Are You Conscious?

[Mercutio]

Which is why I don't fool with that sort of philosophy.

If a philosophy leads you into nonsense or puts you on a merry-go-round, time to chuck it.

I can't help but look at this thread rhetorically.

It seems pretty clear that the purpose of the OP (if you want to get into the issue of the intent of the question) was simply to make some folks appear dogmatic and foolish by goading them into saying that they're not conscious, or don't know if they're conscious.

I expect that, from the OPer's POV, it has exceeded expectations.

And so far, the call for a definition up front has led nowhere, so I can't regard it as an effective strategy.

It seems much more effective to me to simply answer the question with the obvious (and unassailably true) answer that I am conscious. That is, according to a common, useful, and utterly uncontroversial sense of that word — i.e., I'm awake and aware of my surroundings.

Then, if someone wants to use that answer as the basis of a bogus argument, at that point there's something to sink your teeth into and there's an opportunity to expose the faulty reasoning behind the flawed logic.

As it is, you'll never get to that point, and the OPer gets what s/he wanted all along.

That doesn't seem to me to be an effective way of engaging the issue.

Shorter: "ask a stupid question..."

(not referring to you, Piggy!)

 

[Piggy]

In the R&P forum, no basic statement should ever remain unchallenged. No assumptions should ever be made up-front.

If that's the case, then — given that we're using language to communicate here — the entire R&P forum is an exercise in futility, because you cannot have communication in a human language without assumptions, and if all basic statements are challenged then everything remains at square one forever.

Following those rules — if you really take them seriously — dooms you to chasing your tail.

 

[Piggy]

Shorter: "ask a stupid question..."

(not referring to you, Piggy!)

In a way, yes.

Sometimes simply providing the stupid answer to the stupid question is the best way to go.

 

[AkuManiMani]

If that's the case, then — given that we're using language to communicate here — the entire R&P forum is an exercise in futility, because you cannot have communication in a human language without assumptions, and if all basic statements are challenged then everything remains at square one forever.

Following those rules — if you really take them seriously — dooms you to chasing your tail.

For a guy who doesn't like philosophy, you sure have some pretty good philosophy to share

 

[Mercutio]

If that's the case, then — given that we're using language to communicate here — the entire R&P forum is an exercise in futility, because you cannot have communication in a human language without assumptions, and if all basic statements are challenged then everything remains at square one forever.

Following those rules — if you really take them seriously — dooms you to chasing your tail.

Which is why I like Wittgenstein's "language games" approach, which calls out those games.

 

[paximperium]

If that's the case, then — given that we're using language to communicate here — the entire R&P forum is an exercise in futility, because you cannot have communication in a human language without assumptions, and if all basic statements are challenged then everything remains at square one forever.

Following those rules — if you really take them seriously — dooms you to chasing your tail.

You can achieve some small degree of discussion if you tackle those basic premises BEFORE you start an entire debate or discussion. Once that is settled, a proper discussion or debate can move forward. This is not philosophy, that is basic communications and rhetoric. The "Consciousness" discussion thread is beyond nonsense at this point simply because everyone is using their own definitions or refusing to accept others.

The issue at hand is folks like Plumjam and Malerin who are Idealist/dualist/whatever-ist like to score points by playing these word games. They enjoy the unfounded premises and false equivocations. They have this need to create this silly little games as some justification for their nonsense.

You asked once about their entire premise of this game is?
"You can't prove materialism/physicalism/you are conscious/monkey poo.
Therefore the cosmos is made of more than just material stuff.
The only stuff we really know exists are thoughts.
Thoughts need a mind.
Since the cosmos is too complex for our mind therefore we need an ubermind!!!
This ubermind must be god!!!"
But heck the Plumster and Malerin can correct me as to my understanding of their entire "logical trainwreck" whenever they feel like it...and oh yeah, they can easily solve this little discussion by providing an actual definition of conscious.

 

[Piggy]

Which is why I like Wittgenstein's "language games" approach, which calls out those games.

Yes, I think it's much more accurate to view language as performative (as behavior) than referential. A referential view of language breaks down almost immediately, and thinking of language that way leads to compound errors.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Which is why I like Wittgenstein's "language games" approach, which calls out those games.

Are you referring to this?

Wittgenstein first asks the reader to perform a thought experiment: to come up with a definition of the word "game".[6] While this may at first seem a simple task, he then goes on to lead us through the problems with each of the possible definitions of the word "game". Any definition which focuses on amusement leaves us unsatisfied since the feelings experienced by a world class chess player are very different from those of a circle of children playing Duck Duck Goose. Any definition which focuses on competition will fail to explain the game of catch, or the game of solitaire. And a definition of the word "game" which focuses on rules will fall on similar difficulties.

