When someone asks if you’re awake (conscious) do you tell them your state of mind? No, you answer affirmatively. If someone asks how you’re feeling do you say, “I feel conscious.”? — praxis

Whenever you talk about consciousness, the fact that different people mean different things by the word always gets in the way.

Not particularly philosophical, — Michael Zwingli

Great poem. Plenty philosophical. Even if it weren't, there's always leeway for a good poem.

Think how it wakes the seeds—
Woke, once, the clays of a cold star. — Michael Zwingli

Love it. Love it. Love it.

I've known enough painters, sculptors and writers to understand that often they are producing works without having the slightest idea why choices are made - it may well be all about their own suppressed childhood or traumas but this may not be known to them or readily obvious in the work. — Tom Storm

I don't think it reflects anything pathological. I'm a really verbal person, not particularly visual. I'm pretty good at explaining my decisions, feelings, imaginings, etc... There are a lot of people who are just not that way. I would imagine that many visual artists and musicians are not very self-aware in a verbal way. Many of them are probably also not good with words. On the other hand, they see and hear things I never do.

Not sure how that works exactly. — Antony Nickles

In my experience, if you come across it on the page, you get the most recent version. If you follow a link to your name, you get the version that was current when it was first saved. If you add a mention to a post later, the person mentioned doesn't get a notice.

As you probably know, Paul Tillich, one of the most influential Christian thinkers of the 20th century, used this term 'ground of being' to describe god. — Tom Storm

I've come across the phrase in a few different contexts. I probably heard it first from Alan Watts. As I said, I'm not sure it is any better a definition than any of the others, I just find it satisfying. It gets at what I mean when I say "reality."

This is an interesting and well-written discussion.

Is it possible to give a rigorous definition of 'reality'? — Cidat

I don't know if I'd call this rigorous, but I find it very satisfying - the ground of being. It's what's all the way at the bottom when you've swept everything else away. It's a term sometimes used to describe the indescribable Tao.

It brings to mind an Emerson quote, emphasis added: — James Riley

Is that from one of his essays? Which?

I definitely recommend the second one, Gormenghast, but the third is non-essential and really not of a piece with the first two. — jamalrob

I loved "Titus Groan," but I'm surprised I finished it. Luckily, about a quarter of the way in, something grabbed me by the collar and dragged me the rest of the way through. Really odd, but wonderful. I've been trying to get up the nerve to read "Gormenghast."

Just so you know, there is a rule for books identified as "classics" - you get just as much credit for reading short easy-to-read ones as for the difficult ones. I recommend "Heart of Darkness." Mr. Pynchon, he dead.

I guess we're back to that familiar aphorism - "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like." I personally am comfortable with this even though I recognize there is a universe of contested critical assessment and theory (much of it tedious and doctrinaire) available to us to ponder over. The shorthand 'I know what I like' doesn't mean you need to limit yourself to decorative works that you find pretty. It means that you know when you are having an aesthetic experience that you appreciate - it might be confronting, exciting, shocking, captivating. — Tom Storm

There are things I like and things I know are high quality. Some of the things I like I like because they are high quality. Some of the things I like I like in spite of the fact that I know they are not high quality, e.g. Velveeta, Twizzlers, "I'm Henery the 8th I am" by Herman's Hermits. Some of the things I don't like I don't like in spite of the fact I know they are high quality, e.g. most jazz, most rap.

None of this is an argument against anything you've written. I think I'm trying to fit my own experience into your framework.

I edited the OP to correct the confusion. — TheMadFool

When I was a psych major long, long ago, I remember reading about computer generated therapy. Here is a link to a program created back in the 1960s. Pretty limited, but apparently some people couldn't tell that it was computer generated.

http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/psych101/eliza.htm

Turing principle — TheMadFool

When I look up "Turing principle" it discusses the computability of functions. I don't think that's what you're talking about. What do you mean specifically?

So, what's your take? Do you think the Turing principle (identity of indiscernibles) is justified/unjustified? — TheMadFool

As I noted, the so-called "identity of indiscernibles" is central to my beliefs. So, yes, the Turing test is a reasonable way to see consciousness. And there's an even broader principle. As William James wrote:

Pragmatism asks its usual question. "Grant an idea or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true make in anyone's actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What, in short, is the truth's cash-value in experiential terms?

