I'm not sure how my comment relates to kk's.

Asking a conscious person if they are conscious is not comparable to asking a scientist if a machine is conscious. — Kenosha Kid

It is if the scientist has the same definition/concept as the non-scientist. This definition:

"Consciousness is subjective experience — ‘what it is like’, for example, to perceive a scene, to endure pain, to entertain a thought or to reflect on the experience itself"

...is given at the very start of the neuroscientist Guilio Tononi's paper on the IIT. Some scientists do start with this concept. And it is those thinkers who I think do come up with a theory of consciousness (even if it is false), and these theories are interesting to me as genuine candidates for a true theory of consciousness. However some thinkers take 'consciousness' to mean a set of observable functions or behaviours etc. That's fine if it's useful, say for a paramedic. But I don't take these as theories of consciousness as I understand it. They are definitions by fiat, and philosophically uninteresting.

EDIT: An example of the latter is H Pattee in his Cell Phenopmenology: The First Phenomenon, in which he says this:

Most branches of philosophy have an explicit or tacit focus on the human level of thought, language, and behavior. Phenomenology has historically focused explicitly on the subjective conscious experience of the human individual. For many years I have found it instructive to explore phenomena from a broader and more elementary evolutionary and physical law-based point of view, defining it as those subjective events that appear to the simplest individual self as functional. At the cell level function cannot be precisely defined because what is functional ultimately depends on the course of evolution. Functional phenomena occur at all levels in evolution and are not limited to conscious awareness. — Pattee

(my bold)

To be clear the article he writes is extremely interesting in many other ways. I just don't think it touches the hard problem.

I think we've hit a conceptual wall. The trouble with the concept of consciousness is that consciousness is only knowable by a kind of introspective reflexive act. You have to notice you have it. For some people this is a simple and obvious thing. Others do not find it simple and obvious, they see problems with it and say such internal observations are illusory or at least misleading. There is a privacy issue here; this problem is not resolvable by consulting a shared world. Normally disagreements about simple matters of fact are resolvable by both parties going to the same place at the same time and saying "Look there, we both see it don't we?"

Thanks for that. Do you think philosophers and scientists have much to say to each other? When scientists investigate well-defined observable functions, and philosophers talk about hard problems and 'what it's likeness,' are they talking past each other? They both use the word 'consciousness'. Has one or other misused the word? Or are there genuinely different meanings?

But the consciousness discussed by neurologists afaik is along the lines of: cognitive awareness of one's environment and one's cognitive awareness of that environment. — Kenosha Kid

And these are presumably measurable in some way? If so, they would need to be functionally defined. You input something into the person, look at the output (how the person behaves, a reading from some kind of direct brain scan), and then the degree of awareness of the environment is observed. Is that the idea?

In more detail, (human, at least) consciousness is a process comprised of multiple components such as awareness, alertness, motivation, perception and memory that together give an integrated picture of one's environment and how one relates to it.

Is this sense of 'consciousness' a collective term for a number of related cognitive faculties? Each of which could be given functional definitions and associated with functional tests to measure their degree of presence? A bit like (Banno's favourite) the Glasgow Coma Scale? Is that the idea of consciousness as studied by scientists?

What do you think of the following rough definition:

"Consciousness is subjective experience — ‘what it is like’, for example, to perceive a scene, to endure pain, to entertain a thought or to reflect on the experience itself"

Would that do as a starting point for a scientific investigation?

That sort of wishy-washy 'well, I know what I mean' way of communicating is no good for answering questions about consciousness in a scientific way. — Kenosha Kid

Do you have a definition in mind when discussing consciousness? When you discuss consciousness, what is it you are discussing?

Another way to bring out the issue is to ask "Why can't all that functional stuff happen without consciousness? What is it about that function that necessitates consciousness?"

