Are You Conscious?

[Mercutio]

Far as I can tell Wittgenstein wrote anything but that differing communities are separated from communication.

I am away from my office, fortunately, or I'd likely spend the next hour searching for just the right quote. Instead, I cheated and just grabbed the first site that returned when I googled "Wittgenstein on meaning". It is written very simplistically, and I am not pretending it is the best source at all, but I just wanted to show a bit of a different take on the difficulties in communication that can come from playing by different rules:

People who are playing a language-game, and who are playing by different rules, may have difficulty in understanding each other. People may have different interpretations of the rules, or may apply rules differently. People may, in some cases, decide the rules of a game while they are playing the game.

Wittgenstein says that the failure to understand words, or the failure to use words clearly, may often be caused by misunderstanding of how words are used in a language-game. Failure to communicate clearly may be caused by the use of words which have an unclear or indefinite meaning, or by lack of understanding of the relation between the meaning of words and the way in which they are used. The task of philosophy may be to clarify the uses of language, and to assemble `reminders of usage' concerning how rules are applied to language.

Wittgenstein also argues that the uses or meaning of words may change, according to changes in the circumstances and scene of a language-game. To use words meaningfully, people must decide which language-game they want to play, and how they want to play it.

 

[Frank Newgent]

I am away from my office, fortunately, or I'd likely spend the next hour searching for just the right quote. Instead, I cheated and just grabbed the first site that returned when I googled "Wittgenstein on meaning". It is written very simplistically, and I am not pretending it is the best source at all, but I just wanted to show a bit of a different take on the difficulties in communication that can come from playing by different rules:

The very next paragraph in the source you quoted:

Wittgenstein explains that when people communicate with each other, they may have to choose between a private language and a common language. The rules of a private language may not be the same as the rules of a common language. The meaning of words in a private language may not be the same as the meaning of words in a common language. People may need a common language in order to share an understanding of the meaning of words.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/investigations.html

I though Wittgenstein argued that one could not possibly use the words of a private language.. ie if we can talk about something, then it is not private. And if it is private we cannot talk about it.

That we are the same species means we can talk about... it.

It can't be, logically, private.

Why I'm giving you a hard time about your claim to be able to use the word "conscious" successfully to describe yourself at this moment.

 

[PixyMisa]

I though Wittgenstein argued that one could not possibly use the words of a private language.. ie if we can talk about something, then it is not private. And if it is private we cannot talk about it.

We frequently use words to describe things that we cannot talk about.

Look at the Deeper than primes thread. Every post after #2 is superfluous, and every post by Doron is utterly incoherent, but all of them use words.

 

[PixyMisa]

I think more to the point is that nothing is truly private. We are physical beings inhabiting a physical universe, and our so-called private states are just a perspective on a tiny subset of shared objective reality. Everything can be related back to shared observations, whether fumblingly and haltingly through literature and art and philosophy, or directly, by popping somone in an FMRI and reading images straight out of their visual cortex.

 

[Belz...]

Quite simply, you are asking for a definition when none is needed.

Here's the way I see it, YMMV.

If you ask me, "Are you alive?", my only true answer can be "Yes".

If instead I come back with "Define 'alive'", then I'm merely attempting a derail, because first of all I know what you're asking and the answer is "Yes" (or else we wouldn't be having a conversation) and secondly I know that coming up with a string of words that adequately and sufficiently describes "alive" is extremely difficult and contentious.

It's the same with the question "Are you conscious?"

Ah, so no mutual understanding of what's being asked is needed ? Interesting.

 

[Belz...]

You have not read the very sentence you cite.

That's not an answer.

 

[Belz...]

All that rambling and it's still the case that when you are participating on this thread you are conscious.

Even chat bots ?

 

[PixyMisa]

Even chat bots ?

How do you feel about chat bots?

 

[Mercutio]

I though Wittgenstein argued that one could not possibly use the words of a private language.. ie if we can talk about something, then it is not private. And if it is private we cannot talk about it.

That we are the same species means we can talk about... it.

It can't be, logically, private.

Why I'm giving you a hard time about your claim to be able to use the word "conscious" successfully to describe yourself at this moment.