Not only are two things the same if you can't tell them apart, they're the same if there is no practical, meaningful, concrete difference between them or their consequences.

I avoided including p-zombies in the OP because I wanted to focus on the Turing principle. — TheMadFool

I'm mostly interested in the broad principle you described, what you call the "identity of indescernibles," rather than the specific examples, i.e. P-zombies and the Turing test. It pops up all the time, e.g. different interpretations of quantum mechanics or the existence of universes outside our own.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz's the principle of the identity of indiscernibles which, unlike its converse, the principle of the indiscernibility of identicals, is, last I checked, controversial. — TheMadFool

What you call "the identity of indiscernables," a phrase I hadn't heard before, is a central one to how I see the world. If you can't tell the difference, there is no difference. Both the Turing test and the P-zombie apocalypse are good tests of the principle.

He's got a point though (just kidding). — frank

I'll have you know that my dim witted consciousness is very large minded.

resort to name calling and an attack on character. — Pop

I did not call any names or comment on your character. I wrote about the "pompous, smug, condescending attitude with which you present and repeat, and repeat, and repeat them without addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you."

You, on the other hand, have talked about my "small minded dim witted consciousness."

which is troubling; it makes consciousness seem less meaningful. — AJJ

I think making consciousness seem less meaningful is probably a good thing. Right now it's hard to talk about it reasonably because people approach the subject with the sense that it is somehow weird or magical. That consciousness doesn't fit in with the rest of our understanding of the world. That we need special explanations.

observation holds no bearing over the fact that P-zombies are not truly intelligent therefore lack consciousness. — AlienFromEarth

I disagree. The only way for us to determine whether an organism other than ourselves is self-conscious or not is through watching their behavior, including language. There is no difference between an organism which is self-conscious and one that appears self-conscious but is not unless we can observe a difference, either physical or behavioral.

Only conscious organisms possess true intelligence. — AlienFromEarth

From Wikipedia:

A philosophical zombie or p-zombie argument is a thought experiment in philosophy of mind that imagines a hypothetical being that is physically identical to and indistinguishable from a normal person but does not have conscious experience, qualia, or sentience. For example, if a philosophical zombie were poked with a sharp object it would not inwardly feel any pain, yet it would outwardly behave exactly as if it did feel pain, including verbally expressing pain.

An unself-conscious and unaware organism that acts as if it's self-conscious and aware in a way that cannot be detected either physically or by observing its behavior is conscious and aware.

46 billion ly is the radius(of the observable universe) — Vince

Fixed. Thanks.

If so, then my problem with you is that you seem to mistake your opinions for something of worth. Your opinions are just noise without substance, you provide no argument whatsoever. — Pop

As I pointed out, my problem isn't with your opinions, although they are clearly wrong. My problem is with the pompous, smug, condescending attitude with which you present and repeat, and repeat, and repeat them without addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you.

To actually reveal his consciousness we would somehow have to be able to be in Clarks mind and experience his consciousness. — praxis

Wait, that can't be right. If it were, that would mean my opinions are art, wouldn't it?

Still no argument. Still no substance. — Pop

I explained my ideas about art back in the beginning of the thread. I read your ideas but disagreed with them. I didn't respond because I thought others addressed your arguments effectively. When they did, all you did was repeat and repeat your litany - "a scientific, irreducible, and falsifiable definition of art."

My problem isn't with your ideas, although I disagree with them. It is the pompous, smug, condescending attitude with which you present and repeat, and repeat, and repeat them without addressing the arguments of those who disagree with you.

So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. — Pop

Neither do you represent the opinion of the forum, nor have you provided an argument — Pop

You gloat that people don't understand or agree with your ideas, then crow that the forum supports you.

I can see that your poetry is heart-felt and sincere. It's romantic, which is fine. It is also philosophical, as the OP specifies. But it is not good poetry.

So it is a communication of consciousness to consciousness and what is exchanged is information, but just like the information communicated in this forum, so little of it gels. :lol: — Pop

Alas, arrogance unmatched by intellectual content. Your ideas have been deservedly rejected by most members of the forum. Most people would take that as a sign to rethink their position. Anyone unwilling to face the fact that their positions might not be correct or not the only way of seeing things cannot truly considered a philosopher, or even an intelligent thinker.

