Are You Conscious?

[Darat]

True.

So how do we falsify this little issue then?

It goes back to the old "sunrise" definition - it could just be that the common usage of the word refers to something that does not exist - the sun does not rise above the earth - but the word is still useful in everyday communication.

 

[Darat]

Let me rephrase that:

Are you suggesting that there is no way to distinguish between a conscious person and an unconscious one? Between an conscious state and an unconscious state? That science holds no tools or methods to distinguish these two states?

...snip...

Not at all - as long as we define what we mean by the words then I can't see why we can't make a call on whether someone is one thing or t'other. The issue seems to be that people are so certain that the word is unambiguous that we don't need to define it despite when asked about it they can't supply a coherent definition or a definition that does not have apparently unwanted consequences for their world-view.

What is also the suggested approach, then, if we can have people deliberately committing acts and then wiping their hands off any responsibility by simply claiming things like "Er... did I do that? Oh no. I wasn't conscious"?

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8370237.stm

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Not at all - as long as we define what we mean by the words then I can't see why we can't make a call on whether someone is one thing or t'other. The issue seems to be that people are so certain that the word is unambiguous that we don't need to define it despite when asked about it they can't supply a coherent definition or a definition that does not have apparently unwanted consequences for their world-view.

I understand. So if I may jump ahead, obviously at this point, it is not sufficient to determine that a person is by definition conscious if they answer "Yes, I am" or something between those lines.

So this thread and its OP probably get what they wanted. A non falsifiable situation, on top of which certain beliefs and false analogies can be built.

Which is ok because it just means that just because you can't demonstrate whether someone is conscious or not by a specific mean (such as starting a thread and asking people), doesn't mean it can't be falsified by other means.

In fact, perhaps one of the most unreliable ways to determining that would probably have to be this one, as many responses could be triggered by bots. At least if you ask someone in real life, it's very unlikely it's an AI human being, as we haven't reached that level of technology yet.

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/8370237.stm

An interesting article. I just read it a bit but I'll give it a deeper read later and perhaps contribute my thoughts on it.

 

[LightningStrike]

I had one of my unfortunately much too frequent colonoscopies a few weeks back, for the first time I had sedation, during and just afterwards I held conversations in which I (the I that is "experiencing" typing this post) certainly was not present. So it would seem that when I was (for some definitions) unconscious I can indeed answers questions such as "Are you conscious?" with a "coherent" response.

Consciousness is not dependent on memory recall. Because you can't recall the incident doesn't mean you weren't conscious. The recall function is an ability to look into the stored 'past'. To be present in the senses does not require any reference to memory - that is being conscious.
Memory reference is a degree of unconsciousness in that sense perception is ignored while the memory is referenced. So I am saying any reference to the past is unconsciousness.

 

[paximperium]

So how is everyone's Chi/Ki today?

 

[Dancing David]

No exactly?

And was that the state you were in when you answered the poll? (Yes, it matters.)

You know the answer, I have stated as I have stated, there were times during a particular period where I posted and was not exactly conscious. I chose to answer teh questiona s I saw fit, if you want me to talk about something else for your gotcha moment taht is your choice.

Please continue with you pedantry.

For one, Malerin is not using any defintion of conscious, so the point is moot, I supplied the one I used. I answered maybe and you shall have to live with that. Most of the time I meet the criteria of the defintion I posted when posting to the forum, I do not at all times.

later gator.

 

[Dancing David]

So how is everyone's Chi/Ki today?

Mine is sort of out of balance, especialy in my mouse arm, and particularly in my clicking finger. It is also foggy as I am getting over a cold.

As Piggy points out we can use terms with common meanings and ki is one that is an inuitive representation for me.

That does not excuse Malerin's lack of a defintion, nor does it mean my use of ki is scientific at all.

 

[Piggy]

"...the answer to the OP is "Yes" for everybody here."

No, it has not been.

Point taken. So let me rephrase. Everyone posting here is conscious.

 

[Piggy]

Which, of course, many of us have claimed to be, if you have read the thread.

I have. And my question has been whether these p-zombies are any different from normal human beings.

If not, well, then the fact remains that everyone posting here is conscious.

If they are, then I simply don't believe anyone who claims to be a p-zombie. And with good reason.

 

[Piggy]

I think perhaps the only sensible answer, given the mention of p-zombies, is "mu", but that wasn't an option. Besides, given the mention of PZombies, and given your claim of "the fact...", you are assuming your conclusions rather than honestly exploring the question.

All I can say to that is, give me a break.

Because yeah, it's a fact that all the people here who are participating are conscious.

If we weren't, we wouldn't be posting.

