Are You Conscious?

[Mercutio]

For what values of unconscious can you be able to answer yes to that by typing it on a keyboard?

(Is there a link to this Interesting Ian def that you have handy? )

DR

Just spent too much time revisiting some wonderful interchanges with II. I miss him. Anyway, some of the links were dead, so some of it may well have been from before Hal's culling of the forum, but this thread gives you a bit of a taste.

"Bereft of phenomenological conscious states" is a paraphrase of II's version. And by that definition, I am unconscious.

 

[Darth Rotor]

No, it was quite intentional.

That is no surprise.

I am fully aware that the "real" was dropped. This thread did not explicitly link to other threads, so keeping the "real" would have changed the analogy.

It would also have made for an honest question in the context of the set up.

A very general question can be put into a context where its meaning has changed. It is, by itself, a very simple question; it is, by virtue of context, a very different thing. That was my point.

You have told us that definitions are important, and then you took the trouble to form a definition, and then render it irrelevant to the context of the question you asked.

Lesson learned: don't take the question seriously.

What was the lesson intended? Your last two sentences are ambiguous, and I believe deliberately so.

DR

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Yup, been there, i was quite the entertainer as well. I recall some of it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Just spent too much time revisiting some wonderful interchanges with II. I miss him. Anyway, some of the links were dead, so some of it may well have been from before Hal's culling of the forum, but this thread gives you a bit of a taste.

"Bereft of phenomenological conscious states" is a paraphrase of II's version. And by that definition, I am unconscious.

Thanks! Sorry to see that much was lost. So it goes.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

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.

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?

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"?

 

[Mercutio]

That is no surprise.

...ok.

It would also have made for an honest question in the context of the set up.

I agree; that was my point. Thank you for perceiving it.

You have told us that definitions are important, and then you took the trouble to form a definition, and then render it irrelevant to the context of the question you asked.

Indeed. As I said, it was my intent to follow the form of the OP

Lesson learned: don't take the question seriously.

Oh, and you were so close. Well, I suppose "don't take them at face value" might be more accurate.

What was the lesson intended? Your last two sentences are ambiguous, and I believe deliberately so.

Simple-appearing sentences are not always simple in context.

DR

M

 

[Darth Rotor]

Well, I suppose "don't take them at face value" might be more accurate.

OK, I'll buy that.

I need to puzzle over that linked thread before I decide to further participate in this one, as I am beginning to see some baggage left unclaimed on the airport carousel here. If I have a bit of time, I'll drop by again in a day or two, some of this discussion is of interest to me.

Thanks.

DR

 

[Mercutio]

"Some" baggage? Try reading the entire "primary and secondary qualities" thread, if it still exists. Consciousness threads here have baggage that can be seen from orbit.

 

[Piggy]

Clearly, no. You have several people here falsifying your claim; you simply choose to either ignore them or disparage their motives.

Falsifying which claim? The claim that we're all conscious human beings? Or the claim that the existence of multiple definitions doesn't change that fact?

 

[Piggy]

Which still leaves the mention of P-Zombies in the OP, which still leaves my answer as "no". Barring that mention, my answer would have to be "maybe".

Yeah, an obviously facetious reference to p-zombies.

And not only that, but the OP is still not a question about p-zombies. Even if you take that reference at face value, it's asking if any of y'all are p-zombies instead of human beings.

So the mention of p-zombies in the OP still doesn't change the fact that we're all conscious human beings here, which means the only sensible answer any of us can give is "Yes".

Even granted multiple definitions of "conscious", which there certainly are, one would have to fit none of them at all in order to be able to answer "No".

 

[Piggy]

The P-Zombie mention in the OP is a very serious qualifier. If we add to it the 7-year history of R&P debate (which, contrary to your assertion, is quite arguably part of the current context; these threads do not arise in a vacuum), there is sufficient reason for those who disagree with dualistic definitions of consciousness to answer something other than "yes".

Why is that?

I, for instance, am not a dualist.

But when I post on this thread, I'm obviously conscious.

Whether or not you embrace dualism shouldn't have any bearing.

Nor should the reference to p-zombies unless you actually claim to be one, and by claiming to be one you claim not to be conscious.

Which would be, of course, ridiculous.

 

[Piggy]

Despite you trying to put words in my mouth my answer remains the same as when I first posted it:

As the word is commonly used in my language community - yes; as it is often used in threads in this section of the Forum - no, I am a m-zombie.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Piggy]

Some people's definition of man includes someone who has sex with women - by that definition I am not a man. Unless I can either tell from the context/situation what definition someone is using or they provide a definition I can't actually answer their question.

Then you can't answer any question at all.

 

[Piggy]

But according to you, this entire thread is immaterial. Since you "know" that there is only one correct answer for everyone, then the poll and the thread are a pointless exercise. In fact, you should probably report it to the mods as spam. You certainly shouldn't be chastising Mercutio or anyone else for contributing "immaterial" responses.

Bingo. The OP is as pointless as asking everyone here if they're alive.

But it's not spam.

As for pointing out blatant irrelevancies, that indeed may be pointless as well.

 

[Piggy]

Why do you ask? I made myself rather clear. I have posted on the forum when I was not exactly conscious.

No exactly?

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

 

[Mercutio]

Falsifying which claim? The claim that we're all conscious human beings? Or the claim that the existence of multiple definitions doesn't change that fact?

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

No, it has not been.

 

[Mercutio]

Yeah, an obviously facetious reference to p-zombies.

Sure, why not? The whole thread is facetious, if you like. It is in R&P--that's worse than Chinatown.

And not only that, but the OP is still not a question about p-zombies. Even if you take that reference at face value, it's asking if any of y'all are p-zombies instead of human beings.

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

So the mention of p-zombies in the OP still doesn't change the fact that we're all conscious human beings here, which means the only sensible answer any of us can give is "Yes".

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.

Even granted multiple definitions of "conscious", which there certainly are, one would have to fit none of them at all in order to be able to answer "No".

No, one would only have to not fit the one they were thinking of at the time. (And, lest you suggest that "thinking" requires "consciousness", I refer you to the M-Zombie which does think, but is not conscious by Interesting Ian's definition.)

 

[Mercutio]

Then you can't answer any question at all.

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.

 

[Mercutio]

Which would be, of course, ridiculous.

Why? (I think Darat asked you a similar question earlier.) I mean, by Ian's definition, I clearly am one.

 

[Darat]

Would you care to stay on topic?

I am.