I will make the concept/subject of morality more "coercive" than just a "perspective". Morality, in general, means conformity to the rules and principles of right conduct. I will talk about this in a second.Morality mandates a perspective be taken as one member of a group, with an interest in the group's wellbeing, and any views that fall outside of this context are invalid. — Judaka
Without activity of consciousness itself? If consciousness is active, what does it do?There is no consciousness without activity. — Patterner
Indeed. OK, TV and radio are relatively simple technologies, based mainly on signals. But computers are still a kind of "magic boxes" and the Internet is a real "cloud" for a lot --if not most-- people even to this day ... As for AI, most people don't know even what computer programming actually is.that's always the way of it. People still say that about the internet. Before that, it was television. And radio before that. — Patterner
:up:It is impossible that 100% of the time when a UFO crashes, the government gets to the scene first and cleans it perfectly outside the presence of any witness or video. — Hanover
:up:[Re: ChatGPT being conscious] I don't have reason to believe it is. I've chatted with it quite a bit. Amazing though it is, it does not at all seem like chatting with a conscious being. And it claims not to be. — Patterner
I'm not sure what exactly do you mean by "static". But I agree that consciousness is not an "object".I couldn't say the specifics. But my point is that, if there is no activity, like if the brain is frozen, or dead for some other reason (or if it was frozen in time in some sci-fi way), then there is no consciousness. It is not a static thing; not an object. — Patterner
Well, also not being able to perceive anything with our senses, and other things ...Not feeling anything is a definition of unconsciousness. — sime
I can't, since I'm unconsious! :smile:But how can you verify that you feel nothing under anaesthesia? — sime
Re "But we could not point to their consciousness": Right. However, the examples of respiration and digestion are indeed procecess, in fact well defined ones. But how does consciouness function as a processs? Thi is what I asked.[Re: What kind of process?] What I mean is, if we were able to freeze time around someone, or even if we literally froze them, we would be able to point to their hands, feet, eyes, hair, internal organs, brain, etc. But we could not point to their consciousness, respiration, digestion, etc. — Patterner
I wonder how that can be the case ... And if so, how could we know that? Science does not even know what exactly is consciousness, where it is located, how it functions, etc.I'm suggesting it might not be there even though life has not stopped. — Patterner
Nice. I like that. :up: However, I don'r how it is in conflct with what I said ... Can this experience exist when life ends?"A state of being in which phenomenal experience occurs." — wonderer1
This is maybe correct,. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject. But if so, brain death belongs to the case of being unconscious, only to a much greater degree. E.g. total anesthesia, as I have said earlier to @Art48, blocks the brain to such a degree that it can't function on a stimulus-response anymore. The effect is the same (as far as consciousness is concerned).It doesn't seem to me like what you said, since a brain dead person typically has the majority of their cells still living. — wonderer1
Oh, far from that! :smile: Not only the cells, but even the whole brain has no consciousness. I talked about that yesterday, in the discussion of "What constitutes evidence of consciousness?" (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/813171)Also, things you have said other places gave me the impression that you think that individual cells have consciousness. — wonderer1
What kind of process? A process involves a series of actions or operations. Does consciousness act or operates in any way?I believe consciousness is a process. — Patterner
Process or not, isn't what I said (in different words)? Didn't I say "Once it is attached to a life it will be there until life stops"? I think that "stops" and "ends" mean the same thing here, don't they?Some processes that are connected to life cannot stop without ending the life." — Patterner
I have not given any definition of consciousness, "idiosyncratic" (!) or other sort.You seem to have your own idiosyncratic definition of "consciousness" — wonderer1
What is commonly meant by the term? In your own words.... that doesn't seem to have much overlap with what is commonly meant by the term — wonderer1
Consciousness is not something that can be created and then disappear, now be present and the next moment be absent.Is consciousness present during deep sleep? — Art48
Good question. I don't know! :grin:f we observe reactions to the surroundings, which also prove perception of the surroundings, how do we know there is consciousness, as opposed to the simple stimulus and response that we can find in any number of mechanical devices? — Patterner
