"A process of integrating information for the purpose of self organization" — Pop

Is that what you think an experience is?

Prothero, is x conscious if there is something it is like to be x?
Is x conscious if x is capable of experience?

I think neurowhatsits have a lot to say on what we experience, but nothing at all to say on how experience came to be. I just haven't heard anything remotely convincing.

I think discussions on your threads on self, evil, consciousness, mystery, etc more than most(?) other threads illustrate a metaphilosophical problem: how one can use philosophy (instead of science) in order to generate a "theory" which purports to explain – over and above describing (or stipulatively defining) concepts for – facts of the matter. The assumption that, in other words, 'philosophy is (like) a science' is what's problematic, and many conjure-up eclectic "theories" which are incomprehensible to others trying to clarify how the concepts at issue can be used more consistently and coherently, in effect, talking past each other philosophically. I've yet to be persuaded that philosophy is theoretical (vide Witty et al). — 180 Proof

Philosophy itself is an interesting case. I could have put as one of the sentences: "Philosophy is not theoretical" Definition or theory? I guess 'definition' can be further subdivided into a number of categories. As can 'theory'.

The idea is that there could be some kind of loosely structured discourse where people who think they might have new philosophical ideas (either new possible positions, or new arguments for existing positions) can say what those ideas are, and then the responses should only be either affirming that that actually is a new idea so far as the respondent knows, or else, a link to or quote of or other brief educational presentation of someone else who has already had that (supposedly) exact idea, and why (if) not everyone is on board with it already. — Pfhorrest

It's a nice idea but it requires quite a lot of discipline from all concerned. :)

It shows just how complex the relationship between theories and definitions are. — Jack Cummins

Yes, I think that's right. I was very struck by how divided the responses are. There's only one where everyone agrees. It seems, however, that people do recognise an intuitive difference between theory and definition, even if, with some concepts/ideas they are perhaps difficult or impossible to separate completely.

I'd be interested in @Pfhorrest and @Banno's views, and anyone else's.

A definition is used for identification while a theory is used for prediction. — Harry Hindu

That seems quite good to me. With regard to consciousness it works well. Some definitions (but not others) of consciousness are completely neutral as to which objects can have it. It takes a theory to then predict which things can have experiences and which things cannot.

Brain waves are closely related to states of awareness — Enrique

In humans, no doubt. But not in rocks, because rocks don't have brains.

Amazing work. :up: — fdrake

Could have been a lot better, but thank you! The results so far are fascinating.

It seems that most of the "is" statements are definitions. The theories are more vague and require definitions to make them less so. — Harry Hindu

This was the only one I wasn't torn over when I voted. — fdrake

That's interesting. I thought it was perhaps the most straightforwardly definitional one.

I'm surprised the sentience one is unanimous so far. And I'm surprised some of the others are split nearly half each. Very interesting.

The association of numbers with different states of consciousness seems definitional, but the ordering of them seems theoretical. — fdrake

Hadn't thought of that. :up:

Hmmmphh! Don't we need to define "defintion" and "theory" first? — Harry Hindu

Inevitably! Go ahead. Maybe we should also have a theory of definition and theory as well.

Most are definitions, or descriptions, and a few are, it seems, in/direct explanations aka (testable) "theories". — 180 Proof

:up: Did you do the poll?

Either all are simply definitions or are fragments of theories. Speaking for myself, single sentences are definitional in almost all cases and if not express, clarify, expand upon concepts that are part of a theory, a theory being a set of ideas that are interrelated and designed to provide an explanatory framework for observed phenomena. — TheMadFool

Sure. You can still give a glib summary of a theory in a sentence, no?

You must look up these words in a standard dictionary — Alkis Piskas

Consulting a dictionary is never bad advice. Thank you. :)

Well you can’t even be listening to what I’m saying then. — apokrisis

Listening =/= comprehending. The former is our responsibility. That latter is mostly yours.