Anyway, suppose you built a machine that was functionally equivalent to a working brain. How would you test whether it's conscious or not? — RogueAI

I think the functionalist has to define 'consciousness' in such a way that a function can constitute it. For example, X is conscious if and only if X maps the world and can predict events. Brains can do that, therefore brains are conscious. The trouble is that's not the definition of consciousness that many philosophers are talking about (including me, and I think you). The problem is we can't agree on definitions before we start. This impasse has arisen dozens and dozens of times on this forum and the last. I don't think functionalism is really a theory of consciousness, it's a definition. Most of the time anyway. Sometimes it's a theory, I think, depending on how its forumulated. With the walking and legs analogy, it's definition. Walking just is how that action is defined. And that's not interesting.

EDIT: That wasn't very clear. I'll try and write a better one in a bit.

Lets see how shit we can be

Well there's no way I'm going to scroll up. And what's more I'm going to talk about not scrolling up.

And in any case, "a consciousness field" or whatever would only make "binding" more of a problem since that would suggest a higher level "hive mind" or binding of multiple minds as well. No evidence of the "hive mind" (or "telepathy") as a "mind, or consciousness, field" implies though, so a (e.g. panpsychist) "field theory of consciousness" is merely an implausible, unwarranted, idle speculation (woo-of-the-gaps). — 180 Proof

Oh well that settles it then

How so? — 180 Proof

Because a field is a single partless place extended in space. So it's a candidate for the 'one' part of the many-in-one nature of experience.

But not before throwing a few invectives into it, just in case things don't go quite the way he wants them to, and then taking cover behind his supposedly intimidating selfie. — Apollodorus

If I'm going to be a bully and a twat, I'd rather do it alone.

What is your question you want me to answer? — RogueAI

He won't tell you. Even though it just involves writing one sentence. If he does write a sentence, it will have bold, italic, underline, quotation marks, and some kind of smiley.

Oh, and he'll quote himself.

I love passive aggressive conversations. I'm ripping my dick off I love them so much.

You can drive a house, because houses are like cars. They both have windows.

Really? Explain please. — 180 Proof

You explain why it is

Based on answering questionnaires I am classed as extreme left and woke. — Andrew4Handel

That's interesting. Do you have a link to such a questionnaire? I'd be interested to have a go myself and see what I come out as.

But I know what happens of mainstream forums like Twitter, Facebook. It is the Left wing people/Woke/PC cancelling people. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, I was just wondering who you are talking about, and that helps. No doubt you are right that it happens. How many times doesn't it happen, though? How many times is there a left wing person on one of these platforms who doesn't engage in the kind of rabid overreactions that concern you? Do you notice them? How many left wing people who don't go on these platforms are there? And do they engage in the practices you dislike? Do you think that the people you notice are a representative sample of 'the left'?

This why the left is eating itself. It has extended its reign of taking offense to the point that anyone even in the thick of the ranks can be cancelled and ostracised for a misstep. — Andrew4Handel

I consider myself broadly left wing. Do you think that I cancel and ostracise people?

Let me try!

Ok, here we go:

social + ism = socialism!

community + ism = communityism!

Wow! cool!

:up:

I think there is a direct relationship between statism and population. — James Riley

Yes that seems logical to me. Instinctively I have some sympathy with NOS on this. I love post apocalyptic stories and dramas that involve drastic population reduction so we have a nearly empty world again with no authorities. What authorities there are might be private gangs. So I'd probably start setting up a pubic authority asap and embark on a programme of public goods, as long as the electorate let me of course.

No matter what politician or party we vote for, the belief that a select coterie of fallible human beings should operate an all-powerful institution to meddle in the lives of everyone else is paramount, not only in those who seek to lead but also in those who seek to be led. — NOS4A2

A healthy state is not all powerful. Or even a half-healthy state. High taxation in a democracy generally goes with high accountability of the state to the population. Human Rights are a huge step forward in the protection of citizens. And only democratic states can reliably act for the common good. I am in favour of more statism to tackle worldwide problems such as climate change, reduction in biodiversity and tax havens. Only global level organisations can tackle these reliably it seems to me. I'd like a world government administered online.