Consciousness is more than just perception --and much more complex, as you say-- but his is something outside this thread. Perception, IMO, is a very basic characteristic of it and using it is the best way to describe it for the purposes of most discussions in here.Is consciousness more than the perception and response of an archaea, or the automatic door at the supermarket? Some will say not; that it is much more complex, due to many feedback loops, but is entirely mechanical. — Patterner
When we are looking for evidence for the existence of something --animate or inanimate-- we are looking for the presence of special characteristics attributed to that something, i.e. elements that would indicate the existence or occurrence of that something. E.g. in the case of a murder that you mentioned, such elements would be a dead body, fingerprints, etc. The case of consciousness, however, is much more complicated because here we have to deal with a concept, an abstract idea, compared to a much more concrete case, which is murder. Yet, in both cases, the characteristics, the elements we are to look for are part of the definition of the subject in question: what is murder and what is consciousness, resp/ly.What are we going to look for as evidence of consciousness in (a) a rock, and (b) a human? — bert1
Do you have to observe anything to know that you exist, that you are awake?And how are you aware of yourself? Don't you need to observe something, then say, "I identify this as myself?" — Philosophim
Do you have to feel or think anything to know that you exist? That you are a person? That you are reading this message?If you have no observation of emotions, thinking, etc, do you have a self? What are you if you have no emotions, thoughts, etc? — Philosophim
Anything. Whatever. No some thing in particular. It could be e.g. just sitting on a chair. You don't have to obseve anything to be aware of that. The feeling of the chair on your bottom does not determine the fact that you are sitting. There must only exist a chair and your body be on it. No observation is needed for that.Knowing that "something". What is this something? — Philosophim
Right. You can perceive, be aware of your thoughts. But you can also be aware of the absence of thoughts! (Being able to not think needs some training though. :smile:) As you can be aware of silence and space. These do not involve any perceiving/observation.Notice that I pointed out that thoughts are part of observation. — Philosophim
Yes I know that. Repeating it does not prove that I'm wrong! :smile:Leaving concepts, descriptions, etc. aside, just sit back and experience that you are aware of your thoughts, your body, your movements. Do not observe anything.
— Alkis Piskas
That's a contradiction to what I've defined. I need to observe something and then identify that as a "thought". I need to observe something and identify it as a "body". The combination of the two is awareness. — Philosophim
This is incorrect. Awareness does not depend or involve necessarily observation. You can be aware of millions of things that have nothing to do with observation. At the basis of all of them, is being aware of yourself. It doesn't involve any observation at all. Neither does being aware of your emotions, thinkng, etc. Awareness is a condition, a state. Observation is a process, an act. Awareness actually means knowing that something exists or is happening.Awareness is a combination of two main factors: Observation and identification. — Philosophim
Of course not. I talked about my specific question "Are you a materialist?". If not anything else it's too general. And one may also identify to it only in part, as I undestood you do. In fact only (conventional) scientists I think can full identify with it. And ... about 80% of the people in TPF! :smile: (Based on a poll that I conducted out a long time ago.)Nothing wrong with asking someone where they stand on an issue — Fooloso4
I agree. I believe QM is responsible for that. Matter, as we new it until then was something very concrete and tangible. Yet, even so, I believe we can still differentiate between physical and non-physical, animate and inanimate things. We can also use the terms life, beings, organisms, existence, etc. as opposed to objects. In this way mabe we can avoid using the term "matter".The term "matter" has become problematic — Fooloso4
In your previous answer you talked about "particular things that are ascribed to materialism might not stick". But mental things are not just "particular" things. They consist a whole world, in contrast with the material one!See my previous answer ... — Fooloso4
From the little I know about you and have gathered from you, this has taken me by surprise!You might expect that. I don't expect that. The majority of the medical community does not expect that. The majority of those working in cognitive science do not expect that. — Fooloso4
