (concrete metaphor : to grasp) or "Comprehension (to seize & surround) or maybe even "to Grok" ? :smile:


"To perceive is to become aware of something directly through the senses. To conceive is to form something in the mind or to develop an understanding. So perceiving is merely seeing, and conceiving is deeper."

To Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
When you grok something, you just get it — in other words, you totally grasp its meaning.

physical Perception is sub-conscious until metaphysical Conception. We only become consciously aware of sensory inputs when they are converted into meaningful mental images. — Gnomon

Having the experience of consciousness, i.e. being aware, does not necessary involve meaningful mental images, or even mental images (i.e. thinking) at all. I can be aware that I am alive, that I exist, that I'm looking to an object, etc. I don't have to interpret or undestand what these things mean. In the case of the obkect, its image is of course created in my mind, but it can be just that, an image. If I start to think about the meaining of this image, etc. I'm using mental faculties, which have nothong to do with consciousness, except that I can be aware that I am doing so! :smile:

Is there a word that combines the two aspects into a single central philosophical element of Consciousness? — Gnomon

Good question! I don't know! :grin:
Anyway, I wouldn't try to combine the physical with the non-physical in any way. There's an interaction between them. That's all. And if we try to investigate this interaction, we get into the mechanics of consciousness, which maybe we'll never undestand. If we could, we would have done it after all this time that we are exploring the sanctuary of consciousness. Maybe we have created a conceptual trap and fell in it.

"To perceive is to become aware of something directly through the senses. To conceive is to form something in the mind or to develop an understanding. So perceiving is merely seeing, and conceiving is deeper." — Gnomon

Exactly.

***

I have to add something here about how I use the term "perception": It normally means to become aware of something by means of our senses. And our senses are meant to be physical, of course. So I have to expand the term to also include being aware of our inner world --thoughts, emotions, etc.-- for which we are not using our senses. Unfortunately I don't have any other word.

Having the experience of consciousness, i.e. being aware, does not necessary involve meaningful mental images, or even mental images (i.e. thinking) at all. I can be aware that I am alive, that I exist, that I'm looking to an object, etc. I don't have to interpret or undestand what these things mean. In the case of the obkect, its image is of course created in my mind, but it can be just that, an image. If I start to think about the meaining of this image, etc. I'm using mental faculties, which have nothong to do with consciousness, except that I can be aware that I am doing so! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

I don't know how you mean this. I am not usually "aware" that I'm alive. I am when I think about it, as I am now. And if anyone ever asked, I'd suddenly be thinking about it.

Butt when Godzilla starts in 20 minutes, I won't be thinking about the fact that I am alive. I don't see how I could be considered aware of it at such times.

I have to add something here about how I use the term "perception": It normally means to become aware of something by means of our senses. And our senses are meant to be physical, of course. So I have to expand the term to also include being aware of our inner world --thoughts, emotions, etc.-- for which we are not using our senses. Unfortunately I don't have any other word. — Alkis Piskas

Do we not, with our senses, perceive things that exist; that can be perceived? I think our thoughts and emotions are created within us. Even if prompted by something external, such as you reading "4+2=", which you perceive, you create the thought "6" on your own. You didn't turn your head and perceive "6" written somewhere.

Never thought about this before...

Having the experience of consciousness, i.e. being aware, does not necessary involve meaningful mental images, or even mental images (i.e. thinking) at all. — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps, but I was thinking in terms of Blindsight*1, in which the physical senses seem to "Perceive" things in the world without forming conscious Concepts : sensing without knowing. Also, in the Vegetative State*2 a person processes sensory inputs (percepts ; data) but show no signs of conscious (concepts ; memory) awareness. For example, a Mimosa leaf will reflexively respond to a "perceived touch", by physically contracting the leaf, but presumably without forming any verbalizable concept, such as "something touched me". Ironically, some people "like" to think that Jade plants, Aloe, and Peace Lilies conceptually "like" to be touched (anthropomorphism?).