I am justified in "assuming" this (to use your term) just as I am justified in "assuming" that everyone on this thread is within our solar system.

ETA: If you want to explain how a non-conscious person -- that is, someone who's in a state similar to dreamless sleep, or profound anesthesia -- could be posting here, knock yourself out.

 

[Piggy]

Or... he can answer the same question in different ways, given different contexts. I'd be willing to bet you have done that yourself on occasion.

No, my point here is that if you demand complete rhetorical clarity before answering a question, you cannot answer any question, because that goal cannot be reached. You can never know precisely what another person has in mind when s/he asks a question.

 

[Piggy]

You know the answer, I have stated as I have stated, there were times during a particular period where I posted and was not exactly conscious.

Were you in that state when you answered this poll? That's what I'm asking you.

And what do you mean by "not exactly" conscious?

 

[Piggy]

To those demanding a definition, what if the definition were "Awake and aware of your surroundings"? What would your answer be then?

 

[Piggy]

Just to sum up on the definition thing, here's my take on it. Yours may well be different.

Suppose there were someone on this forum who, through several threads, had espoused the position that life is the result of an indwelling of divine spirit.

(And I know this is not exactly analogous.)

And suppose this person started a thread asking "Are you alive?"

My answer would have to be "Yes", regardless of whatever was going on in that person's head, because I cannot answer "No" or "Maybe" or "I don't know", since the fact is, I am alive and I know it.

Asking for a definition of "alive" would be a derail, not just because I do know I'm alive, but also because I know that a seamless definition of the word cannot be had.

Now, if the OPer were to follow up with some flawed logic based on the "infusion of the divine spirit" definition, then that would be the time to deal with it.

That's how I view the question in the OP.

When asked "Are you conscious?" my only honest answer can be "Yes". It can't be "No" or "Maybe" or "I don't know" because I actually do know that I'm conscious.

As for p-zombies, if they are different from normal human beings (that is, if they are what they are normally taken to be -- beings with no conscious experience who nevertheless behave the same as conscious beings) then I'm not one.

If they are the same as normal human beings (because, say, p-zombies are defined as not experiencing "qualia" and the term "qualia" is flawed or empty or some such, or for any other reason) then I'm a p-zombie and I'm conscious.

Either way, I'm conscious, so there's no reasonable and honest means that allows me to answer anything but "Yes".

 

[Dancing David]

To those demanding a definition, what if the definition were "Awake and aware of your surroundings"? What would your answer be then?

Mostly, I am less aware and awake than I was in the earky am. But then you are not malerin.

I would say i rate about 65% on the awake and much lower on alert 25%, at this time. But yes if those are the criteria, I am conscious.

 

[Mercutio]

To those demanding a definition, what if the definition were "Awake and aware of your surroundings"? What would your answer be then?

As you state it there, my answer would be yes. There are some variations on this definition which you might find identical, but which would change my answer.

 

[Mercutio]

Point taken. So let me rephrase. Everyone posting here is conscious.

By many definitions. Not by all.

 

[Mercutio]

All I can say to that is, give me a break.

Because yeah, it's a fact that all the people here who are participating are conscious.

By many, perhaps most, definitions. Not by all.

If we weren't, we wouldn't be posting.

I disagree.

I am justified in "assuming" this (to use your term) just as I am justified in "assuming" that everyone on this thread is within our solar system.

The latter is clearly better defined.

ETA: If you want to explain how a non-conscious person -- that is, someone who's in a state similar to dreamless sleep, or profound anesthesia -- could be posting here, knock yourself out.

Ah... but that was never my claim. Thank you, though, for illustrating my point. You have specified a clearer definition of non-conscious, and one very different from Ian's. Given your definition here, I would not make that claim.

Now, can you see the difference between your ETA and the lack of context in the OP?

 

[Mercutio]

No, my point here is that if you demand complete rhetorical clarity before answering a question, you cannot answer any question, because that goal cannot be reached. You can never know precisely what another person has in mind when s/he asks a question.

Fallacy of the excluded middle. To say that every snowflake is different, and that every child is different, is not to say that you will occasionally confuse a snowflake with a child. Variability among contexts is serious, but it by no means renders terms meaningless.

There have been plenty of consciousness discussions here in which people have actually defined their terms. They have very different discussions than this one.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Oh yes, Piggy or Malerin. I'll help you out because I'm so nice.
I'm going to use the most simple medical definition of "conscious".
Please point to the area of this chart when you mean "conscious" and I will answer the OP.
[qimg]http://www.scholarpedia.org/wiki/images/2/23/MormannKochNeuralCorrelatesOfConsciousness2.jpg[/qimg]

A diagram is worth a thousand posts.