Are You Conscious?

[paximperium]

So you're claiming to seriously answer the question "Are you conscious?" with a "No".

When you're done with your fort, we can use the sofa cushions back.

Ah, an Argument from Incredulity mixed in with an Ad Hominem. How mature.

Which you don't care to supply.

Why? Weren't you using some all universal definition that I was suppose to magically psychically automatically understand or was someone suppose to actually define it first?

The question is, on what do you base your quibble?

You demand a definition, but you show no cause for doing so.

Because I like to know what I'm actually talking about and not what someone ASSUMES we are talking about.

It's your goalpost, brother. I didn't bring it up.

Yes. A simple goalpost.
Define Conscious.

The goalpost is still right where I set it. No defense, no guards and ever so easy to score. Why don't anyone even try?

 

[paximperium]

Memory has nothing to do with it.

If you were sober enough to log on and post a coherent reply, then obviously you were conscious when you posted the reply.

If you had a heart attack and died five minutes later you wouldn't remember anything, either. That still doesn't mean that you were retroactively dead when you posted.

By the same token, failing to remember what you did does not mean that you were retroactively not conscious when you did it.

So you're using awake as YOUR definition.

Sure. I'm awake.

And anyway, are you claiming that you're drunk?

I'm not smunk...

 

[Piggy]

Yes it is getting ridiculous when YOU use a definition that I don't and Malerin uses his own whatever "gotcha" version. Words have meaning and I will not be lambasted into accepting or assuming a definition that is meaningless or that I disagree with.

YOU have never provided any definition that I or a host of others are willing to accept.

You want me to answer the OP using an assumed "'common" definition?

Sure. I'm awake.

This is getting tedious.

My entire point is that no definition has to be produced in order for the OP to be answered.

If you know of a valid definition of "conscious" that would allow someone who is not conscious to log onto this forum, read the OP, and post an accurate reply of "No", then there's a need for disambiguation.

But since you don't, then no definition is needed in order to answer the question, and calling for one is a transparent attempt at a derail.

If you think Malerin is going to attempt a rhetorical trick sometime after hearing your reply, then deal with it when it happens, if it happens.

 

[Piggy]

Ah, an Argument from Incredulity mixed in with an Ad Hominem. How mature.

I stand by it. Mercutio's ploy is transparently childish.

 

[PixyMisa]

We're talking about whether someone can actually read a post online and accurately answer "No" to the question "Are you conscious?"

Depends on the definition. There are plenty of people posting about consciousness right here on this forum whose definition of the term has little or no connection with reality. Often the definitions they are using are logically incoherent or simply contradict the laws of physics.

So the only valid answer to the question under such a definition is no.

This is getting more absurd by the moment.

Yes.

But then again, hardcore denial always does.

Yes, Piggy, yes it does.

 

[Piggy]

Yes. Depending on the definition.

Which you also do not care to provide.

 

[Mercutio]

This is getting tedious.

My entire point is that no definition has to be produced in order for the OP to be answered.

You have asserted this many times. It is no more true on the most recent assertion than on the first.

If you know of a valid definition of "conscious" that would allow someone who is not conscious to log onto this forum, read the OP, and post an accurate reply of "No", then there's a need for disambiguation.

Valid? How do valid definitions eat their porridge?

But since you don't, then no definition is needed in order to answer the question, and calling for one is a transparent attempt at a derail.

Assume your conclusions much?

If you think Malerin is going to attempt a rhetorical trick sometime after hearing your reply, then deal with it when it happens, if it happens.

I don't care what he is doing. I answered honestly, and others here understood what I said and why. You, though, choose to dismiss it.

 

[PixyMisa]

Which you also do not care to provide.

Well, duh. I didn't ask the question.

 

[Malerin]

Hmm.. 47% of JREFers, when responding to a poll question, could not confirm that they were conscious.
I bet that doesn't make it into SWIFT any time soon.

This bears repeating. We're up to 50% now! If these trends continue...

 

[Mercutio]

So you're claiming to seriously answer the question "Are you conscious?" with a "No".

Yes. I have done so. Directly, and indirectly (in P-Zombie threads, if not given the option of M-Zombie, I have always honestly chosen to count myself among the P-Zombies). As PixyMisa has noted, those definitions are incoherent, so the only valid response is "no".

When you're done with your fort, we can use the sofa cushions back.

Projection? Interesting...

 

[Piggy]

You have asserted this many times. It is no more true on the most recent assertion than on the first.

But I have not merely asserted it.

I have explained it.

And you have yet to provide any rational reason why you need a definition to answer the question.