The essential point of this exercise is often missed. Wittgenstein's point is not that it is impossible to define "game", but that we don't have a definition, and we don't need one, because even without the definition, we use the word successfully. [7] Everybody understands what we mean when we talk about playing a game, and we can even clearly identify and correct inaccurate uses of the word, all without reference to any definition that consists of necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of the concept of a game. It is important to note that the German word for "game", "Spiele/Spiel", has a different sense than in English; the meaning of "Spiele" also extends to the concept of "play" and "playing." This German sense of the word may help readers better understand Wittgenstein's context in the remarks regarding games.[8]

Wittgenstein argues that definitions emerge from what he termed "forms of life", roughly the culture and society in which they are used. Wittgenstein stresses the social aspects of cognition; to see how language works, we have to see how it functions in a specific social situation. It is this emphasis on becoming attentive to the social backdrop against which language is rendered intelligible that explains Wittgenstein's elliptical comment that "If a lion could talk, we could not understand him."[9]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations

 

[Piggy]

You can achieve some small degree of discussion if you tackle those basic premises BEFORE you start an entire debate or discussion. Once that is settled, a proper discussion or debate can move forward. This is not philosophy, that is basic communications and rhetoric. The "Consciousness" discussion thread is beyond nonsense at this point simply because everyone is using their own definitions or refusing to accept others.

The issue at hand is folks like Plumjam and Malerin who are Idealist/dualist/whatever-ist like to score points by playing these word games. They enjoy the unfounded premises and false equivocations. They have this need to create this silly little games as some justification for their nonsense.

You asked once about their entire premise of this game is?
"You can't prove materialism/physicalism/you are conscious/monkey poo.
Therefore the cosmos is made of more than just material stuff.
The only stuff we really know exists are thoughts.
Thoughts need a mind.
Since the cosmos is too complex for our mind therefore we need an ubermind!!!
This ubermind must be god!!!"
But heck the Plumster and Malerin can correct me as to my understanding of their entire "logical trainwreck" whenever they feel like it...and oh yeah, they can easily solve this little discussion by providing an actual definition of conscious.

Indeed, it is often (perhaps usually) preferable to establish stipulative definitions at the beginning. As long as everyone understands what stipulative definitions are (I've seen threads where folks don't, and things bog down pretty quickly).

I just happen to think that this isn't one of those cases.

It seems to me we're better off to accept up front that conscious human beings are posting on this thread, and then see if subsequent claims are made based on that, and hash out the differences at that point.

What has happened here instead is that the OP has already been paid off, so to speak, and I imagine that will be the end of that.

That's why I've said that for the question "Are you conscious?" the demand for a definition up front amounts to a derail and can only function as a red herring here. I know others disagree, and that's fine. But I'm not seeing their strategies paying off.

I would much rather not have the intended game pay off, and instead force their hand so that they must play the next round by saying "Well, if you say you're conscious, then...."

I think it would be much more interesting to actually get into that pseudo-logical sequence you describe (which I've seen before, too) and hash out why it doesn't actually make sense.

That's really all I'm saying.

But it's too late for that, of course.

 

[Mercutio]

Are you referring to this?

Well, yes and no. That's a nice example, but I was speaking more broadly and (admittedly, though not intentionally) fuzzily. As this example shows, the meaning of our words shows in their use; when we try to use the same word in two different usages, they are actually two separate words (albeit with the same spelling & pronunciation, occupying the same place in the dictionary, although perhaps different numbers). As pax just noted, false equivalences come about when we assume that a particular word may be picked up from one context and dropped into another one.

"Conscious", like "game", fits a broad and fuzzy category. In practice, we can use either word without much (evident, anyway) problem, but trying to define either would be an exercise of nailing jello to the wall. This thread, perhaps, was the equivalent of someone saying "wanna play a game?", and half the participants thinking football and the other half thinking golf, and arguing over whether contact is allowed and whether high or low score wins.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Well, yes and no. That's a nice example, but I was speaking more broadly and (admittedly, though not intentionally) fuzzily. As this example shows, the meaning of our words shows in their use; when we try to use the same word in two different usages, they are actually two separate words (albeit with the same spelling & pronunciation, occupying the same place in the dictionary, although perhaps different numbers). As pax just noted, false equivalences come about when we assume that a particular word may be picked up from one context and dropped into another one.

"Conscious", like "game", fits a broad and fuzzy category. In practice, we can use either word without much (evident, anyway) problem, but trying to define either would be an exercise of nailing jello to the wall. This thread, perhaps, was the equivalent of someone saying "wanna play a game?", and half the participants thinking football and the other half thinking golf, and arguing over whether contact is allowed and whether high or low score wins.