It seems your objection to statism is very principled, and less practical, correct me if I'm wrong. You see it as fundamentally the removal of individual freedom, and that is such a bad thing that even common goods do not justify it.

Let's take an inflammatory/racist claim such as "Chinese people are inferior to Europeans"

Should this claim be discussed or censored? — Andrew4Handel

Any thread with that as its subject should probably be deleted. Not just because it is offensive but because it is ludicrous. If there were some kind of credible scientific study or something which said something interesting along these lines (which presumably there isn't), that might be worth a discussion. But even then it's not really philosophy and would be better on a social science or biology forum or something. If a post is philosophically uninteresting AND inflammatory/offensive why on earth would we want it on here? We don't have threads seriously arguing about the flatness of the earth, or geocentrism, or other obvious nonsense. If people want to post something offensive, it needs to at the very least be interesting in some way, and well argued.

For I seem to remember hearing somewhere that it is not explicit in the bible. — Bartricks

The Bible is short on actual metaphysics generally I think. Except maybe John a tiny bit, or Genesis if you want to get very interpretative. Even then it's not clear. You have to dig for it, and have an idea of what you want to find before you go looking.

Wouldn’t he be privy to all the information or knowledge that God has? — Pinprick

Well, maybe. Who knows. You could come up with something along the lines of, as the logos, the formal aspect of reality, the way things are, Jesus is the the knowledge God has. Or some such. Do you feel fobbed of with ad-(hic haec)hoc rationalisations? Or is this kind of thing good for you?

No. Blimey. Baby steps. It is wrong to mug me and give the proceeds to someone who has less. That's wrong. Okay? — Bartricks

Agreed!

Now, would it magically become okay if you put the matter to a vote - shall I mug bartricks and give the proceeds to this person who has less than Bartricks?

Not magically, but democratically, well, yes, unfortunately. I'd disagree, but that's just tough for me, as democracy is the least bad way of deciding things.

No. Obviously.

Not obviously. We're talking about practical rules, not my personal views.

Bert reasons: oh, so, er, you're now in favour of a dictatorship!!

Well, you're not in favour of voting to decide what is socially acceptable.

No, Berty. It would also be wrong if a dictator decides to mug me and give the proceeds to a person who has less.

I agree.

What you don't seem to understand is that our rights - the basic moral rights that a state, if it has any justification at all, is supposed to protect - are not a function of votes. You don't have a right to life and a right to non-interference because someone voted on it.

That is exactly why I have a right to life. In 1998 the UK formally adopted the ECHR and enacted the Human Rights Act 1998.

This isn't about democracy versus dictatorship. This is about what the state is entitled to do.

*shrug* What the state is and is not entitled to do is entirely dependent on how laws are made.

Let's say you need an organ. YOu'll die unless you get it. I have a spare one inside me. Are you entitled to cut me open and take it? No, obviously not. Can you hire someone else to do it on your behalf? No, obviously not.

It depends on what the law is in the jurisdiction in question. These are legal matters.

You may ask me to give it to you. Perhaps I ought to give it to you - not denying that - but still, it's not something you're entitled to take without my consent.

And by extension, someone else is not entitled to take it out of me without my consent and give it to you. Right?

Likewise, if I have some spare money and you need it, you have to ask for it and rely on my generosity or the generosity of others, not just take it from me. And by extension, if someone else decides to take it off me and give it to you, then they have wronged me as much as you would have done if you'd done so.

Simple and obvious stuff.

What if I'm responsible for you needing the organ in question? What if I voluntarily did something to you without your consent that resulted in you needing an organ? Well, now it's plausible that I owe you the organ and that this is a debt that can be paid with force if necessary. So 'now' you may - plausibly - take the organ from me even if I do not wish to give it to you. And by extension, others may do it on your behalf.

These are legal matters. To influence the law according to my values, I can vote in a democracy.

