Are You Conscious?

[Darth Rotor]

Care to define your term? Until you do, none of us have any way of knowing, whether or not we think we do.

Merc, if we test the thought via a sort of null hypothesis, and ask, "Are you unconscious" can we get any answer but "no" to that question?

DR

 

[Hokulele]

Merc, if we test the thought via a sort of null hypothesis, and ask, "Are you unconscious" can we get any answer but "no" to that question?

DR

For commonly accepted definitions of consciousness D), sure. I talk in my sleep all the time and Mr. H never gets tired of asking me strange questions just to hear my responses. His current favorite is when he gently tickled my nose and asked, "What does this remind you of?" I answered, "Pizza." I have no idea why.

But this whole idea of asking the question "Are you conscious?" or "Are you unconscious?" loops back to my response in PixyMisa's thread which is somewhat in line with what Mercutio is arguing here. I asked if it were more important whether I thought myself to be conscious or if others did so. The only reason to ask someone about their state of consciousness is in anticipation of a response. Would someone ask that question of someone or thing they didn't expect to be able to answer "Yes"? The only way I can tell whether or not it is worth even asking the question is by observing the behavior of the person/object in advance to see if it is reasonable to expect a response.

 

[Mercutio]

Merc, if we test the thought via a sort of null hypothesis, and ask, "Are you unconscious" can we get any answer but "no" to that question?

DR

If this were an Interesting Ian thread, or worse, an Iacchus thread, consciousness would have already been defined, as PixyMisa warned just a bit ago "involving qualia, or invoking dualism, or consciousness idealism, or the Cartesian theatre, or any of the other sillyness thrown around in these forums over the past few years". In that case, I would have to say answer "yes, I am unconscious, by your definition."

 

[Frank Newgent]

Merc, if we test the thought via a sort of null hypothesis, and ask, "Are you unconscious" can we get any answer but "no" to that question?

DR

I wish Mercutio were here so that he could read this. I bet he'd find it interesting as it's his specialty and all.

Maybe when he wakes up?

 

[Mercutio]

I wish Mercutio were here so that he could read this. I bet he'd find it interesting as it's his specialty and all.

Maybe when he wakes up?

You wouldn't be suggesting that "not conscious given the constraints of a poor definition of consciousness" = "asleep", would you? That would be disingenuous.

 

[Piggy]

the lack of definition.

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?"

If you're in a position to answer at all, the answer must be "Yes". It cannot be anything else.

To demand a definition is merely a derail, a red herring.

That's the way I see it.

If you see it differently, then we have nothing to talk about unless you can explain why in God's name you actually need a definition to answer this question.

 

[Piggy]

Only close to the first if you asked the first of viruses or prions, where the question is less well defined.

But in my example, the question wasn't asked of viruses or prions.

Similarly, this question is not being asked of viruses or prions, or of anything else except people posting on this forum.

The analogy is quite close.

 

[Piggy]

No. Absolutely not.

And yet, you refuse to explain how that could be so.

 

[Piggy]

Altered. You know silly things like Delerium, Hallucinations, Fugue States or Dissociative States are a start. Silly things that like that.

Please bother to think these things through before you post them.

Do you really intend to argue that you could be in a mental state which would allow you to post a reply to the OP on this forum while unconscious?

Specifically, a state which would allow you to accurately post anything other than "Yes" while not conscious?

 

[Piggy]

That's very amusing Piggy and about as dishonest as anything that Malerin tries to foist here.

Conciousness is about as ambiguous as the word "God". There are technical meanings to it along with a "common" definition. Malerin likes to use it a certain way, a way that apparently he refuses to define. I use it a very different way as well.

Your incredulity and ignorance is pretty irrelevant.

If you don't care to address my posts, then don't. But posting this stuff?

You're simply dodging the points I'm making here, which is that there isn't any definition of conscious (except specialized one such as "environmentally conscious" which the OP does not imply) which would allow an answer other than "Yes" for someone who is replying to the OP.

Which is why you don't cite any.

It doesn't matter whether Malerin has any intentions to try to make specious arguments sometime later.

The fact remains that anyone responding to the OP has no honest option except "Yes".

 

[Piggy]

Psychotics are as concious as you are...or are they? What about the Delerium or drugged folk? How about a totally reponsive sleep walker who responds to your post? Can you tell when you are concious or whatever concious state you're in when you are in Dissociative State?

So tell me. When I take a drug called Versed now, write this entire reply down, go to sleep and wake up with zero memory of ever writing this down, was I concious?

Did I mention that Conciousness was complex? Because some folk like Malerin like to play semantic games or because you like nice little "common" meaning words to mean what YOU want does not change the relevance that he has not presented any definition ...in fact neither have you.

Of course consciousness is complex. I have no intention of denying that.

But your examples don't mean a hill of beans to the OP.

The fact still remains -- anyone capable of responding to the OP must be conscious, and therefore must answer "Yes".

It makes no difference whatsoever that not everyone responding will be in an identical conscious state.