Of course it can be private; the trick is, our shared communication is based on public referent. There are conferences and entire journals on consciousness, where a private element is taken as present by the vast majority, and essential, even defining, by a good many. Even private experience, though, can and must use public language in order to be communicated--witness our attempts to describe pain. Metaphors (it's a stabbing pain, or a burning pain) or similes (like someone is scratching at the inside of my eye) which refer to public events.

That we are the same species is trivial; that we are playing the same language game is important. The "successfully" part of your last bit can be seen in this very thread; there are those who understand and agree (successful), those who claim to understand and disagree (apparently successful), and those who have not demonstrated that they understand at all (unsuccessful). If you follow that, then we have successfully spoken about consciousness, at a different level of analysis. If not...

 

[Frank Newgent]

I though Wittgenstein argued that one could not possibly use the words of a private language.. ie if we can talk about something, then it is not private. And if it is private we cannot talk about it.

That we are the same species means we can talk about... it.

It can't be, logically, private.

Why I'm giving you a hard time about your claim to be able to use the word "conscious" successfully to describe yourself at this moment.

Of course it can be private; the trick is, our shared communication is based on public referent. There are conferences and entire journals on consciousness, where a private element is taken as present by the vast majority, and essential, even defining, by a good many. Even private experience, though, can and must use public language in order to be communicated--witness our attempts to describe pain. Metaphors (it's a stabbing pain, or a burning pain) or similes (like someone is scratching at the inside of my eye) which refer to public events.

Wittgenstein's private language argument holds a private language in principle must be incapable of being understood by anybody else. That can be used as an anti-qualia argument I suppose.

That we need common referents to effectively converse, isn't controversial.

I'm curious... a "private element" at your conferences: private without interiors/consciousness?

That we are the same species is trivial; that we are playing the same language game is important. The "successfully" part of your last bit can be seen in this very thread; there are those who understand and agree (successful), those who claim to understand and disagree (apparently successful), and those who have not demonstrated that they understand at all (unsuccessful). If you follow that, then we have successfully spoken about consciousness, at a different level of analysis. If not...

Do you know whether follwing your rule would be a private or a public activity?

 

[gentlehorse]

But the fool on the hill
Sees the sun going down
And the eyes in his head
See the world spinning round

Argumentum ad McCartney--

Thank you Maharishi...

My eyes are opened.

 

[Mercutio]

Wittgenstein's private language argument holds a private language in principle must be incapable of being understood by anybody else. That can be used as an anti-qualia argument I suppose.

Thus the "how did you learn to label your consciousness?" question earlier in the thread.

That we need common referents to effectively converse, isn't controversial.

Around here? Are you kidding? We have full-blooded Platonics roaming wild!

I'm curious... a "private element" at your conferences: private without interiors/consciousness?

I don't understand.

Do you know whether follwing your rule would be a private or a public activity?

Ultimately, public.

 

[Piggy]

Under those definitions, the answer is no.

Ok, well, then we simply disagree about how to proceed under those circumstances, that's all.

But personally, I don't see how you could possibly answer any question at all if you really take those conditions seriously.

 

[Piggy]

Ah, so no mutual understanding of what's being asked is needed ? Interesting.

That goes back to my funny/funny example.

In the case of "Are you conscious?" as a simple unqualified question, a refusal to answer based on qualifiers which might be there but aren't (such as "environmentally conscious") doesn't make sense.

It would be like answering "Do you have that five bucks I loaned you?" with "I don't know" because the questioner hasn't said whether he means do you have it in your pocket, or do you have it in your hand, or do you have it in your wallet, or where exactly.

It also doesn't make much sense to refuse to answer on the grounds that the questioner might have a different view from yours about what causes consciousness. After all, we're all awake and aware of our surroundings regardless of whatever we might believe makes that possible.

So I don't see this as a funny/funny case.

If you are, in fact, awake and aware of your surroundings, then it makes sense to answer "yes" to the unqualified question.

If the questioner follows up with something like, "Well, that means that you must also believe..." then it's time to point out the flaws in that sort of thinking.