The vocabulary problem here is that our functionally materialistic language --- based on sensory impressions --- typically uses Perception & Conception interchangeably, without making the philosophical distinction that is important to distinguish Mind from Brain, as different concepts. Hence, in my dialogs with Physicalist/Materialists, who deny the metaphysical ideality of an immaterial Mind, I often make the distinction between personal Concepts and abstract Percepts. But it usually falls on deaf ears : that perceive, but do not conceive. :grin:

PS___ I found this definition on Quora, that seems pertinent to this discussion :
Conceive “ to form a mental representation of” involves an internal process of thinking that produces a new result.
Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception. That's because they may include emotional or poetic affects, in addition to factual or prosaic data, Concepts are more likely to be remembered, due to their Self-interest. :blush:

*1. Blindsight :
the ability to respond to visual stimuli without consciously perceiving them. This condition can occur after certain types of brain damage.
___Oxford dictionary

*2. Vegetative State of living person :
A vegetative state is when a person is awake but is showing no signs of awareness. A person in a vegetative state may: open their eyes. wake up and fall asleep at regular intervals. have basic reflexes (such as blinking when they're startled by a loud noise or withdrawing their hand when it's squeezed hard)
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-of-consciousness/#:~:text=A%20vegetative%20state%20is%20when,hand%20when%20it%27s%20squeezed%20hard)

I was thinking in terms of Blindsight*1, in which the physical senses seem to "Perceive" things in the world without forming conscious Concepts : sensing without knowing. — Gnomon

Blindsight. Never heard of that before. Just looked it up. Wow, this looks quite interesting. I will have to learn more about it. So, at the moment I cannot comment on this phenomenon. Maybe ony that I didn't like seeing the words/terms "concepts" and "knowing" related again to consciouness. :smile:
Look it this way: Does perception alone, i.e. just using our senses, involve concepts and knowledge or are these created or do they appear later?

Also, in the Vegetative State*2 a person processes sensory inputs (percepts ; data) but show no signs of conscious (concepts ; memory) awareness. — Gnomon

Gnomon, I think you are giving me too much homework! :smile:
But again, I see concepts and memory connected to consciousness. These things are products of the mind, stemming from mental processes, like thinking. Esp. concepts, which involve undestanding a much higher mental faculty. They all follow perception.

For example, a Mimosa leaf will reflexively respond to a "perceived touch", by physically contracting the leaf, but presumably without forming any verbalizable concept, such as "something touched me". — Gnomon

Mimosa, leaf, ... these are concepts. "Perceived touch" on the other hand can be assigned to consciousness, since touch is one of our senses and it is one of the means we gat aware of objects.

BTW, since we are talking about "senses", it is very interesting to know that we almost always think of just our 5 common senses, although there are many more of them: senses of movement, balance, orientation, gravity, pain, and so on. All these are perceivable.

Ironically, some people "like" to think that Jade plants, Aloe, and Peace Lilies conceptually "like" to be touched (anthropomorphism?). — Gnomon

No. Plants are conscious. They have the ability to perceive. How else could they turn their leaves towards the sun?
(Check "Plant Consciousness: The Fascinating Evidence Showing Plants Have Human Level Intelligence, Feelings, Pain and More ( http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Plant-Consciousness---The-Fascinating-Evidence-Showing-Plants-Have-Human-Level-Intelligence--Feelings--Pain-and-More.pdf).)

The vocabulary problem here is that our functionally materialistic language --- based on sensory impressions --- typically uses Perception & Conception interchangeably, without making the philosophical distinction that is important to distinguish Mind from Brain, as different concepts. — Gnomon

Good remark. :up:

in my dialogs with Physicalist/Materialists, who deny the metaphysical ideality of an immaterial Mind, I often make the distinction between personal Concepts and abstract Percepts. But it usually falls on deaf ears : that perceive, but do not conceive. :grin: — Gnomon

I'm afraid you are among the unfortunate, like myself, who belong to the minority and have to deal with that. Or are we fortunate? :smile:

PS___ I found this definition on Quora, that seems pertinent to this discussion: Conceive “ to form a mental representation of” involves an internal process of thinking that produces a new result. — Gnomon

Certainly. That's why I'm a Quora fan! :grin: (Well, not so much for reading but rather for writing. :smile:)

Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception. — Gnomon

Exactly.

