Are You Conscious?

[PixyMisa]

A diagram is worth a thousand posts.

Agreed.

Having been woken up by support calls at 1AM and again at 6AM, I am not presently inhabiting my usual place in the upper-right of that diagram. Blargle.

 

[Z]

Piggy,

The problem, as I see it, is that you are willing to answer based on your own assumption of what definitions are in play; this, as I see it, is intellectually foolish.

Let me try to illustrate the problem:

If someone asks me, 'Are you an American?' I answer in the affirmative, because for all definitions of the term of which I am aware, I am an American. However, if someone asks me if I am a Yankee, I have to ask for clarification, because by some definitions, I am, and by others, I am not. Meanwhile, if someone asks me if I'm a good person, I would have to enter into quite a discussion. By some definitions, I am, and by others, I'm not; but what's worse is, in some situations, I may believe myself to be good, and in fact, be bad.

Consciousness is the latter example. By some definitions (most, I'd warrant), I believe I am conscious; by a few others, I believe I am not. But my belief in being conscious may be a false, implanted, or programmed belief; or, rather, my reaction claiming such belief may be false, implanted, or programmed. Therefore, the rational choice in THIS poll is 'Maybe'.

You don't KNOW you're conscious, Piggy; you BELIEVE you're conscious. The only thing you know is that experience happens.

... Is any of this making any sense?

 

[paximperium]

How is your Ki today?

 

[Darat]

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

Perhaps by the definition you are using, but not by other people's definitions.

 

[Darat]

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

In the context of this thread and the history of this section:

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, because I am a m-zombie.

(Have a look at the most recent thread on "awareness" for further context.)

 

[Roboramma]

It's actually making it more coherent.



As usual, philosophy gets left in a cloud of its own rhetorical dust while science actually figures out what's going on.

Every one of us moves in and out of conscious states every day.

And every one of us has the experience of being conscious of some things that our senses pick up, and not conscious of others.

Consciousness isn't some dicey concept like the soul that's threatened with being pushed out of legitimacy or acceptance, or shown to be empty.

It's one of the basic and important functions of our brains. In fact, our brains use up a good deal of resources to maintain it.

Unlike the soul, consciousness actually has an energy signature.

Piggy, given the above post, I think that the way that you are using the word, I am conscious. I don't think Malerin is using the word the same way that you are, which is probably why people want him to define it.

 

[Piggy]

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

But I've never disagreed with you about the lack of context in the OP, or the fact that there are various states of consciousness, or that the boundary among them (and between them and non-conscious states) can be blurry, or that a complete and precise definition of consciousness is elusive.

 

[Piggy]

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

You're reading more into my response to that post than is there. It was a narrow response to one particular post.

 

[Piggy]

You don't KNOW you're conscious, Piggy; you BELIEVE you're conscious. The only thing you know is that experience happens.

Regarding the need for the definitions up front, I've already said what you've said there, but with different examples (for instance, "That's funny").

I've also explained why I don't believe a demand for definitions makes sense at this point, but others may see it differently.

But yes, I know I'm conscious. I don't merely believe it. I'm sitting here typing at my keyboard, and I have a few decades of experience now with being conscious. I know that I'm not unconscious right now.

 

[Piggy]

Perhaps by the definition you are using, but not by other people's definitions.

Do you know of a reasonable definition that would have us here typing while unconscious?

 

[Piggy]

In the context of this thread and the history of this section:

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, because I am a m-zombie.

(Have a look at the most recent thread on "awareness" for further context.)

Like I said before, makes sense to me.

 

[Mercutio]

You're reading more into my response to that post than is there. It was a narrow response to one particular post.

I followed the back and forth that led to my "excluded middle" claim, starting with post 253 (and the post it quotes). Unless there is considerably more to it, then I am only reading as much into it as is there, to the best of my knowledge. There is a huge range between "there is more than one definition" and "then you'd never be able to answer any question!"