I guess my pet theory is that waves and wavicles throughout nature combine as readily as a body of water whether we directly witness this or not, and these hybrids comprise both image qualia (dimensional) and nonimage qualia (feeling). But this matter is also extremely quantized, at least on the microscopic scale, which significantly disassociates it, so only specific, very complex and hyperorganized arrangements can give rise to complex qualitative experience, yet the possibilities are vast and far exceed the bounds of biological taxonomy as we currently define it. So that is why my view is a version of panprotopsychism: the actual substance of perception is present at the nano and micro scale, much more fundamental to matter than the level of organization that gives rise to either biological form or humanlike sentience. I regard human sentience as the somewhat arbitrary standard for what is conscious, just as the visible spectrum is our standard for what light is, corresponding to the brain and eye respectively. — Enrique

This is is the closest you've come in this thread to giving a theory, as far as I can tell. It's far too unclear for me to engage with. I originally thought you were talking about the Penrose-Hameroff stuff about microtubules, which I don't understand, as that's the only well-known theory of consciousness involving quantum stuff I know of. But that's not what you are talking about is it? And even that can hardly be called a paradigm, it's just one theory among many.

In very general terms I'm always somewhat sympathetic to field theries of consciousness as these intuitively feel faithful to the phenomenology of consciousness and attention. Our attention seems stretchy, and spread over and through many things at once, like a field. And I think that's important evidence.

I'll ask you the same question I ask any reductive theorist: why can't all the stuff you talk about happen in the dark? Why does that necessitate consciousness?

Is any of what Apo said relevant to your theory? I am in no position to judge that at all (as I understand neither of you), but you may be able to tell.

Consciousness is a state of integrated information - is the most coherent definition that I have come across. — Pop

That's really not a definition. Definitions are about what people mean and how words are used. People don't mean "I'm in a state of integrated information about this rose" when they say "I'm conscious of this rose". (Not that normal people would even say that to be fair.) The IIT is a theory, NOT a definition!

It's something to do with nano tubules I think. Whatever they are.

EDIT: sorry, microtubules. I'm getting the wrong jargon.

Definitions are over-rated. — unenlightened

I think he is as much asking for a theory of evil as a definition. Although exploring what people mean by the word is interesting in this case. Definition and theory blend I think with this concept.

@Apokrisis,

I read Pattee's Cell Phenomenology: The First Experience

It was interesting. Have you looked at that one?

The following is a description of what I think is the most valid framework for modeling consciousness that currently exists. Tell me what you think! — Enrique

I've never really understood it, but I haven't tried to study it in earnest. Whatever its merits, I don't think it can be a 'paradigm'. The field of consciousness studies is too fractured and divergent to have any paradigms as yet. A paradigm is a kind of wide reaching set of assumptions that is nearly universally accepted. We're nowhere near that with consciousness. Although many people seem to be convinced that biology is relevant.

This is how the science of life and mind is actually going. — apokrisis

This is the statement of a priest.

I could go either way. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Noted, but what do you think of the reputation system?

↪180 Proof Placebos do require faith. Without it they don't work
— Janus
This one. — 180 Proof

10/10
Let the faithless behold! That's made my day. :)

Here we go. 180 is about to clear things up and resolve a miscommunication. Let's see how he does. :) Get your score cards out.

And you can't say that we are morally valuable because we are made of meat, because the meat itself is not morally valuable absent a mind inhabiting it. — Bartricks

What about functionalism? If a mind is a lump of meat functioning in a particular way, lumps of functioning meat can be valuable without there being any immaterial objects. I'm just going with your assumptions again here. I'm not a functionalist, but you haven't adequately dealt with actual materialist theories of mind here.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus

I consider myself a theist, but I doubt if people who knew my views would call me a theist.

I'm a theist because I think, on balance, some of the reports of religious experience/insight by others is likely true. There's no certainty there of course.

I think the most foolish of people are very often religious (more so than typical atheists), but I also think the ones that seem to be the most insightful are also religious, again, moreso than typical atheists. These are general impressions of course, and again there's no certainty, but they are very influential to me. I'm not willing to write off people's views by lazily saying they fear death, or it's wishful thinking, or any of the other psychological maladies that they are thoughtlessly diagnosed with, en masse.

I was influenced by a particular philosopher who pretty much persuaded me (I never met him, I just read his stuff) that some kind of theism was likely true. I was an atheist before that. I think quite a lot of what he said was likely just wrong, but much of it I find sound.

