Are You Conscious?

[Frank Newgent]

Pardon? I did not quote, I paraphrased. And I will trust my coursework and reading of Wittgenstein's original over your wikipedia scholarship, thank you.

I'll take your word for it. Please show me where/how I've misinterpreted Wittgenstein.

 

[Mercutio]

It is here. If you don't know you're conscious, you don't know anything. You must live your life in a haze of bewildering possibilities. This is like people who believe in Xenu or think Obama's a Muslim.

You say you're not conscious? You're, in fact, some kind of zombie? Uh huh. Whatever you say. Good luck with that. Moving right along...

Thank you for illustrating my point. I have bent over backward to insist that it is by some definitions that I am not conscious, and yet you equate that strongly conditioned statement with "you don't know anything". Such a black-and-white world view... rainbows must suck on your planet.

 

[Mercutio]

I'll take your word for it. Please show me where/how I've misinterpreted Wittgenstein.

Post #315. We do, in ordinary circumstances, use the words perfectly well without defining them. This is, however, not the case when (for instance) someone takes a definition of "conscious" from one situation and drops it into another. In each situation, the word needs no definition--its use is sufficient for us to know we are in agreement. Our disagreement in this case, however, shows that something else is going on. We do not, in this case, use the word successfully. Wittgenstein shows how it is that we define our words through use (as Piggy has helpfully contrasted with referential definition), and in context. A referential definition, pairing a particular word with some Platonic Ideal definition, would allow us to pick up a word from any context and deposit it in any other; in practice, of course, we do not and cannot do that. "Conscious" is used differently in different contexts. Within each of them, its use defines it successfully; when we don't have a context, we don't have a usage, and we don't have a definition we agree upon.

 

[Frank Newgent]

Post #315. We do, in ordinary circumstances, use the words perfectly well without defining them. This is, however, not the case when (for instance) someone takes a definition of "conscious" from one situation and drops it into another. In each situation, the word needs no definition--its use is sufficient for us to know we are in agreement. Our disagreement in this case, however, shows that something else is going on. We do not, in this case, use the word successfully. Wittgenstein shows how it is that we define our words through use (as Piggy has helpfully contrasted with referential definition), and in context. A referential definition, pairing a particular word with some Platonic Ideal definition, would allow us to pick up a word from any context and deposit it in any other; in practice, of course, we do not and cannot do that. "Conscious" is used differently in different contexts. Within each of them, its use defines it successfully; when we don't have a context, we don't have a usage, and we don't have a definition we agree upon.

Can you use the word "conscious" successfully to describe yourself at this moment?

 

[Mercutio]

Can you use the word "conscious" successfully to describe yourself at this moment?

Can I? Certainly. If, however, at this moment I were in a conversation with Iacchus, that word would not be meaningful (his lack of agreement with others is part of why he is no longer here), and I would not be able to successfully use it (he would, as Malerin has just above, take any mention I made as meaning something vastly different than what I thought was quite clearly meant). Oddly enough, in a conversation with Interesting Ian, we would understand one another at this moment (because of a great many previous moments misunderstanding one another and tangling with definitions and examples), although we would understand that we disagreed about each other's definitions. (That would, of course, be consistent with Wittgenstein, as a separate context.) Ian and I disagreed, but understood one another's positions.

(it is also clear that I can use the word "conscious" to unsuccessfully describe myself at this moment. Malerin would, as s/he has demonstrated, take it as meaning something very different than what I mean.)

 

[Frank Newgent]

Can I? Certainly. If, however, at this moment I were in a conversation with Iacchus, that word would not be meaningful (his lack of agreement with others is part of why he is no longer here), and I would not be able to successfully use it (he would, as Malerin has just above, take any mention I made as meaning something vastly different than what I thought was quite clearly meant). Oddly enough, in a conversation with Interesting Ian, we would understand one another at this moment (because of a great many previous moments misunderstanding one another and tangling with definitions and examples), although we would understand that we disagreed about each other's definitions. (That would, of course, be consistent with Wittgenstein, as a separate context.) Ian and I disagreed, but understood one another's positions.

(it is also clear that I can use the word "conscious" to unsuccessfully describe myself at this moment. Malerin would, as s/he has demonstrated, take it as meaning something very different than what I mean.)

Mind reading?

Wittgenstein shows how it is that we define our words through use (as Piggy has helpfully contrasted with referential definition), and in context. .

If this is true... please show me.

Can you use the word "conscious" successfully to describe yourself at this moment?

 

[Piggy]

Sounds similiar to what Piggy has been saying all along.

Well, not quite, but sorta.

The objections raised by those demanding a definition up front come from the fact that, based on past experience (ok, that's redundant, but anyway) they have reason to believe that we're dealing with more than one sense of the word, and they don't want to answer "Yes" when they disagree with all the baggage in Malerin's sense of the word.