What information where you referring to? I didn't see a link. — schopenhauer1

I was referring to Pentagruel's post up above. Here's the link again.

@schopenhauer1 @Antinatalist

I don't know if you saw this, but I thought you might be interested. It is not the same argument you guys use, but it's similar. I found it more convincing.

Disappointing we seem to have a stalemate so soon. — Jerry

Not a stalemate, a disagreement. Judgement of the significance of human accomplishment is a question of values, not fact. People are important to me, but that doesn't mean I think they have any cosmic significance.

I think that there is, in some either cosmic or objective sense, something significant about what we're able to do. — Jerry

Hm, seems like I'm just reiterating at this point, but what I would like to hear is a little more on how either we aren't exceptional (some more argumentation against the claims I've made or support for your own) — Jerry

I have no further argument for my point. Some of what humanity has done is really cool, but it just doesn't seem like that big a deal in a cosmic, objective context. To me, it certainly is not significant enough to suggest that a creator is necessary. There are a lot of organisms in the world. Humanity is just one more. We're important because we think we're important. I guess that's evolution too. We've not only evolved big brains, we've also evolved an over-blown sense of our own importance.

So I ask, what is the reason for this vast discrepancy between us and all else in our world? — Jerry

This is a well-thought-out and interesting post. Welcome to the forum.

As for your question, I don't think it is true that

we also seem inconceivably beyond the scope of our local planet. We can launch ourselves from the atmosphere, control particles to our whims, and capture the universe in a picture, a far cry from even the most impressive feats of the animal kingdom. — Jerry

We've barely left our planet. If I remember correctly, it was only recently that an unmanned spacecraft left the official boundaries of our solar system. Electromagnetic signals from our technology have only traveled a little more than 100 light years in a universe that is 46 93 billion light years across. The things humanity has done may have had more of an impact on the planet than most other organisms, but what we have accomplished only seems significant to our own self-fascinated eyes.

We are only important in our own eyes. I don't think that's an argument against God, but I also don't see that it's an argument in favor.

What I meant is - the definition is not opinion. — Pop

And what I meant is that we've taken this discussion as far as we can.

Mine is not opinion. Is 1+1 opinion? It is logical fact, as opposed to your opinion. — Pop

Nuff said.

Even before language was created - before humanity possessed language? — Pop

I don't know when the language ability developed in humanity or its predecessors. I also don't know when people first started using language.

All the rest is noise and opinion. — Pop

Of course it's opinion. Do you think your thoughts are somehow something somehow grander than your opinion? The definition you've provided is not a good one. People have been explaining why they think that since the thread started. You have not defended your position well. It doesn't work to just repeat yourself over and over.

It is not possible to make art without expressing your consciousness.
Something I keep repeating every few posts, but not many seem to get it. — Pop

We get it, we just don't think it is a useful way of characterizing or defining art. People have been saying this to you ever since this thread started. People have explained their objections, but all you do is keep repeating yourself. There are three possibilities 1) You have not done a good enough job explaining yourself 2) You're wrong or 3) There's more than one reasonable and defensible way to define art.

Language is not socially derived. That is, the means to speak. Of course the specific language is. And of course one needs social intercourse for speaking. — Khalif

I think you're right.

You are implying intuition comes after and or is dependent upon socially acquired concepts? This may be true. — Yohan

I think you're running up against the problem that you haven't defined "intuition" very well. Concepts are words. You don't need words to think. Brand new infants think. They're not waiting for us to pour something in their tank before they can start grinding the grain. I think I mixed metaphors.

Your entire Op is informational structure. The words that you use represent concepts that are entirely socially derived. Without this socially derived informational structure, what sort of intuition would you posses at all? — Pop

I have tried to imagine a consciousness before language and society, and there is not really much there without those socially derived concepts. — Pop

It is pretty well established that the structural elements of language are innate. They are present from birth. Genetic and/or epigenetic. Babies are not blank slates. The same seems to be true of other cognitive elements, e.g. number and moral judgements. I think your intuition about how babies think and learn is not correct.