Hence why it is parents - who, by their voluntary procreative decisions knowingly burden others with a lifetime of work among other things - owe those they create a living, a living that can be extracted by force if necessary. THus parents can justly be taxed to provide everyone (bar themselves, of course) with a minimum income. (More than minimum, incidentally - enough to live on with dignity).

But those of us who have been decent enough not to do that to others should not pay a penny. Not until or unless we start violating the rights of others.

Rights only make sense to me in a legal context. Again, these are all legal matters.

Either you're a girl or your wife/girlfriend/mom is really bossy. — Benkei

:) I grew up in 1980s Britain. Thatcher was everyone's bossy mum back then.

I think the reasons depend on whether it is a true belief or not. If it's false, then perhaps humans are a bit crazy and have a tendency to believe any old nonsense. On the other hand, if it is true, then it could be because humans have considered the evidence and happily arrived at the correct conclusion. So to answer the question we have to first work out whether it's true or not. Then the fun begins. — Cuthbert

This.

As well as philosophy and reason, I'm not willing to dismiss felt intuitions. Introspection is often an unreliable guide to they way things are, but sometime sit may be perfectly reliable. It might simply be that some people do have genuine insight. Philosophers can't do much conclusively with the testimony of others, or even their own, of course. And I don't think that all claims of God's existence are extraordinary, although some are. The existence of Zeus on Mt Olympus is of course an extraordinary claim. But there are other God concepts which assert agency and consciousness at the beginning of things, and that seems entirely plausible. Indeed, echoing Un, it's not clear to me that the easy 'default' theoretical position is that there is no such agency. I don't think it's an extraordinary claim.

My system is better. Make the polluters pay. That is, make make parents pay. They have violated rights and owe their offspring a living and others protection from their offspring. That debt can rightfully be collected. Thus taxing parents so that they pay for the problems they have created is just. Taxing others is not - it is extracting money with menaces, and that's wrong unless the money is owed. — Bartricks

OK, so a dictatorship with these values. What if the dictator changes her mind?

so it's okay to mug me and to give the proceeds to the hungry person if there's been a vote on it?? What moral planet are you on? — Bartricks

Yes, because it's the least bad system. And we have to have a system, because there are lots of us in a small space.

Zenny, are you OK?

You admit yourself in Holland people are puzzled. — Zenny

Benkei is famously from Norway. Well one of those hurdy flurdy countries anyway.

Not being racist is a lot easier. — Baden

Easier, yes. Easy, no.

Great stuff from Pfhorrest. Forum quality overall just shot up.

You're telling me that if your friends and family were targeted despite having no real involvement you'd shrug it off as David's rightful fury. Now I no longer think you're a racist you just have no loyalty to anyone. — BitconnectCarlos

That's interesting. For some, loyalty to friends and loved ones really does trump wider considerations, for others it doesn't. And some are conflicted, and reluctantly and ashamedly prioritise loved ones over doing what they feel is right.

Both of these books are Strawson's. Maybe Chalmers wrote in the latter book, as it contained many responses by philosophers. — Manuel

Oh, fair enough. They both must have written something by the same title. Chalmers wrote a (very good IMO) paper Consciousness and its Place in Nature.

I forgot to add, this version of his panpsychism comes from his two most cited works I believe, Realistic Monism and Consciousness and Its Place in Nature. — Manuel

The first is Galen Strawson, the second I think is Chalmers. Chalmers wasn't a panpsychist last time I looked, but he's open to it. I thought Strawson's panpsychism did assert that micro-scale systems like an atom or whatever do have experiences. But it's a while since I read Strawson on that.

THe building blocks are not 'a bit shaped'. They're shaped. They'd need to be othewise we'd have the emergence of shape, which would be an emergence every bit as radical as that of consciousness. — Bartricks

I accept the force of this intuition. I do think that everything is conscious, and I do not think that the concept of consciousness admits of degree. Shape might be another good example of a property that does not admit of degree, I'm not sure.

Your comment makes no sense. — Bartricks

Would you like me to explain it more fully?