So for them, it's kind of like if Malerin were asking "Do you think that's funny?" and they want to know "Ha-ha funny, or weird funny?" and they don't want to answer until Malerin clarifies that.

(After all, if someone were to say, "My mother was murdered last year, and my father never even cried -- don't you think that's kind of funny?", you'd probably want to be sure they meant "strange" instead of "hilarious".)

The reason I was saying that we don't need a definition to answer the question is that we're not actually in a situation like the funny/funny issue.

It seems to me that the objections to Malerin's use of the word don't actually arise from the plain sense of the term: Awake and aware of your surroundings.

Rather, it comes from a whole cluster of assumptions and deductions which are ancillary to that plain sense meaning.

From what I've seen here, I don't get any indication that anyone on this thread actually believes that we're not all, in fact, awake and aware of what's going on around us.

So I can't agree with the objections to taking the question at face value.

It makes more sense from my POV to answer "Yes" (in fact, I believe it's the only answer that makes sense b/c clearly none of us are unconscious when we participate on this forum) and wait to see if any of the ancillary logic is brought up by the OP.

 

[Piggy]

It's like the "are you alive?" example you gave earlier. If it is asked of you by the paramedic who pulls you from your wrecked car, there is only one response. If asked of random strangers by someone at the mall or airport, with a handful of pamphlets and books, it's time to start questioning assumptions.

And that's where we diverge.

From my POV, the answer is either "Yes" or "**** off".

 

[Frank Newgent]

Well, not quite, but sorta.

The objections raised by those demanding a definition up front come from the fact that, based on past experience (ok, that's redundant, but anyway) they have reason to believe that we're dealing with more than one sense of the word, and they don't want to answer "Yes" when they disagree with all the baggage in Malerin's sense of the word.

So for them, it's kind of like if Malerin were asking "Do you think that's funny?" and they want to know "Ha-ha funny, or weird funny?" and they don't want to answer until Malerin clarifies that.

(After all, if someone were to say, "My mother was murdered last year, and my father never even cried -- don't you think that's kind of funny?", you'd probably want to be sure they meant "strange" instead of "hilarious".)

The reason I was saying that we don't need a definition to answer the question is that we're not actually in a situation like the funny/funny issue.

It seems to me that the objections to Malerin's use of the word don't actually arise from the plain sense of the term: Awake and aware of your surroundings.

Rather, it comes from a whole cluster of assumptions and deductions which are ancillary to that plain sense meaning.

From what I've seen here, I don't get any indication that anyone on this thread actually believes that we're not all, in fact, awake and aware of what's going on around us.

So I can't agree with the objections to taking the question at face value.

It makes more sense from my POV to answer "Yes" (in fact, I believe it's the only answer that makes sense b/c clearly none of us are unconscious when we participate on this forum) and wait to see if any of the ancillary logic is brought up by the OP.

Ironic that "if a Shakespearean figure could speak, we could not understand him."

 

[PixyMisa]

The question was asked (partly) because I was curious how many people had gone off the metaphysical deep end. I thought it was a very small (but vocal) minority. Turns out, it's almost half the people here. There's no foundation to build on (my other reason for starting the poll). A lot of you are just as nuts as the religious fanatics you rail against.

Interesting. When you pile enough ad hominems on top of one another, it turns into a single non-sequitur.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

* ploughs lonely furrow *

Like many posters on this thread, I have been on both ends of the question about consciousness. For example, the morning after a heavy session of music and drink at The Midden, I saunter into the drawing-room and enquire of the corpselike bods on the carpet " Are you conscious?"

Smith responds Yes, I'm conscious.
Jones responds No, I'm having a kip, you ass!
Robinson lobs a pillow at my head.

All three are obviously conscious. But let's concentrate on Smith, since he has responded Yes.

Can I now follow up by asking him What grounds have you got for your response? or Are you sure? or Have you checked??

Obviously not. Smith no more has or needs grounds for saying that he is conscious than he has or needs grounds for saying Ouch! or It hurts! if he happens to have barked his shin. His saying Yes, I'm conscious is not a report of either an inner or an outer state of consciousness: it's a sign of his being conscious. The notion that Smith might know the truth of his report that he is conscious is quite as bizarre as the notion that he might doubt it. Both notions are unintelligible.

 

[Mercutio]

Mind reading?

See, it's comments like this that make one doubt that you understood Wittgenstein. You quote wiki as saying that we have no need for definitions, that we understand from context, and when I do so you call it mind reading.

Sorry, no, I noted their use of the words, which was different from my use. Thus the phrase "lack of agreement", and the description of a history of interaction with Ian.

 

[gentlehorse]

This is getting tedious.

My entire point is that no definition has to be produced in order for the OP to be answered.

