My take on why indeed the study of consciousness may not be as simple

[Dancing David]

Sure my life experiences do motivate my thinking.

I think it was your dismissal of academic studies of consciousness, especially by good researchers that I was responding too. Which may not be what you meant.

I tend to find the philosophical examination of thought to be less practical that neuroscience or behaviorsim.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes

Okay see, like I said we have to be careful in the use of language, so I just wanted to ask.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes. concepts, ideas are thoughts.

And then that is where we have to ask, where are those thoughts occuring and what are they.

They appear to be processes in a brain, so they are not objects as such.

 

[cyborg]

Behaviour is not function. Two very different concepts.

I fail to see the difference.

An electron has no inherent purpose.

Nor does a human.

Your point?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I fail to see the difference.



Nor does a human.

Your point?

A human has an inherent purpose: to make more humans. Humans exist as a means for human DNA to replicate itself. As a biological entity, our purpose is to reproduce.

 

[drkitten]

A human has an inherent purpose: to make more humans.

Really? So gay humans are purposeless?

I think you're taking teleology a bit too far. Well, more than "a bit" too far. Making more humans isn't a purpose, it's just something that (many) humans do, just as making footprints isn't a purpose, but just something that feet do.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Really? So gay humans are purposeless?

No, they are just failing to fulfill their (biological) purpose. But then again so am I, since I have no intention of bringing any children into this ******-up world.

I think you're taking teleology a bit too far. Well, more than "a bit" too far. Making more humans isn't a purpose, it's just something that (many) humans do, just as making footprints isn't a purpose, but just something that feet do.

I don't agree. Feet make footprints alright, but the making of footprints wasn't the goal of the design-process which led to the existence feet. That goal was locomotion, ultimately leading to food and then offspring.

ETA: Claiming humans exist to produce more humans does not imply teleology. Claiming they exist for some other reason might well do. Teleological process work backwards...sort of. Evolution works forwards.

 

[dlorde]

No, they are just failing to fulfill their (biological) purpose. But then again so am I, since I have no intention of bringing any children into this ******-up world.

Many (most) animals have homosexual and/or non-reproductive individuals. Homosexuality is pretty common, suggesting that it may have some selective advantage in groups, or is at least neutral.

There's no evidence for or reason for there to be any 'purpose' in biology. Unless you define 'purpose' in terms of simple causality (e.g. the purpose of water is to make things wet, etc).

 

[rocketdodger]

I don't agree. Feet make footprints alright, but the making of footprints wasn't the goal of the design-process which led to the existence feet. That goal was locomotion, ultimately leading to food and then offspring.

Your claim is logically equivalent to the claim that any system that exists as the result of a natural selection process has the inherent purpose of producing more such systems.

Are you prepared to defend such a claim?

 

[RandFan]

Are you prepared to defend such a claim?

That's roughly the thesis of Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. Of course "purpose" is is a blind one. There is no conscious purpose to our existence.

 

[tsig]

And you can guarantee that for any signal you can tell whether any kind of digital information is embedded in it?

Yes, to the limits of the resolution of the scope. If what you are talking about is beyond the reach of instrumentation then you would seem to be going as a foreigner into a strange land where normal rules do not apply.

 

[quarky]

Not metaphor, but symbolic representation, which isn't the same.


Well, the question is a big vague, but generally, yeah.


Concsciousness is not independent of thought - it is a system of thought.

And thought is not dependent on metaphor - it is dependent on symbolic representation.


Hope this makes it clearer. You're not completely off the mark, so we might just be arguing about definitions.

You have clarified my disagreement by claiming that consciousness is a system of thought. I'd claim that one can experience consciousness without thought, which is the goal of many introspective disciplines.

Perhaps you are referring to brain processes in general? That there is no consciousness without a functional brain? I'd agree. But thoughts are linked to language; mental words. Try to think without words. Difficult.

To suggest an interdependency of thought and consciousness is like claiming that humans were unconscious before the invention of language..or that a child raised by wolves and isolated from language would not be able to think, or even be conscious.