I'm a panpsychist. By itself, that is irrelevant to theism. But theism at least involves the idea that consciousness is present at the start, or even before the start of the universe if you think in those terms (and yes I know south of the south pole blah blah - I won't get into that now). So theism is, as a metaphysical position, at least involves the view that consciousness is not emergent. And panpsychism is the antithesis of emergentism in relation to consciousness. For me, this opens the door to theism, but not all of it indiscriminately. It does not follow from the fact that because atoms are conscious we therefore have to hate fags. That's nuts, obviously. It's why I don't like aligning myself with religious folks. I hate the bastards mostly. And I don't think most of them actually believe in anything in particular - they have neither insight, intellectual justification, nor any clear idea of what they believe. So I don't think most theists are actually theists at all. I don't think religious texts have much philosophical import, relevance or worth, at least from what I have seen (and I am no expert). However I think it possible they contain, in places, intuited wisdom and insight. There are babies in the bathwater that I don't want to murder, and am suspicious of indiscriminate anti-religious sentiment.

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence?

Because I'm a philosopher by nature. I'm not a mystic, alas. I can't talk to God on my inner telephone, at least not yet. I'm not a romantic artist receiving divine inspiration, alas. I see no hand of God in the natural world, except as a result of my philosophical panpsychism. I'm a rather plodding stick-in-the-mud philosopher. And figuring out this stuff rationally is what I do, because it's the only thing I can do. I have to get inspiration and insight second hand for the most part. I don't 'just know' God, I don't think. But I do accept that some other people might.

Peirce & Dewey, Popper & Witty, for example, don't equate 'useful' with 'truth' (that's a vulgar form of pragmatism associated with William James or Richard Rorty IIRC). Metaphysical, like methodological, positions (e.g. materialism) aren't truth-apt or theoretical explanations, but are, instead, conceptual descriptions, interpretations or procedural criteria. So yeah, philosophy itself is "a very low bar" – anyone can "have" one to live by – the significance of which, however, consists in a combination of its relevant questions' rigour and probity. — 180 Proof

Any of the opinions expressed here would make a good debate subject.

Yes; but useful (self-consistent) or useless (not self-consistent) is more like it. — 180 Proof

Useful is a very low bar to clear for any position. Even self-contradictory positions might be useful from time to time. Unless you mean 'useful' in the more technical context of pragmatism.

"Is the useful, the true?" might be a good debate topic.

I challenge Wayfarer to affirm the proposition (or very close to it): "Both philosophical and scientific materialisms are fallacious" in a formal debate against either myself or someone else in opposition to the proposition.

Materialism of either sort is a position, not an argument. It can be true or false, but not valid or fallacious.

I think three options might be good, and not anonymous. 'Agree', 'disagree', and 'I don't understand this post'.

Then I promise to never like your posts. — Michael

Oh, dear. I've changed my mind. I want you to like them!

I'm not sure I want people to like my posts.

I was brought up by a devoutly Catholic mother, educated in a working class mostly immigrant Catholic grammar school and then an elite Catholic high school, served mass as an altarboy from 2nd through 12th grade, and lastly considered the priesthood as a religious studies honors student. When I was a believer I'd sincerely believed I'd believed.

However, I gave up "God" for Lent during 11th grade after acknowledging that the Bible was unbelievable (both "too good" and "too bad" to be true), that the history of its making and ecclesiastical uses was largely dishonest, corrupting, overtly political, and finally recognizing that I'd never "truly believed" after all but only that I had merely conformed. I'd discovered that I could no long defend the indefensible on the basis of believing the unbelievable. That was 41 years ago, and I've been a freethinker ever since.

NB: The classic arguments in defense of (mono)theism are among the best arguments against 'theism as such' and the few theists who are also cogent, careful, thinkers whom I've ever encountered are uncomfortably aware of this. At the end of the day, they (must) lean heavily on "faith" to "justify" their fact-free beliefs (superstitions). — 180 Proof

@180 Proof, I've been slagging off your posting style quite a bit recently. I think it obscures the points you want to make. This post, however, is an exemplar of clear transparent prose. It's still economical, but not compressed into a zip file.