I know what you mean. There are cases however, where the word "thing", although very general, is unsuitable. For example, I wouldn't use it to say "a conscious thing", since the word "conscious" refers to beings, living entities and the word "thing", although very general, normally refers to an object, i.e. something material, inanimate. I wouldn't say "conscious being" or "conscious creature" either, because it would be a pleonasm, since beings/creatures are conscious anyway. In these cases, I believe the word "entity" is more suitable, since it covers both living and non-living cases. So, I would say "speaking about a conscious entity" or, better, "speaking about consciousness".That thing is the object we need to analyze because it is that thing we are speaking about when we speak about a conscious thing. — NOS4A2
Right.So in my opinion we need to abandon the question begging and the reification, not only because they are fallacious, but because they tend to lead us to false conclusions. — NOS4A2
30 volumes!! I just checked it in Wiki: 45,000 articles, 6,500 contributors, 9,000 bibliographies, 150,000 cross-references, 1,000+ tables, 1,200 maps, 4,500 images. Quite impressive!I picked up the entire 1957 Americana Encyclopaedia collection at a garage sale, all 30 volumes. They came with a very nice cabinet. — NOS4A2
Well, one has to use ... something! :smile:What is this "something that can be experienced"? All these references to "something", for instance, "there is something it is like" ... — NOS4A2
Yes, I guess this is often the case.it can only be assumed in a series of question-begging assertions. — NOS4A2
Are you browsing encyclopedias as a hobby or for fun? :grin:I was reading through the 1957 edition of Encyclopedia Americana when ... — NOS4A2
But it is something existential. It refers to the human existence as well as to all life.[Re: Consciousness] However, the hypostatizing tendency of human thinking has led to its use as if referring to something existential. — NOS4A2
It's not an assumption. It's not a construction of the mind. It's something that can be experienced. What is a construction of the mind is the concept of consciousness. Together with the effort to be accurately defined, described, explained and proved. If it cannot be scientifically explained and proved --see the hard problem of consciousness"-- does not mean that it does not exist, that it is not a reality. And this is because science, as we know it, in its current state of evolution and development, does not accept the human experience among its tools of analysis, investigation, kinds of proof, etc.Since a man may be conscious, it is easy to fall into the assumption that he may have consciousness — NOS4A2
Right. In psychology --the conventional one, at least the one I know from studies in my college years-- consciousness is taken for granted. Well, this is better than denying its existence, isn't it? :smile:Much psychological interest has been in the description of one’s experiences when he is conscious, his feelings, perceptions, emotions, thoughts ... — NOS4A2
True. And for a good reason! :smile:[Re: HPC] It assumes the existence of “conscious experience”. The language often treats it as actual, if not fundamental. — NOS4A2
I agree.Despite the claims, nothing “arises”, nothing “emerges”, nothing “gives rise” to anything else. Rather than “something it is like”, there appears nothing it is like. — NOS4A2
Where does this refer to? Who is "we"? And how is it connected to the title of the topic "The Naive Theory of Consciousness"?Our Naive Theories of Consciousness — NOS4A2
Well, I would rather say "connection" or "interaction" rather than "gap", since the latter refers to distance, esp. between two things of a similar nature. But these states are totally different kinds of things, of a totally different nature. They can only be connected in the way fear is connected to adrenaline.Chalmers believes there is an explanatory gap between two states in his naturalistic dualism, the biological states and the “states of experience”. — NOS4A2
Do you mean that consciousness is a biological process and/or of a biological nature?But upon an objective analysis we find there is only one state and it is wholly biological. — NOS4A2
In what way "examine a conscious being"? I assume you mean examine the contents of a being's consciousness, right?Practically (and ethically) we do not have the means to examine a conscious being without altering his consciousness. — NOS4A2
OK. No problem. Thanks anyway.I am not sure how to simplify it down further! — Bob Ross
Which includes our mind, doesn't, it? I didn't say only our mind. So what I said is correct.I mean that it is independent of any mind, not just ours. — Bob Ross
But "I cannot account for myself as" is the same as "I cannot consider myself as" that I said. So I corectely interpreted that too, didn't I?I mean that if the world is mind-independent, then there is a hard problem of consciousness — Bob Ross
I prefer to talk about "universal consiousness" rather than "universal mind".The idea is that, although we can’t infer that everything is a part of a universal mind by directly experiencing it ... — Bob Ross
In order to infer its existence we must use one or the other worldview, theory, system, etc. Their multiplicity only indicates how hard --for me, impossible-- this is. And somewhere here enters the HPC that you mentioned.... we can infer that it exists because otherwise we have no ability to explain the mental: we have the hard problem of consciousness. — Bob Ross