 

[tsig]

A human has an inherent purpose: to make more humans. Humans exist as a means for human DNA to replicate itself. As a biological entity, our purpose is to reproduce.

It's a chemical world and we are but a transitional form of the DNA molecule.

 

[RandFan]

I'd claim that one can experience consciousness without thought, which is the goal of many introspective disciplines.

I would agree with some reservations and here is where I think that the definitions are key. I think that it's possible to have a rudimentary consciousness or awareness that goes beyond Dennet's thermostat but falls short of the awareness Dennet posits where we can actually ponder our awareness. The thermostat has no thoughts. Humans do. But if there is a gradient between the two is there a point where there are no thoughts but there is an awareness that one is aware?

To suggest an interdependency of thought and consciousness is like claiming that humans were unconscious before the invention of language..or that a child raised by wolves and isolated from language would not be able to think, or even be conscious.

You are equating thoughts with language. I think One can suggest the interdependency without suggesting that thoughts are language or that language is requisite for thoughts (though I take a bit of a different tack below).

It would seem to me that emotional meaning and the processing of that meaning is requisite for thoughts. A large mammal triggers contemplation of eating the flesh of the animal and preparation is made to kill the animal. Observing the behavior of the animal and imagining a scene in the future where the animal is killed would constitute thinking and no language would be required. That said, humans are likely a symbolic species and our thoughts are themselves a form of language because our cognitive abilities co-evolved with language.

BTW: This is just my understanding based on what I've read. I don't claim any authority.

 

[PixyMisa]

You have clarified my disagreement by claiming that consciousness is a system of thought. I'd claim that one can experience consciousness without thought, which is the goal of many introspective disciplines.

How are you defining thought then?

Perhaps you are referring to brain processes in general? That there is no consciousness without a functional brain? I'd agree. But thoughts are linked to language; mental words. Try to think without words. Difficult.

Not difficult at all. I can think in visual terms, auditory terms, mathematical terms (though you could classify mathematics as a language).

To suggest an interdependency of thought and consciousness is like claiming that humans were unconscious before the invention of language..or that a child raised by wolves and isolated from language would not be able to think, or even be conscious.

No.

 

[!Kaggen]

Sorry all, will revert after I have recovered from my birthday celebrations, later

 

[westprog]

Yes, to the limits of the resolution of the scope. If what you are talking about is beyond the reach of instrumentation then you would seem to be going as a foreigner into a strange land where normal rules do not apply.

I think it's just that you are using a very specific, engineering definition of digital information. I am saying that digital information is any information that can be reduced to a precise number, and a digital signal is one that can carry digital information. If that is not your definition, then we are unlikely to agree.

 

[Belz...]

They don't have the EXACT same processes, because they have different DNA.

Working computers and piles of computer parts don't have the EXACT same processes, either.

 

[Dancing David]

!Kaggen to prime the pump, why is verbal cognition concering awareness your defining trait for consciousness.

It seems to me there is more to the general usage of the term than that. Such as the 'the unconscious body lay on the floor'.

 

[Dancing David]

You have clarified my disagreement by claiming that consciousness is a system of thought. I'd claim that one can experience consciousness without thought, which is the goal of many introspective disciplines.

Perhaps you are referring to brain processes in general? That there is no consciousness without a functional brain? I'd agree. But thoughts are linked to language; mental words. Try to think without words. Difficult.

To suggest an interdependency of thought and consciousness is like claiming that humans were unconscious before the invention of language..or that a child raised by wolves and isolated from language would not be able to think, or even be conscious.

Quarky, I think this gets to my point, there is the rubric of 'conscious' and it is many different aspects and processes.

I think without words quite often, that is one of my modes of processing, I tend to use a visual recollection and symbology in many forms of thought. I also use quite a bit of verbal cognition as well.

Now your last paragraph gets to the heart of the runbric idea, say in CPR training, they ask you to determine if the person is breating without difficulty and conscious. That is not going to involve a determination of if they have verbal cognition.

So many apparent brain and body proceses go into the term 'conscious' and 'consciousness' is even more complex.