***

Thanks for the references (re: Blindsight and Vegetative State). They will help me in my homework. :smile:

[Re "I can be aware that I am alive"] I don't know how you mean this. I am not usually "aware" that I'm alive. I am when I think about it, as I am now. And if anyone ever asked, I'd suddenly be thinking about it. — Patterner

Certainly, you are not usually "aware" that you are alive. It would be quite annoying and useless, wouldn't it? But you can be id you want, right?

To paraphrase our friend Descartes, "I am aware, therefore I exist."
(Which could be what he actually meant, since thinking is not part of consiousness/awareness. It follows it. But this is all he could think and use as a concept, since at that time, the terms and concepts of "consciousness" and "awareness" had not been developed yet.)

I don't see how I could be considered aware of it at such times. — Patterner

I don't think you can even if you want to. And fortunately enough, it's not of any use. But it is of great use when you are in a highly emotional state, feeling lost, etc. If you are able to get aware of yourself and the situation you are involved in, you can get rid of that state faster and get your marbles back. Don't you?

I think our thoughts and emotions are created within us. Even if prompted by something external, such as you reading "4+2=", which you perceive, you create the thought "6" on your own. You didn't turn your head and perceive "6" written somewhere. — Patterner

Well, if you start interpreting the object --shape or form-- of a number that you observe --i.e. as a symbol-- you start thinking about it, and this is beyond perception. Imagine how much involved in thinking --even if you are not aware of it-- if you start interpeting a whole arithmetic operation.
Consciousness/awareness stops at the perception level. The perceived, observed object.

Perception does not involve thinking.

In fact, one of the things you can do to get rid of your (useless) thoughts, is just to observe your surroundings.

Maybe ony that I didn't like seeing the words/terms "concepts" and "knowing" related again to consciouness. :smile:
Look it this way: Does perception alone, i.e. just using our senses, involve concepts and knowledge or are these created or do they appear later? — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps you have a broader definition of "Consciousness" and "Perception" than I do. The "C" word literally means "to know with/together", implying shared or shareable knowledge. For that reason, I tend to limit Consciousness to organisms that can share information verbally, symbolically, or by intentional physical interactions.

Perception is the intake of information, but Conception is the processing of raw data into shareable packages such as Ideas & Words, which can be exported to other conscious beings. So, I typically reserve "perception" to data inputs, and "conception" to the processing of information into knowledge (personally relevant meaning), then use "consciousness" for the highest level of information processing into inter-personal packages of Communication (words), as evidenced in human culture.

For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. But for philosophical analysis of the debatable term "consciousness", I try to make finer distinctions, to avoid the fuzzy boundaries that lead to confusion and acrimony. Materialist "don't like" to see Consciousness related to such immaterial things as Ideas & Imagination.

To answer your question : I think "perception alone" does not "involve concepts and knowledge", but merely the reception of raw data. "Conception" accepts the data inputs, and converts them into concepts, ideas, images, symbols, beliefs, etc. that are inter-related with other ideas into self-related significance (symbols). For my restrictive usage, Consciousness requires a sense of Self. From my post above : "Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception". :smile:

No. Plants are conscious. They have the ability to perceive. How else could they turn their leaves towards the sun? — Alkis Piskas

Again, I'll quibble with your terminology. Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols. Admittedly, some plants can "communicate information". But, as far as I can tell, the plants don't "know" what they are doing, because the chemical processes are automatic & genetically controlled, with no need for "awareness" in the human sense of "cognition" (knowing that you know). :nerd:

Plant communication :
Plant communication encompasses communication using volatile organic compounds, electrical signaling, and common mycorrhizal networks between plants and a host of other organisms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_communication

How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? :
The purpose of perception is to convey correct information about our immediate surroundings. Cognition, on the other hand, involves forming beliefs, making decisions and solving problems, on the basis of already existing information. The role of cognition is therefore much more general than that of perception.
https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/58422/Sydhagen.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

The "C" word literally means "to know with/together", implying shared or shareable knowledge. — Gnomon

I believe you are referring to the etymology of C. Indeed, it's from Latin "con", which means "with", and scientia, which means "knowledge", i.e. "knowledge shared with others". However, this is far from what today we undestand as "consciousness". So, I don't think that is much of help.