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, given the above post, I think that the way that you are using the word, I am conscious. I don't think Malerin is using the word the same way that you are, which is probably why people want him to define it.

If you don't mind, would you explain in a few words what you believe Malerin's definition is?

 

[Piggy]

There is a huge range between "there is more than one definition" and "then you'd never be able to answer any question!"

Yes, indeed there is. But my point is simply that if you demand this categorically, then you can't answer any question, so -- as I've been saying all along -- there has to be a reason to ask for clarification.

In this case, I don't see a need for clarification at the outset, given that none of us can honestly say that we're unconscious. We all know we're conscious in one way or another, so the answer must be "Yes". (Even if we believe that the OP has some other definition in mind which we would disagree with.)

If the OPer then cares to discuss what those responses imply, at that point a discussion of which meaning was intended (by OPer and respondents) is appropriate.

Pretty simple, and ymmv.

But I have to say, I don't see the demand for an up-front definition being at all productive in this particular case. And as a corollary, having a slew of skeptics who appear not to be able to admit that they're conscious is not particularly helpful either.

Anyway, I think this issue's been played to death.

 

[Frank Newgent]

stimulus

What behaviors? Necessity and duty are nouns.

response

You define pain as behaviour?

Yes.

 

[Z]

Regarding the need for the definitions up front, I've already said what you've said there, but with different examples (for instance, "That's funny").

I've also explained why I don't believe a demand for definitions makes sense at this point, but others may see it differently.

But yes, I know I'm conscious. I don't merely believe it. I'm sitting here typing at my keyboard, and I have a few decades of experience now with being conscious. I know that I'm not unconscious right now.

What is "I"? Your claim, that you 'know' that you're conscious, carries several assumptions (as has been discussed, as you say, to death in other threads). But you don't even 'know' if there is a 'you', philosophically speaking.

Sophism? Most likely. But on the R&P forum, assumptions of ANY kind are clearly a mistake.

In the R&P forum, no basic statement should ever remain unchallenged. No assumptions should ever be made up-front. And the most logical response, as a result, to a broad, undefined question like that in the OP, remains 'Maybe'.

If you'll pardon me saying so, your refusal to accept that rationality only makes you appear stubborn.

But, then, you also appear to be refusing to consider the possibility that at least a few of the respondants to a thread might be bots, whose consciousness is questionable at best...

But for such a simple situation, we've argued this point to death for far, far too long. We get it - you disagree with our reasoning. Fine. But as far as I can see - and I'm only a minor participant on the sidelines - our reasoning is far more valid, and the poll's numbers only seem odd because so many people claim 'yes'!

Anyway - can we perhaps move on?

 

[Mercutio]

In today's Boston Globe, regarding a survey of "over 900 philosophers at 99 leading universities around the world":

The survey was conducted by David Chalmers, of the Australian National University, and David Bourget, of the University of London, both editors of the online site PhilPapers, where the results appeared.

For the record, the pair report that philosophers were widely split on the question of whether zombies were “inconceivable” (16 percent), “conceivable but not metaphysically possible” (36 percent), or “metaphysically possible” (23 percent). On that particular issue, 25 percent opted for “other.”

 

[Piggy]

For the record, the pair report that philosophers were widely split on the question of whether zombies were “inconceivable” (16 percent), “conceivable but not metaphysically possible” (36 percent), or “metaphysically possible” (23 percent). On that particular issue, 25 percent opted for “other.”

As they say where I'm from, "I don't think I'd 'a' told that'n".

 

[AkuManiMani]

Agreed.

Having been woken up by support calls at 1AM and again at 6AM, I am not presently inhabiting my usual place in the upper-right of that diagram. Blargle.

Oh-muh-GAWD! We agree on something! Im...I'm afraid *_*

 

[Piggy]

What is "I"? Your claim, that you 'know' that you're conscious, carries several assumptions (as has been discussed, as you say, to death in other threads). But you don't even 'know' if there is a 'you', philosophically speaking.

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.