Like in the last forum, it will be used as an 'I agree with that' button. Or a 'yeah you show that dickhead' button. It won't indicate quality particularly. Just how popular the things you say are.

What is the point? — SteveMinjares

Because it's a philosophy forum, and whether or not God is real is an important philosophical question.

No agriculture

I think it's getting a bit better. It's a shame Hanover picked substance dualism to defend as it's an awfully easy target. Not that 180's done a very good job of tackling it. The simple question "What's your solution to the interaction problem?" could have saved a few pages.

I'm sure you're both right. My objection is to philosophical literature generally, I was just picking on Spinoza for fun. Philosophy is usually painful to read, at least for me. Hume and Berkeley are exceptions perhaps.

Talking of Hume, his ethical writings are really good. Simple and insightful. Forget what it's called now. I'll recommend that to the op when I remember what it is.

Rather than dismiss one of the greatest works of philosophy, it would be more sensible and modest to ask the question of why a book titled "Ethics" seems not to be about ethics. Rather and assume the text is wanting, perhaps it is your own understand of the text that is wanting. — Fooloso4

There may be truckloads of inspiring ethics, cautiously and diligently arrived at by means of his painstaking philosophical method. However as they are likely to be expounded near the conclusion of the book, and no one (sane) has read that far, they remain obscure. It would be a rash gamble to invest the decades it would take to find out.

Don't whatever you do read Spinoza's Ethics. It has no ethics in it.

ignoring warnings — Baden

That's the important one IMO. A process was followed. Members are lucky there is a process at all, and even luckier there are volunteer mods to enforce it. There needn't be.

In a way this thread is an antidote to several threads started by theists on the forum seeking, perhaps duplicitously but certainly without success, positive arguments from atheists for their view. — Banno

I'd like to take this opportunity to put my position to alleviate some of my discomfort. I am a quasi-theist, I believe for philosophical reasons, but I want to distance myself from many of the other theists on this forum and in the wider world generally. Spiritually, I'm an atheist if you will. If I had to choose to spend the rest of my life stuck in a pub, I'd generally rather spend it with atheists. I agree with most of the arguments against theism, and think nearly all the arguments for it are bollocks, at least without very heavy modification. Typically (and I generalise - apologies to those civilised theists) my political and moral views tend to align with humanists, ecologists, liberals, and lefties. On this forum the people I argue with the most are those whose metaphysics and philosophy of mind I disagree with, and these also tend to be the people whose moral and political views I agree with. Banno for example, 180, street, jorndoe, all the people I find most annoying philosophically (and editorially actually). In real life, it's the moral and political views that matter. I find it intensely uncomfortable that some of the most obnoxious and ignorant attitudes tend to go along with religious belief. Sorry, there's no philosophy here. I just wanted to say that.

180 crashed another debate into the ground.

What a shit 'debate'

More generally, I'm not sure God is too bothered about dignity. You need to have pride for that don't you? Maybe They understands that people have pride, and don't want to be watched, and so in Their Mercy They don't Watch. I think we need to use capitals more for the non-binary God so as not to mock Them too much. But you need Eyes to Watch. But God has no Eyes on pain of being visible and spatio-temporally Located. Jesus could do some watching but only a few people for a short time. So for God to do some Watching, it would have to be in some other way. Oh, Theology is hard.

Is that Banno passing over in silence what cannot be spoken of? Or did he just delete a post?

For a true proposition to qualify as an item of knowledge it needs to be justified. For a true proposition to be justified is for there to be a normative reason to believe it. — Bartricks

Epistemic justification is not the same thing as moral justification, at least prima facie. You have a sort of is-ought problem here.

I dissent from most of the assumptions in the OP but you seemed to want to offer these as given which I'm happy to follow. It's fun to look at validity anyway.

Also I'm interested in how and why people select the 'omnis' that they do. I'm used to the idea that there are three: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. I don't normally bother with omnibenevolence as that follows from G's omnipotence anyway, although that depends on a theory of the good, namely that the good is that which is willed. Why do people, you in this case, often skip omnipresence?