And, since I'm talking about etymologies and references to ancient languages, let's see what my big dictionary of the ancient Greek language says about "consciousness, which is "συνείδησις" (syneidisis) in Greek. Like in Latin, the word is formed by "syn-" (= with) and "eidisis" (= knowdlege). However, the definition that it offers has nothing to do with "with" (sharing). It means "internal knowledge, awareness of one's own thoughts". The second part is quite interesting, because it is what I have already described in my "expanded" definition of consciousness reffering to our interior world!
Yet, I wouldn't take that either as something useful, since I have never read any ancient Greek philosopher talking about "conscousness". The concept of conciousness has been developed much later, in the 18th century.

I typically reserve "perception" to data inputs, and "conception" to the processing of information into knowledge (personally relevant meaning), then use "consciousness" for the highest level of information processing into public packages of Communication (words), as evidenced in human culture. — Gnomon

OK.

For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. — Gnomon

Do you mean that "perception" and "conception" are actually --or even loosely considered as-- the same thing? That is, just seeing an object is the same with thinking about that object, what is its nature, what it means, etc.?

Materialist "don't like" to see Consciousness related to such immaterial things as Ideas & Imagination. — Gnomon

Certainly.

I think "perception alone" does not "involve concepts and knowledge", but merely the reception of raw data. "Conception" accepts the data inputs, and converts them into concepts, ideas, images, symbols, beliefs, etc. that are inter-related with other ideas into self-related significance (symbols). — Gnomon

I think we have already agreed on this.

For my restrictive usage, Consciousness requires a sense of Self. — Gnomon

Certainly, conciousness is connected to the Self. When we observe things we can be aware that it is us who are observing things, but we usually don't. The "switch" to self awareness at any moment is instant, almost automatic.

From my post above: "Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception". :smile: — Gnomon

Yes, we can say that. :smile:

Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols. — Gnomon

Of course they are not "conscious" based on your meaning of conciousness, since you add to it "thinking". So, you can see that by adding elements to the meaning of pure consciousness, makes it fail in its application to all cases. By adding sugar to straight coffee, makes the it not usable for diabetics. :smile:

How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? — Gnomon

I have absolutely no problem with that. :smile:

Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols.
— Gnomon
Of course they are not "conscious" based on your meaning of conciousness, since you add to it "thinking". So, you can see that by adding elements to the meaning of pure consciousness, makes it fail in its application to all cases. By adding sugar to straight coffee, makes the it not usable for diabetics. :smile: — Alkis Piskas

Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap?

Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. — Alkis Piskas

I do not believe this to be a very widely view of what sentience consists in. My understanding is there must be feeling in the sense of "what it is like to be.." involved for sentience to be observed. So, @RogueAI has a very apt question for you there..

I believe you are referring to the etymology of C. Indeed, it's from Latin "con", which means "with", and scientia, which means "knowledge", i.e. "knowledge shared with others". However, this is far from what today we undestand as "consciousness". So, I don't think that is much of help. — Alkis Piskas

The etymology was merely intended to indicate the primitive origins of the concept of "Consciousness", in the evolved or learned ability to distinguish Self from Other*1. "C" then evolved from un-knowing disorder into more inclusive & discriminating forms of organized interactions. FWIW, here's a quick tabulation of how I imagine the evolution of un-Consciousness into the modern sophisticated human sense of "Knowing"*2. :smile:

*1. The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
Julian Jaynes
At the heart of this book is the revolutionary idea that human consciousness did not begin far back in animal evolution but is a learned process brought into being out of an earlier hallucinatory mentality by cataclysm and catastrophe only 3,000 years ago and still developing. The implications of this new scientific paradigm extend into virtually every aspect of our psychology, our history and culture, our religion – and indeed, our future. In the words of one reviewer
https://www.julianjaynes.org/resources/books/ooc/
Note --- I don't take his theory literally, or as authoritative . . . just suggestive of possibilities