Because, of course, you don't need one, and your demand for one is a mere derail.

 

[PixyMisa]

When I did ask the question, I provided multiple definitions and multiple choices.

 

[PixyMisa]

This bears repeating. We're up to 50% now! If these trends continue...

Define "conscious", Malerin, as you have used it in the question and poll in this thread.

In your own words, and as precisely as you are able. You may quote a dictionary definition if that is precisely what you mean, but you can't quote multiple different definitions, because you can't precisely mean all of them.

 

[Piggy]

Well, duh. I didn't ask the question.

In fact, you did.

Suppose someone asks me "Are you a man?" and I come back with "What do you mean by 'a'?"

That's a nonsensical dodge, because I don't need to ask for any such definition.

If you can't show that there is any reason to demand a definition -- which you can't -- then you're just dragging out a red herring.

You're the one claiming that a definition is needed in order to answer the question.

And yet you can't explain why.

And on top of that you're attempting to throw the responsibility off onto the OP for what you are demanding.

 

[Piggy]

Yes. I have done so. Directly, and indirectly (in P-Zombie threads, if not given the option of M-Zombie, I have always honestly chosen to count myself among the P-Zombies). .

So, you're actually trying to tell me that you're a p-zombie?

Forgive me if I find that laughable.

Like I said, when you're done with the sofa cushions....

 

[Malerin]

Yes it is getting ridiculous when YOU use a definition that I don't and Malerin uses his own whatever "gotcha" version.

If I had a "gotcha", don't you think I would have used it by now? Whatever "gotcha" I had up my sleeve couldn't hold a candle to these bizzaro-world poll results. This is (supposedly anyway) a scientifically minded crowd, and half of you don't know you're conscious?

 

[Mercutio]

So, you're actually trying to tell me that you're a p-zombie?

Forgive me if I find that laughable.

Like I said, when you're done with the sofa cushions....

Actually, an M-Zombie.

But yes, a p-zombie if that is all you have. Which is why I asked the question earlier about how you learned your "consciousness" vocabulary.

You may find it laughable, but I am perfectly serious. As you say, we have been around the block with this a few times before, so I begin to suspect that your failure to understand is more than mere ignorance.

 

[PixyMisa]

In fact, you did.

Suppose someone asks me "Are you a man?" and I come back with "What do you mean by 'a'?"

Perfectly valid.

That's a nonsensical dodge, because I don't need to ask for any such definition.

Of course you do.

Are you an adult male human being as defined by your particular culture?
Or as defined by the laws of your country?
Or any human being?
Or do you fit certain stereotypes of the masculine ideal?
Or just an animal with a Y chromosome?

This is the Religion and Philosophy forum, Piggy. Calls for definitions are always in order.

If you can't show that there is any reason to demand a definition -- which you can't -- then you're just dragging out a red herring.

Baloney. We have shown this. There are a multitude of definitions of the term consciousness floating around that are either incoherent or contradict reality, and there are people posting here who genuinely operate under those definitions. And we have sufficient evidence to suppose that the original poster is one such.

You're the one claiming that a definition is needed in order to answer the question.

Yes. So what? I didn't ask the question.

If everyone who answers a question uses their own personal definition of the term, then the answers do not relate to the question. The questioner must provide the definition.

And yet you can't explain why.

Already have, Piggy, already have. You just ignored it.

And on top of that you're attempting to throw the responsibility off onto the OP for what you are demanding.

That is where the responsibility lies. That is where it has to lie.

I can provide a definition, sure. It will not be the definition used by the original poster - I already know this, since he has already rejected my definition, though he has given neither coherent reason for this nor a definition of his own.

Again, Piggy, this is philosophy. I can always ask you to define your terms, and I usually should. Particularly on this subject, where common usage is exceptionally vague and often rests on counterfactual assumptions.

 

[Mercutio]

If I had a "gotcha", don't you think I would have used it by now? Whatever "gotcha" I had up my sleeve couldn't hold a candle to these bizzaro-world poll results. This is (supposedly anyway) a scientifically minded crowd, and half of you don't know you're conscious?

A scientifically minded crowd is accustomed to operational definitions of important terms. We know that polls can be skewed by the wording of questions, and are likely to treat poorly phrased questions with all the respect they deserve.

Garbage in, garbage out.

 

[PixyMisa]

If I had a "gotcha", don't you think I would have used it by now? Whatever "gotcha" I had up my sleeve couldn't hold a candle to these bizzaro-world poll results. This is (supposedly anyway) a scientifically minded crowd, and half of you don't know you're conscious?

Define consicousness, Malerin.