Consciousness question

[Iacchus]

I said it wasn't conscious, under the most common definitions of the word. It satisfies some of the characteristics of consciousness, but not enough to put it in that class. Fire satisfies some of the characteristics of life, but not enough to call it alive.

So, does anyone agree that there can be no consciousness without structure?

 

[Mercutio]

LOL. So if you learned that "conscious" means "relating to convicts" then that is a "correct" definition? No, you must put aside metaphorical usages of the word when trying to discuss it scientifically.

But you cannot ignore the way we use the word. A scientific use of the word must either be defined specifically and independently of common use (e.g., "positive punishment" in behaviorism, completely separate from what that phrase might mean to you and Mrs. Tricky), or--if it purports to examine the phrase we actually use in our language--it must define it as it is used. You can define something away, if you try to; all you have achieved is answering a question that was never asked.

Depends on how skilled you are. If the definition of a thing must include all the characteristics of a thing, then you will kill a lot of frogs trying to define one, and you still will never have all its characteristics. At some point, you have to say, "this is enough to identify it", and even then be aware that you may have to correct yourself later.

An ethologist would suggest that you could also study frogs as they live in their environment. It answers different questions than dissection does, but then, dissection cannot be expected to give answers to those questions. The living frog, and the living language, must be studied as they actually interact with their environment. Put your scalpel away, Trixie.

But only an idiot would define "flying" that way, or else, I was "flying" my wife while she was tied up last night.

You may well have been; I wasn't there. You and I both know that feathers were intended to be a necessary, but not sufficient, part of that definition. But...my best to Mrs. Trixie anyway. With feathers, even.

Of course not. In fact, by this definition, viruses are not alive. But it is reasonably complete, given that we don't have any examples of non-terrestrial life to help us refine the definition.

By other definitions, viruses are alive; by yet others, some entities which exist only within computer programs are alive. By still others, a language is alive.

Lines can be drawn, but they can also be redrawn.

Every snowflake is unique, but we do not confuse snowflakes with feathers. The definitions we use work well as we use them. It is when we stretch them, or ask them to do things they have never done before ("the moment", anyone?) that they balk, and refuse to obey us...gee, it is as if they have minds of their own...

 

[Mercutio]

So, does anyone agree that there can be no consciousness without structure?

I agree that your question is meaningless.

 

[cpolk]

Oh really? Then why is everyone so afraid of the religious fundamentalists?

Hahaha!

I guess because... let's take an apple. If we were discussing apples, and I called it a "potato", you wouldn't understand what I was talking about - until I showed it to you, and then you'd know that when I say "potato", you know I'm talking about an apple. What we call it does not change the fruit.

Same way the word "Football" may apply to different games depending on your region. What we call it does not change the game.

Religion, however, has nothing to show. So, they keep saying "potato", and we keep saying, "What?"

 

[Iacchus]

Hahaha!

I guess because... let's take an apple. If we were discussing apples, and I called it a "potato", you wouldn't understand what I was talking about - until I showed it to you, and then you'd know that when I say "potato", you know I'm talking about an apple. What we call it does not change the fruit.

Or, I could start a holy war as a result (based upon my interpretation that is) and ruin everyone's reality.

 

[Iacchus]

I agree that your question is meaningless.

And would you also agree that there is no ultimate meaning in the Universe? So, at what point does one differentiate between what is ultimate and what is "local?"

 

[Mercutio]

And would you also agree that there is no ultimate meaning in the Universe?

I would agree that this is yet another meaningless question.


Until you explain how the word "ultimate" works in that sentence, it has no meaning.

If you define "meaning" as you have in the past, it is circular.


Would you care to rephrase the question to make it meaningful?

 

[Iacchus]

I would agree that this is yet another meaningless question.

Which is to say it doesn't coincide with your world view? This is all I can gather from this.

 

[cpolk]

Or, I could start a holy war as a result (based upon my interpretation that is) and ruin everyone's reality.

LOL Yeah, I guess you could, but eventually people on my side will see your "apples" and people on your side would see my "potatoes" and realize that fruit isn't worth fighting over.

 

[Mercutio]

Which is to say it doesn't coincide with your world view?

No. Independently of this, your question is meaningless.

This is all I can gather from this.

That does not surprise me.

 

[Mercutio]

LOL Yeah, I guess you could, but eventually people on my side will see your "apples" and people on your side would see my "potatoes" and realize that fruit isn't worth fighting over.

Optimist.

Or were you being ironic?

 

[Iacchus]

LOL Yeah, I guess you could, but eventually people on my side will see your "apples" and people on your side would see my "potatoes" and realize that fruit isn't worth fighting over.

All I'm suggesting is that perception is a very fundamental part of reality. After all, it's all pretty much what we make of it, correct? To suggest anything else, would be meaningless.

 

[cpolk]

All I'm suggesting is that perception is a very fundamental part of reality. After all, it's all pretty much what we make of it, correct? To suggest anything else, would be meaningless.

Absolutely.

The truth is, I could have come up with a more neutral word. I could have said that the toilet tank is able to detect whether it is empty or full, but is that any different? Really. Semantics.

 

[Iacchus]

Absolutely.

The truth is, I could have come up with a more neutral word. I could have said that the toilet tank is able to detct whether it is empty or full, but is that any different? Really. Semantics.

Things react by the way they are programmed to react. Hence it's the program that determines what things ultimately mean.

 

[cpolk]

Things react by the way they are programmed to react. Hence it's the program that determines what things ultimately mean.

And if I believe the human body (brain, senses, and all) is a biological machine?

 

[Iacchus]

And if I believe the human body (brain, senses, and all) is a biological machine?

And, if it were fully automated (capable of "mimmicking" human behavior), would it necessarily require that it be consicious? And yes, I believe the human body is a machine as well.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So is this Iacchus X2?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

So, does anyone agree that there can be no consciousness without structure?

Do you understand where does this leads us??? Yes! to the fact that without a brain (structure) there can't be any consciousness (or what you would call a soul)! Good.

 

[cpolk]

And, if it were fully automated (capable of "mimmicking" human behavior), would it necessarily require that it be consicious? And yes, I believe the human body is a machine as well.

It would not be able to mimmick human behavior without human consciousness.

 

[Iacchus]

Do you understand where does this leads us??? Yes! to the fact that without a brain (structure) there can't be any consciousness (or what you would call a soul)! Good.

And would you admit that there is structure inherent in radio waves? Even if souls do exist (without bodies), that doesn't mean it shouldn't entail some form of structure.