*2. Evolution of Consciousness : based on the Enformationism thesis
0 --- Pre-Bang Singularity : Pure Potential = Power to Enform (create patterns & structures)
1 --- Big Bang : EnFormAction = Energy + Laws = power to evolve novel patterns from raw Potential
2 --- Plasma : boiling soup of quantum particles with little or no order (chaos)
3 --- Billions of years : Matter = Evolution of macro physical substance (stars) from quantum elements
4 --- Emergence of Earth : Habitat suitable for living organisms (warm pools of protoplasm)
5 --- Emergence of Life : Animation of Matter (single-cell food-seeking amoeba)
6 --- Emergence of Perception (Sentience) : Physical nerves & sensory organs, necessary for motion, foraging & evasion of predators (includes some plants)
7 --- Emergence of Consciousness : Brains capable of organizing sensory information, necessary for living in social groups (vision & sonar for extension of touch, and formation of concepts)
8 --- Emergence of Concepts : Brains capable of imagining unreal ideas (self concept)
9 --- Emergence of Language : Brains capable of communication (externalized concepts)
10 --- Emergence of Culture : Societies capable of organizing large groups for future goals (man on moon)
Note --- Don't take this table literally or as authoritative . . . . just suggestive of possibilities

For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. — Gnomon
Do you mean that "perception" and "conception" are actually --or even loosely considered as-- the same thing? That is, just seeing an object is the same with thinking about that object, what is its nature, what it means, etc.? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, but. That loose interpretation is not my meaning, for philosophical purposes. It's just common popular usage for general purposes. Philosophers have to make much finer discriminations of meaning. The simple Perception of an object --- forming an image on the retina, then storing in brain --- provides little knowledge of its nature or meaning. Such comprehension requires complex processing of raw data, in more comprehensive multi-channel brains.

"Loose lips terminology sinks ships inter-relationships"

3. Concepts of Consciousness
a> Creature Consciousness
b> State consciousness
c> Consciousness as an entity
Despite the lack of any agreed upon theory of consciousness, there is a widespread, if less than universal, consensus that an adequate account of mind requires a clear understanding of it and its place in nature.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
Note --- I don't think of "Consciousness" as an entity (soul or ghost) but as a State or Process or Function of forming mental images in an imaginary Cartesian Theatre, not located in space or time, but in Erewhon.

,

*2. Evolution of Consciousness : based on the Enformationism thesis — Gnomon

After reading the above, I went to this link: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/408645

Enformationism : Mass-Energy-Information equivalence is the subject of this thesis. — Gnomon

From there I went to: https://enformationism.info/enformationism.info/page2%20Welcome.html

Is this your website?

Your quote from Gregory Bateson:

It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. — Gnomon

leads me to ask you: have you examined Bateson's quote as taken up by Terrence W. Deacon?

If so, what do you think of Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes as the environment housing both information and consciousness?

Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap? — RogueAI

No, but sure glad not to be the fly :lol:

Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap? — RogueAI

I can't even know what it is like to be another person! :smile:

Now, this is not serious. And I wonder how come you are asking me this, why have you chosen something unimportant, just a comment I said about Nagel's description of "what it is like", as if it was the main point of my message to @Gnomon ...

So, what about arguing about my main point, which is the definition of conssiousness?

I do not believe this to be a very widely view of what sentience consists in. My understanding is there must be feeling in the sense of "what it is like to be.." involved for sentience to be observed. — AmadeusD

It was my reply to @Gnome, who wondered whether plants can perceive or not. And it was not based on my comment on Nagel's "what it is like", which was quite unimportant, but rather on the definition of consciousness.

Godssake. What'is with you guys? Just FORGET ABOUT MY REFERENCE TO NAGEL. I don't embrace his views. Nor am I willing to defend them. My undestanding of consiousness has nothing to do with his views. If you have read my whole message to @Gnomon, you would have understood that.

The etymology was merely intended to indicate the primitive origins of the concept of "Consciousness" — Gnomon

Certainly. I just took it up and expanded it, because of my linguistic tendencies (I'm overplaying sometimes! :smile:)

here's a quick tabulation of how I imagine the evolution of un-Consciousness into the modern sophisticated human sense of "Knowing"* — Gnomon

Well, the very common expression "I'm aware of", carrying the meaning of "I know", is an unfortunate case, a bad selection of the word "aware". And because it is so common in our everyday language, it is responsible for the misconception or even no conception people have about "awareness" and "being aware".

