To be sure, there is a difference between being non-conscious and being conscious. But between things that are conscious, what would make something "more" conscious than another thing?

As far as I can tell the only difference would be in amount of consciousness, that is to say, the size of the set of things that one is aware of. "Transcending to a higher degree of consciousness" can only mean a change in the contents of consciousness. — darthbarracuda

Yes, that's my view I think. The content of consciousness admits of degree, but consciousness itself does not - you are either aware of something not aware at all (and perhaps aware of nothing). Perhaps there are three useful conceptual categories, aware of something, aware of nothing (but still aware), and not aware at all. I regularly revisit this topic to see what people think as it's the main question I'm interested in in philosophy.

If we accept for the sake of argument, that the brain is a computationally universal physical structure, like Babbage's Analytic Engine, or a PC, then anything the brain can do, so can these other objects. The implication of this is that consciousness cannot be a material property, or be associated with any particular physics. — tom

There is an assumption of functionalism here, that consciousness is something a brain (or whatever) does. We're not all functionalists, and functionalism hasn't been shown.

I think nine times of out ten, sides of a debate are not ‘wrong’; it’s much worse: they are ‘not even wrong’; the game itself is broken from the very beginning: the set of possible moves needs to itself be rejigged. — StreetlightX

I think you are wrong. Can you give an example of this? Presumably you mean more than just misunderstandings caused by different implicit assumptions concepts and definitions - that's just the normal stuff of debate that often takes a while to explicate.

I hope you are wrong, because this kind of attitude drives me up the wall. Apo does it. Mars Man did it. (There are others I disagreed with like Death Monkey and Reincarnated who didn't do it.) "I won't engage with what you are trying to say until you adopt my vocabulary, concepts, rules, definitions. Of course, when you these things you will naturally see the light anyway and our disagreement will dissolve."

It makes debate about power rather than ideas and truth. It's who can seize the rule book first. "No! It's my debate, not yours. We do it MY way!"

What a nice question. Defining these things in the abstract is not without difficulty. I'm not sure that we can define 'feeling' in any other ways than by synonym (e.g. experience, knowledge, consciousness-of-something, etc) and invitation to internally reflect on what these words mean, although once grasped I think the concept is one of the easiest ones to understand. 'Activity' is easier to define as it is much more public. I suppose we might say activity is, in the most general terms, any change initiated by a conscious object. Will that do?

I'm interested in the relationship between activity and feeling. As a panpsychist I've come to the view that things do what they do because of how they feel, and they feel what they feel because of what they do. That seems true of me, at least. I eat because I feel hungry. I feel pain because I stuck my foot in a hole.

Being, or identity, is perhaps linked to repeated pattern of behaviour. I'm a human being because the matter of my body persists in behaving in a way that preserves a persistent form and function over time. I'm a footballer because I play football every day. Once I stop doing these things, my being changes.

Granting the religious assumptions of the OP, I think the solution to the paradox is to be found in the immanence of God. Our own horror of death and will to preserve the vehicle of our experience is nothing other than God's will to explore the possibilities of finitude, to struggle and develop in a way that an omnipotent being cannot do.

The UNCRPD is definitely considered an authority and 177 countries have ratified it. So far only Ireland has yet incorporated it into law. It is influential in court judgements in the UK at least. The UK is committed to incorporating into UK law. It was in the Labour manifesto to do it. Tories are avoiding it.

The disconnection of mental capacity from legal capacity should of course not be absolute or reckless. It has been suggested that one sensible way to be UNCRPD compliant is for an extremely incapacitous adult to at least retain the right to sack their decision-maker, even if they have all other decisions made on their behalf. This would only be in the most extreme cases in which supported decision making were not possible.

Your converse point about holding incapacitous people responsible is an interesting one. Again, the actual system adopted should be a sensible one. A court having the power to hold an incapacitous person fully accountable does not mean they have the duty to. And I would expect that in nearly all cases it would not.

The practical solution is found through the Golden Rule: "How can I act in a way that I would want others to act towards me?". The golden rule is directly derived from justice, because it demonstrates an equal treatment between yourself and others. — Samuel Lacrampe

Sure, but why would I follow such a rule? I would only follow it if I valued it. I will only act justly if I value justice. The value of justice must come from a subject mustn't it? If the value of justice is objective, how can it connect to what I do? Why would such objective values matter to me, or indeed to any subject?

I can't think of a philosophical way to disprove this, and creating an experimental conditions whereby we could even tell if mental states change without brain states relevantly changing seems mind-buggeringly hard.