I'll narrow down the quote.

The essential point of this exercise is often missed. Wittgenstein's point is not that it is impossible to define "game", but that we don't have a definition, and we don't need one, because even without the definition, we use the word successfully. [7] Everybody understands what we mean when we talk about playing a game, and we can even clearly identify and correct inaccurate uses of the word, all without reference to any definition that consists of necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of the concept of a game.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations

Sounds similiar to what Piggy has been saying all along.

 

[Mercutio]

That's why I've said that for the question "Are you conscious?" the demand for a definition up front amounts to a derail and can only function as a red herring here. I know others disagree, and that's fine. But I'm not seeing their strategies paying off.

A reason for disagreeing: Your scenario (the common definition is assumed) is not an interesting question whatsoever. If, as you say, everyone here is conscious, there is no need to have asked the question. The question, though, was asked. Arguably, we can thus reject the assumption of the common definition.

It's like the "are you alive?" example you gave earlier. If it is asked of you by the paramedic who pulls you from your wrecked car, there is only one response. If asked of random strangers by someone at the mall or airport, with a handful of pamphlets and books, it's time to start questioning assumptions.

 

[Mercutio]

Sounds similiar to what Piggy has been saying all along.

Within a given game. I clearly disagree that which game we were playing is obvious.

 

[Malerin]

Piggy's approach is the right one. I specifically did not give a definition because we already have an 84 page thread on that topic alone. In addition, any definition I gave (including the common sense one I had in mind), would just have gotten bogged down in more definitional nonsense:

Capable of or marked by thought, will, design, or perception

Well, what do you mean by thought and perception? What's will? The ginormous thread I mentioned has already spun off at least one definitional thread of its own (What is awareness?).

I thought, why don't we start by at least acknowledging that, by whatever definition people have in mind, they at least cannot doubt they're conscious. And so half the people here couldn't even do that. People who doubt they're conscious (or think they're zombies) are so far removed from rational discourse on the subject, you won't get anywhere with them. Pick a different topic, move on.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I clearly disagree that which game we were playing is obvious.

Then stop quoting Wittgenstein.

Wittgenstein's point is not that it is impossible to define "game", but that we don't have a definition, and we don't need one, because even without the definition, we use the word successfully.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_Investigations

 

[Malerin]

A reason for disagreeing: Your scenario (the common definition is assumed) is not an interesting question whatsoever. If, as you say, everyone here is conscious, there is no need to have asked the question. The question, though, was asked. Arguably, we can thus reject the assumption of the common definition.

It's like the "are you alive?" example you gave earlier. If it is asked of you by the paramedic who pulls you from your wrecked car, there is only one response. If asked of random strangers by someone at the mall or airport, with a handful of pamphlets and books, it's time to start questioning assumptions.

The question was asked (partly) because I was curious how many people had gone off the metaphysical deep end. I thought it was a very small (but vocal) minority. Turns out, it's almost half the people here. There's no foundation to build on (my other reason for starting the poll). A lot of you are just as nuts as the religious fanatics you rail against.

 

[Mercutio]

Yes, clearly we have all seen a sunrise. We can all acknowledge that.

People who disagree with that, and say that in fact we have seen an illusion caused by the rotation of the earth, are so far removed from rational discourse on the subject, you won't get anywhere with them. Pick a different topic, move on.


In other words.... dismissing those who disagree with you is easy. It is not necessarily the "right" approach.

 

[Darat]

The question was asked (partly) because I was curious how many people had gone off the metaphysical deep end. I thought it was a very small (but vocal) minority. Turns out, it's almost half the people here. There's no foundation to build on (my other reason for starting the poll). A lot of you are just as nuts as the religious fanatics you rail against.

Ah good old common sense, often a useful tool, but like every tool is limited to what it can be used for and if used inappropriately often results in disasters.

 

[Mercutio]

Then stop quoting Wittgenstein.

Pardon? I did not quote, I paraphrased. And I will trust my coursework and reading of Wittgenstein's original over your wikipedia scholarship, thank you.

 

[Malerin]

Yes, clearly we have all seen a sunrise. We can all acknowledge that.

People who disagree with that, and say that in fact we have seen an illusion caused by the rotation of the earth, are so far removed from rational discourse on the subject, you won't get anywhere with them. Pick a different topic, move on.


In other words.... dismissing those who disagree with you is easy. It is not necessarily the "right" approach.

It is here. If you don't know you're conscious, you don't know anything. You must live your life in a haze of bewildering possibilities. This is like people who believe in Xenu or think Obama's a Muslim.

You say you're not conscious? You're, in fact, some kind of zombie? Uh huh. Whatever you say. Good luck with that. Moving right along...