About your "tabulation": Wow! You keep sending me material to study! I hope I won't have to give exams on all that! :grin:
But I admit it is quite interesting. Dates are missing but it's OK, time is relative. :smile:
I liked of course esp. No. 7 "Emergence of Consciousness : Brains capable of organizing sensory information, necessary for living in social groups (vision & sonar for extension of touch, and formation of concepts)"
About No. 8 "Emergence of Concepts : Brains capable of imagining unreal ideas (self concept)": I have a different idea about the term "brain" in relation to "mind", as I think I already pointed out,

Note --- Don't take this table literally or as authoritative . . . . just suggestive of possibilities — Gnomon

Of course.

(Re: "perception" and "conception") That loose interpretation is not my meaning, for philosophical purposes. It's just common popular usage for general purposes. — Gnomon

Sure. I know well that "common" often means "misconcetion" or "ignorance", as I mentioned earlier on.

3. Concepts of Consciousness — Gnomon

Well, not my cup of tea. Too many concepts involved.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/ — Gnomon

I will chack this, in time.

Note --- I don't think of "Consciousness" as an entity (soul or ghost) — Gnomon

Glad to hear that! :smile:

but as a State or Process or Function of forming mental images in an imaginary Cartesian Theatre, not located in space or time, but in Erewhon. — Gnomon

Just a question: When you are sitting confortably, with your thoughts reduced to minimum --ideally, totally absent-- can you just be aware of yourself, without thinking about it? If so, then you will have a proof for yourself that consciouness/awareness is indepenpent of thinking and thoughts, i.e. the creation of mental images.
This might take some time. I don't know you in person or enough from our exchanges in TPF. But I'm sure you can have this experience! :smile:

Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap? — RogueAI

I suspect not. I do not suspect a vft is conscious. But I suspect it is filled with proto-consciousness.

leads me to ask you: have you examined Bateson's quote as taken up by Terrence W. Deacon?
If so, what do you think of Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes as the environment housing both information and consciousness? — ucarr

I'm not sure which quote you are referring to. But if it's the "patterns that connect", I use the notion of Information as Pattern frequently in my exploration of Information in the world. Did you have something specific in mind?

I'm not familiar with "Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes". But my blog has several articles that discuss some of Deacon's ideas, as they relate to the Enformationism thesis. :smile:

What Is The Power of Absence? :
Enformation (see EnFormAction), in its physical form, is the workhorse of the universe. It begins as the law of Thermo-dynamics, which is the universal tendency for energy to flow downhill from high to low or from hot to cold. Morphodynamics adds constraints on the free flow of energy. Teleodynamics adds side-channels to perform self-directed & end-directed Work. Zoe-dynamics (Life) adds work to reproduce the memory (DNA), structure & constraints of the organism into seeds of potential for future living organisms.
https://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page33.html

The patterns which connect :
Gregory Bateson and Terrence Deacon as healers of the great divide between natural and human
science
https://www.sv.uio.no/sai/english/research/projects/anthropos-and-the-material/Intranet/sinding-larsen-the-patterns-which-connect.pdf

Just a question: When you are sitting confortably, with your thoughts reduced to minimum --ideally, totally absent-- can you just be aware of yourself, without thinking about it? If so, then you will have a proof for yourself that consciouness/awareness is indepenpent of thinking and thoughts, i.e. the creation of mental images.
This might take some time. I don't know you in person or enough from our exchanges in TPF. But I'm sure you can have this experience! — Alkis Piskas

You might get a better answer from , since he practices meditation. I tried it years ago, but my introverted mind is too ADhD for me to completely stop the flow of thought. When I'm on the verge of unconsciousness (e.g. sleep), and not focused on something external or specific internal ideas, I suppose I'm aware of Self, without thinking, in the sense of Proprioception. Does that qualify as "awareness independent of thinking" for you? How is it different from aVegetative State? :smile:


Proprioception, or kinesthesia, is the sense that lets us perceive the location, movement, and action of parts of the body.
Note --- Perception without Conception?

A vegetative state is absence of responsiveness and awareness due to overwhelming dysfunction of the cerebral hemispheres, . . .
Note --- Is a sentient-but-brainless Fly Trap aware of its unconventional eating habits? Does it think : "this fly is yummy?" Rhetorical question.