Mind you, as supervenience is compatible with all theories for the mind except perhaps the most extreme of substance dualisms, then this is not a problem that worries me.

(4) If the criteria to evaluate the moral value of an act is justice, and justice is objective, then morality is objective. — Samuel Lacrampe

One human problem is 'What will I do?' Does your conclusion provide a practical solution?

Maybe this is a bit boring of a thought, but I find it interesting that there are no mentions of classifying these theories of normative ethics as descriptive ones (unless I just made an obvious and huge mistake somewhere there?). — BlueBanana

I've had exactly your thought a few times and I haven't seen it expressed anywhere else. Not that I read any philosophy these days.

Isn't it mental capacity that distinguishes the child from the adult and therefore limits the child's right to vote? — Hanover

i don't think so. An incapacitous 35 year old is not a child.

The UNCRPD section 12 distinguishes mental capacity from legal capacity, saying (in other words) that the lack of mental capacity shall not be grounds to remove legal capacity. So far only the Republic of Ireland is fully compliant with section 12 (in Europe anyway, not sure about elsewhere).

Th acquisition of legal capacity is a recognition of adulthood, regardless of how well people understand the world they live in. Being non-disabled is no bar to being an ignorant vote-savaging twat in any case. I'd happily be ruled by a bunch of bipolar people.

'Theism' as it is used in Philosophy of Religion is the view that there is one supreme, perfect being who exists separately from the world, who is the creator and sustainor of the universe, who is conscious to the degree of being all-knowing; who is all-powerful, all and ever present, eternal, unchanging, existing necessarily, dependent of nothing else. In addition, Theism maintains that this being, who is called "God", loves and is concerned about humanity. — Mitchell

Panpsychism can result in more or less this view. Substance, if sentient (as some versions of panpsychism hold) entails a kind of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. Substance, in so far as it is not its modes, is unchanging and eternal and dependent on nothing else. The trouble is then separating this view from all the nasty baggage that unfortunately often comes with a religious view. Sprigge said he wanted to take the superstition out of religion and I concur.

EDIT: The big difference, of course, is that substance obviously is not separate from the world. If theism has that in its definition then I'm not a theist.

Panpsychism is one philosophical route to a kind of theism. I consider myself a theist but I don't follow any particular religion in a recognisable way. I think substance is personal, aware, wilful,intentional and demonstrably so, not that many agree with me. That's close enough to a god to merit calling it theism, perhaps.

Ask if your neighbour has a spare room. :)

That was superb, thank you for the link. Very relevant to my work.

But it’s not until those activities are integrated into a meaningful unity, that it becomes an experience; and the faculty that performs that integration is not known to science. That is not hyperbole - it’s an aspect of the neural binding problem. — Wayfarer

Yes, I think this is a good reason to think that consciousness is not a property of anything by virtue of its differentiated structure. I think the binding problem is a strong reason to think consciousness is a property of reality-as-continuum.

So drill down to the root of being and - if existence is pure individuation - then the ur-stuff is the radically unindividuated. The Apeiron. — apokrisis

I'm a panpsychist who agrees with this conception of substance. If I understand you, of course, which I probably don't.

I'd really like to know if Hanover managed to make a paypal payment. I'm already stressed and tired and it would be one thing off my mind.

I'd hazard that most philosophers tend towards submissiveness.

I care about what women generally are or aren't.

EDIT: Well, I care much more about what particular women are or aren't, but general information is still interesting and perhaps useful.

Have you talked with her about you taking a parental role? Would she want that? The tricky thing is, however in need she might be of some parents, you aren't one. But you might be able to be something else, legally, like a guardian or support worker or something. I don't know what the social care setup is where you live, but maybe you could even get paid for taking some responsibility. When does she become responsible for herself? When she's 18? Who are the legal guardians at the moment? Are you able to talk to her social worker? Is she a ward of the state? Is the arrangement of living with you an informal one? Whatever the case it sounds to me like you might be her best option if you can hack it.

A great example is the idea of "God" or "supernatural". Those ideas have so many implications that most people ignore that they end up having an inconsistent world view, and if your world view is inconsistent, and you don't give a damn that it's inconsistent, then what is the point of discussing anything with you? — Harry Hindu

Could you give an example of someone having a belief in something supernatural that leads them to an inconsistency with other beliefs that you think they would probably have?