If you know of a valid definition of "conscious" that would allow someone who is not conscious to log onto this forum, read the OP, and post an accurate reply of "No", then there's a need for disambiguation.

But since you don't, then no definition is needed in order to answer the question, and calling for one is a transparent attempt at a derail.

If you think Malerin is going to attempt a rhetorical trick sometime after hearing your reply, then deal with it when it happens, if it happens.

Agreed.

That 40+% of the folks couldn't or wouldn't answer "yes" just cracks me up. Between them and the folks who have convinced themselves that they don't exist (I'm sure there's some overlap), the opportunities for a good chuckle abound.

Of course, it could be that I'm just not smart enough to realize that I'm not conscious and don't exist.

 

[Piggy]

His saying Yes, I'm conscious is not a report of either an inner or an outer state of consciousness: it's a sign of his being conscious. The notion that Smith might know the truth of his report that he is conscious is quite as bizarre as the notion that he might doubt it. Both notions are unintelligible.

How about this, then:

His throwing up is a sign of his being sick to his stomach. The notion that Smight might know the truth about being sick to his stomach is quite as bizarre as the notion that he might doubt it. Both notions are unintelligible.

 

[Mercutio]

Agreed.

That 40+% of the folks couldn't or wouldn't answer "yes" just cracks me up. Between them and the folks who have convinced themselves that they don't exist (I'm sure there's some overlap), the opportunities for a good chuckle abound.

Of course, it could be that I'm just not smart enough to realize that I'm not conscious and don't exist.

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

 

[Dancing David]

Oh, I exist and there are many times I meet the definition of conscious, as medically defined. What does not exist is consciousness or a 'self'. I am a body, that is all. The body is at times conscious by the common defintion but it does not have consciousness, nor does it have a mind.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

How about this, then:

His throwing up is a sign of his being sick to his stomach. The notion that Smight might know the truth about being sick to his stomach is quite as bizarre as the notion that he might doubt it. Both notions are unintelligible.

Piggy,

When Smith gives a technicolour yawn, he isn't telling. He's showing.

When he cats, it makes no sense to ask him How do you know?

 

[PixyMisa]

This is getting tedious.

My entire point is that no definition has to be produced in order for the OP to be answered.

If you know of a valid definition of "conscious" that would allow someone who is not conscious to log onto this forum, read the OP, and post an accurate reply of "No", then there's a need for disambiguation.

That's not the problem.

The problem is that there are many invalid, counterfactual, and downright incoherent definitions of consciousness that do not apply to me, or to anyone. Under those definitions, the answer is no.

And there's no shortage of people in this forum who use those definitions. Given Malerin's posting history and his failure to supply a definition of his own, it's reasonable to assume that he might also be using such a definition. So the only reasonable response to this poll is Define consciousness.

That was my reply. No definition forthcoming, that remains my reply.

 

[Frank Newgent]

See, it's comments like this that make one doubt that you understood Wittgenstein. You quote wiki as saying that we have no need for definitions, that we understand from context, and when I do so you call it mind reading.

I didn't think you were actually reading anyone's mind.

Understanding from context is not misunderstanding from isolation.

Sorry, no, I noted their use of the words, which was different from my use. Thus the phrase "lack of agreement", and the description of a history of interaction with Ian.

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

Is why I quipped paraphrasing Wittgenstein "if a Shakespearean figure could speak, we could not understand him."

 

[Z]

That's not the problem.

The problem is that there are many invalid, counterfactual, and downright incoherent definitions of consciousness that do not apply to me, or to anyone. Under those definitions, the answer is no.

And there's no shortage of people in this forum who use those definitions. Given Malerin's posting history and his failure to supply a definition of his own, it's reasonable to assume that he might also be using such a definition. So the only reasonable response to this poll is Define consciousness.

That was my reply. No definition forthcoming, that remains my reply.

Exactly my point. The question was asked in a vacuum, and the only clue to its context is that it was asked in the R&P forum, in a place where definitions regularly have to be hashed out and pinned down for conversation to take place. If, for example, the question would arise in the Humor forum, we might assume it was merely meant to generate humorous responses; if it appeared in the Politics thread, we'd really have to wonder what the point was of asking such a lame question.

But it appeared in the R&P forum, and as a result, the very appearance of the question sets off red flags. "Are you conscious?" Meaning what? Without context, definitions, and so forth, answering based on a common assumption, in a thread where common assumptions are challenged daily, is absurd. Indeed, answering such a question at all (short of a complex conditional response) is itself absurd. So, logically, more information is necessary before we can really respond in the affirmative (or the negative, depending).

Add to that Malerin's posting history, which usually tries to associate all cognitive ability to immaterial, spiritual, or purely non-physical processes, and you have a grenade missing a pin, with a small post-it pad saying, "Pick me up" laying in the forum.