If the questioner follows up with something like, "No your not, because if you were conscious, you'd be protesting [this or that]", then it's time to point out that this was not the question asked.

But as I said, ymmv.

 

[Piggy]

Even chat bots ?

You a chat bot?

 

[Frank Newgent]

Thus the "how did you learn to label your consciousness?" question earlier in the thread.

Dunno what you're referring to specifically.

But the private language argument has nothing to do with behaviorism if that's where you're going.

Around here? Are you kidding? We have full-blooded Platonics roaming wild!

It's business as usual for mad scientists when no one speak with them.

I don't understand.

Referring to this:

There are conferences and entire journals on consciousness, where a private element is taken as present by the vast majority, and essential, even defining, by a good many.

Again... I'm curious... a "private element" at your conferences: private without interiors/consciousness?

Ultimately, public.

That was in reply to my question... do you know whether following your rule would be a private or a public activity?

So far your answer as to how you use the word 'conscious' successfully to describe yourself, at this moment, is entirely private.

If it is, as you say, ultimately public... time for you to come clean, isn't it?

Acting as if you've answered this question is not the the same as answering it.

Illustrated by Wittgenstein: “this was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be made out to accord with the rule."

I suppose going against your rule and keeping it private would resolve the paradox as well.

Strange thing for a behaviorist to do.

 

[Mercutio]

Dunno what you're referring to specifically.

Why does that not surprise me?

But the private language argument has nothing to do with behaviorism if that's where you're going.

Um.. no.

It's business as usual for mad scientists when no one speak with them.

...ok...

Referring to this:

I knew what it referred to.

Again... I'm curious... a "private element" at your conferences: private without interiors/consciousness?

Still no clue what you mean.

That was in reply to my question... do you know whether following your rule would be a private or a public activity?

So far your answer as to how you use the word 'conscious' successfully to describe yourself, at this moment, is entirely private.

If it is, as you say, ultimately public... time for you to come clean, isn't it?

Acting as if you've answered this question is not the the same as answering it.

Illustrated by Wittgenstein: “this was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be made out to accord with the rule."

I suppose going against your rule and keeping it private would resolve the paradox as well.

Strange thing for a behaviorist to do.

No idea what you are getting on about here, either. None at all. I suspect that you have no idea what I have said either, but whether that is true or not... no idea what you are saying.

 

[PixyMisa]

Ok, well, then we simply disagree about how to proceed under those circumstances, that's all.

But personally, I don't see how you could possibly answer any question at all if you really take those conditions seriously.

Well, this is the underlying problem with this section of the forum; a good percentage of the posters possess or profess to views that bear little relation to reality, and all we have to work with are words. So definitions, operational definitions, are the only way we can make progress, and most of those same posters are unwilling or unable to provide such definitions.

If you think this thread is bad, take a look at Deeper than primes. Or better yet, don't.

In normal conversation with normal people, none of this comes up. But normal is not a term that applies to R&P, except in the sense of perpendicular...

 

[PixyMisa]

You a chat bot?

What makes you ask that question?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Dunno what you're referring to specifically.

But the private language argument has nothing to do with behaviorism if that's where you're going.





It's business as usual for mad scientists when no one speak with them.





Referring to this:





Again... I'm curious... a "private element" at your conferences: private without interiors/consciousness?





That was in reply to my question... do you know whether following your rule would be a private or a public activity?

So far your answer as to how you use the word 'conscious' successfully to describe yourself, at this moment, is entirely private.

If it is, as you say, ultimately public... time for you to come clean, isn't it?

Acting as if you've answered this question is not the the same as answering it.

Illustrated by Wittgenstein: “this was our paradox: no course of action could be determined by a rule, because every course of action can be made out to accord with the rule."

I suppose going against your rule and keeping it private would resolve the paradox as well.

Strange thing for a behaviorist to do.

If I may, radical behaviorists term thinking as a "private event" in that it cannot be reliably observed by others. Others call these behaviors "cognitions" and ascribe causal powers to them. I can turn my thinking into a public event, like now. By typing or talking. So where does this conscious stuff come in? What matter does it have? Or make?