It's generally taken for granted that physical things exist and everything else has to prove its existence. — The Great Whatever

Yes, I think that's about right. But I'm not sure what physicalists think non-physical things are, except the set of things that don't exist. I suspect that when the existence of a non-physical thing (like a ghost or a number or a law) is 'proven' (by some standard) it is declared to be physical after all. Which is fine but that just renders physicalism a non-interesting all-encompassing monism.

In the context of philosophy of mind, I think physicalism is emergentism. That consciousness is dependent on complex structure and function, and that non-conscious structure and function exists (ontologically and temporally) prior to consciousness. Emergentism is a better word as it better captures what I think physicalists want to claim.

If it could know it is in a particular state, then what stops it knowing anything? — tom

I don't know. It's not necessary to know one is having an experience in order to have an experience is it?

Do dogs experience hunger do you think?

There is no evidence, nor reason to suppose animals have consciousness. — tom

I usually attribute some kind of feeling akin to excitement or pleasure to a dog when it wags its tail and jumps around in circles. Do you think that is unreasonable?

Single celled organisms? Awareness? — tom

What is your explanation of the behaviour of, say, an amoeba?

Has anyone ever reported being a dolphin in a human body to the extent that they want surgery? If someone actually did, and we respected that, s/he wouldn't be eligible for the Olympics because s/he would be a dolphin.

Panpsychics have no clue how the subjectivity imputed to individual fundamental particles might combine to form the unified subjectivity of a person. — tom

It's certainly a good question. I do think there are possible answers though. I do not agree with the IIT theory of consciousness, but it might be a very good theory of what determines the complexity of a conscious individual, and also determines what separates one individual from another. A theory of mental identity, I guess. So the answer would be that there is only one consciousness, as there is only one substance (and one version of panpsychism is that substance is conscious) but mental individuals are distinguished by what they are aware of, and this is determined by the local differences in how much information is integrated in different parts of the universe. I probably haven't explained that very well, I'm in a hurry.

I feel so guilty after I know myself that I have to do it again for punishment. After a while it becomes a very slippery slope.

How did you form your maybe just maybe opinion Hanover?

I am well aware of what a Ds relationship can look like and I said "IF" he was craving/looking for in a sexual experience not that he WAS craving/looking for a sexual experience. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Well, I'm jolly glad we understand each other. :)

This is the best plan of action or non action that I have read you say in this whole thread. Hanover's guidance is priceless, listen to what he is saying. My feeling is that if dominance is something you are craving/looking for in a sexual experience, which is very normal, then hire it for yourself. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Nah, his advice isn't very good. Better not to hire if you don't need to, and not all DS relationships involve sex.

Plank's Length — Banno

Indeed. I do not see the relevance of being 5'11", unless as part of an argument to say that Max Planck was infinitely tall or something, or couldn't grow, and was born fully formed.

Some of you scare me and wonder what philosophy has taught you. — Question

One thing that philosophy has taught me is that we only start to think when we stop getting what we want.

I identify with you I think. But you know your situation better than I do. I suppose I partly want to give you permission to do what you want. Sometimes that's what people are looking for, even from a stranger.

"Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires." William Blake - The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

Dominant women are rare. Let her have a go on you. I was toyed with by a dominant woman for a while. It was great. Didn't come to anything unfortunately. You might be luckier. :)

EDIT: I'd like to add that this was one of the most profound, formative and important experiences of my life.

I could, I suppose, list the various differences between plants and people in order to point out how the former lacks the behavioral manifestations of consciousness, but I'd not be proving anything that isn't already fully accepted, and I don't feel like performing a mindless academic task. — Hanover

I actually think this would be an interesting exercise. I struggle to maintain the distinction that apparently seems so clear to you, namely between behaviour which is evidence of consciousness and behaviour which is not. I'd be very interested in your method for placing a behaviour in one category or the other.

There be dragons. — jamalrob

Dragons with victim mentalities

What andrewk said. A post is less ambiguous. A downvote could mean a number of different things: 'badly written', 'I don't like you', 'I disagree with what you say but I like you anyway', 'you're a cunt', 'I downvote all your posts as a matter of policy because you are Mars Man' (I plead guilty to this one), 'I don't understand what you are trying to say', 'I am offended by this but don't understand that I should be reporting it as offensive rather than downvoting it' etc etc...

Pillars of Eternity is what I'm playing now. Very good it is.

Other fave games:
Baldur's Gate
Master of Orion 2
Battle for Wesnoth
Total Annihilation

I'd be Bitter Crank in that case instead. — Terrapin Station

So you could be Bitter Crank, at least logically, or perhaps grammatically. You've just said so.