And your example about the sleepwalker is specious. Are you actually aware of any cases of people reading questions and responding to them while asleep?

Finally, your suspicions about Malerin's intentions, while perhaps accurate, are irrelevant to the question of whether a non-conscious person could actually answer the OP with "No".

 

[Piggy]

My definition takes into account a whole bunch of subconcious and unconcious stimuli that you concious "mind" is not aware of. So using my definition, I'm not concious of a whole of host of things even when I'm concious.

But since I have no idea what the hell Malerin definition he is using, I can't really answer the question now can I?

Of course there's a slew of things our brains are processing non-consciously all the time.

But again, that is utterly irrelevant to the OP.

The question is not "Are you conscious of everything your sensory organs pick up?"

Let's get back to the actual question at hand.

Do you actually intend to claim that a person who is not conscious could log onto this forum, read the OP, and accurately answer "No"?

 

[Piggy]

The problem I have with it is that I don't know of a coherent definition of consciousness with which to answer the question.

But this is not a problem, since you don't need one.

If I ask you "Are you alive?" then your answer must be "Yes" even though coming up with an English-language definition of "alive" is a daunting task.

The plain fact is that we all know damn good and well that we're conscious when we're logged onto the JREF forum and posting on threads.

To pretend otherwise is silly, at best.

 

[Piggy]

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.

Whether or not you choose to answer the OP is your business.

But what you are refusing to do is to explain why any of this dog and pony show is at all relevant.

It doesn't matter that there are various states of consciousness.

The OP doesn't ask you to identify what state of consciousness you are in.

 

[Piggy]

Malerin, every time someone suggests that consciousness is not as clear-cut as you think it is, you reply with incredulity. Why don't you reply with arguments instead ?

The OP does not require that consciousness be clear-cut.

It only asks whether or not people posting on this forum are, in some way, conscious.

Clearly, we all are.

Really, folks, this is getting ridiculous.

 

[Piggy]

Which common definition would that be ?

You have not read the very sentence you cite.

 

[Piggy]

For commonly accepted definitions of consciousness D), sure. I talk in my sleep all the time and Mr. H never gets tired of asking me strange questions just to hear my responses.

Are you in the habit of posting meaningful responses in the JREF forum while in that state?

Now look, I want to be perfectly clear, I am not by any means signing on to any world view that Malerin may espouse, or endorsing any sort of rhetorical device Malerin may use elsewhere or in future posts on this thread.

I am focusing strictly on the OP.

And so far, nobody here has given any kind of support to the notion that any answer other than "Yes" to the question of "Are you conscious?" could possibly be accurate when asked of human beings participating in an online forum.

And that's the bottom line.

 

[Hokulele]

And so far, nobody here has given any kind of support to the notion that any answer other than "Yes" to the question of "Are you conscious?" could possibly be accurate when asked of human beings participating in an online forum.

That assumes all of the respondents are human beings. It would be dead easy to set up a script that logs in and posts "No" in response to any thread here, and the script would probably offer the correct answer as often as many of the people posting here given some of the threads.

 

[Mercutio]

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?"

If you're in a position to answer at all, the answer must be "Yes". It cannot be anything else.

To demand a definition is merely a derail, a red herring.

That's the way I see it.

If you see it differently, then we have nothing to talk about unless you can explain why in God's name you actually need a definition to answer this question.

This is the R&P subforum, yes? This is not the sidelines of a football game. If I were asked this question, having just had my clock cleaned by a 300-pound lineman with an open-field tackle, it is a very different question than if I am asked the same question here. Not all instances of asking the same question are indeed the same. If I am asked this while flat on my back, seeing a look of concern in a trainer's eyes, my answer is "yes". If I am asked this while flat on my back, with the world spinning violently and popping in and out disconcertingly, my answer might be "maybe". If I am asked this question in a philosophical debate about the logical worth of dualism, my answer is an unequivocal "no". (other philosophical definitions may get different answers; I think there can be a coherent definition of consciousness, but it would not be dualistic.)

If the OP specified the vast majority of real-life situations, then your point here would be valid. Instead, the OP mentioned P-Zombies. Any situation in which P-Zombies are invoked is no longer a normal use of the term "conscious", as the P-Zombie itself was specifically invented as a means of teasing apart a dualist consciousness.

This is, as the linguists say, not semantics but pragmatics. The meanings of words, and the words we choose, change with the situations we are in. To pretend otherwise is just silly. If you ask an eyewitness whether a rifle-wielding thief had a "gun", the answer is yes. If you ask a military specialist whether a rifle is a "gun", the answer is often no, that term being reserved for artillery.

Answer a question in the context in which it is asked. Don't pretend the context does not matter.

 

[Piggy]

That assumes all of the respondents are human beings. It would be dead easy to set up a script that logs in and posts "No" in response to any thread here, and the script would probably offer the correct answer as often as many of the people posting here given some of the threads.

Which makes no difference at all, in terms of what's being posted here.

It's still the case that any person posting here must answer "Yes".