Right. But also positing that it is mind-dependent leads to an impasse. That's why I maintain that only experience can lead to such knowledge.We posit that the most parsimonious explanation for what reality fundamentally is is mentality because positing it is mind-independent leads to an irreconcilable dilemma. — Bob Ross
Well, I think I explained the difference. (Well, for me at least, it is very obvious. And I'm sure you can see that from what I have said so far on the subject.)we infer there is a universal mind just like we infer there are other conscious animals — Bob Ross
I know. And thanks for the clarification.I wasn’t trying to scrutinize your view but, rather, provide clarification in relation to analytic idealism. — Bob Ross
Yet, it does!A plant is conscious but does not perceive anything. — Bob Ross
That's why I like to connect consciousness with perception. Because we can know that the another person or a dog, etc. are conscious too --besides ourselves, who can experience consciousness directly-- by observing their reactions to stimuli, communicating with them, etc. If they react, it means that they can perceive and therefore they are conscious entities.other people and plants beings conscious is also a concept in that same sense (that we don’t experience it). — Bob Ross
Certainly.[Re: Me saying "I have no experience if it"] I don’t find this to be a problem: we can know things without experiencing them. — Bob Ross
I don't think that this is a question of doctrine. That religions are disjunct from each other is a fact. Even sects within religions are sometimes isolated from each other and their mother religion/church.Is there a name for the doctrine which claims that all religions are epistemically/veridically disjunct from each other? — Hallucinogen
Of course it doesn't matter. But please complete the sentence "As long as you or I or him believe it to be true ..." (Then what?)It doesn't matter if it's true for others, as long as you or I or him believe it to be true. — A Realist
But this statement is neither true nor false! :smile: It's a known "paradox", or better, a self-contradictory statement. If I am a liar then this statement is a lie (false). But then, if this statement is a lie (false), it means that I'm not a liar. See the self-contradiction involved?"I am a Liar" which are by definition always true or always false. — A Realist
What have I to do with Socrates in this thread? :smile: Have you confound me with someone else?As for Socrates I am not even sure he ever existed, perhaps he is/was a fictional character...'. — A Realist
If you believe that something is true, it doesn't mean that it is true in general, or also true for me or someone else ... (But I believe that it is true for you.)Something is true, if you believe it to be true. — A Realist
Thank you for your readiness! But I don't think we should get involved in such a quest. Not worthwhile.I would need you to explain further what you mean by those terms to give a more precise answer. — Bob Ross
I can give you a few references. However, I don't know what you actually expect from this. If you are not involved in the Eastern philosophy, I don't know if what I can refer you to will make much sense or even be useful to you.Could you give an example of such a detailed description of consciousness? — Bob Ross
This is indeed so.It isn’t even apparent that we will one day be able to definitively understand the entirety of reality. — Bob Ross
This is plausible too.[Re Einstein] one should be able to articulate their position concisely and precisely — Bob Ross
Exactly. This is what I'm saying.If by “explain what ‘consciousness’ is” you are asking how it works, then only via empirical inquiry will we find out. — Bob Ross
See my first reply.[Re: A few I know that have descibed this quite well ...] Could you give an example? — Bob Ross
I didn't say that consciousness is synonymous with perception. They are two totally different kinds of things. What I mean is that consciousness is strongly connected to perception, in the sense that it is a state and abiity to preceive things outside us (environment) as well as inside us (thoughts, emotions, etc.)For analytic idealism, consciousness is not synonymous with perception. — Bob Ross
OK, but consciousness a characteristic of all life: Living organisms as well as plants.“Perception” is used to denote conscious beings that have evolved to have the faculties to represent its environment to itself — Bob Ross
All this is fine. But the "universal mind" is only a concept for me: I have no experience of it.The universal mind, for instance, does not perceive ... — Bob Ross
Certainly. Each form of life has a different level of consciousness, or better, it is consious on a different level, depending on its complexity as an organism, as you say.Think of it like the difference between plants, which will on a basis of very basic stimulus responses, vs. a complex animal (like a dog): the plant is perceiving anything but yet, under analytic idealism, is conscious. — Bob Ross