Are You Conscious?

[Dancing David]

I don't think that is correct. That is, I 'think' human -- and probably many other -- neural systems think without objective verbal cognition.

We are back to to the What is awareness? What is Consciousness? problem.

You to seem suggest awareness of awareness must be verbalized to be real.

Not exactly, but you detect consciousness in yourself through the same means as you do in others, observation of behaviors.

 

[AlBell]

I don't think that is correct. That is, I 'think' human -- and probably many other -- neural systems think without objective verbal cognition.

We are back to to the What is awareness? What is Consciousness? problem.

You to seem suggest awareness of awareness must be verbalized to be real.

Not exactly, but you detect consciousness in yourself through the same means as you do in others, observation of behaviors.

I'm now guessing you are using consciousness to apply only to humans able to verbalize.

I disagree. Consciousness is one of the attributes that separates life from not-life. It is a reality, not a label, and I'd say we both were conscious probably pre-birth.

 

[westprog]

We're only going around in circles because you don't understand English. Look up those terms in a dictionary. You asked for a definition of consciousness and I went beyond the call of duty by giving you a definition of awareness as well. If you STILL don't understand the words and you need me to define "is", then you'll have to look somewhere else.

Your inability to define consciousness is your problem, not mine.

I don't accept that "consciousness", "awareness" or "perception" have any clear definition, and the dictionary won't be any help. Dictionaries are not philosophical or scientific treatises. The circular references are between a number of ill-defined, and probably undefinable terms.

 

[Robin]

I don't accept that "consciousness", "awareness" or "perception" have any clear definition, and the dictionary won't be any help. Dictionaries are not philosophical or scientific treatises. The circular references are between a number of ill-defined, and probably undefinable terms.

What do you think of my proposal to separate the components of consciousness that can have a behavioural definition from the components that have only an ostensive definition?

 

[rocketdodger]

I don't accept that "consciousness", "awareness" or "perception" have any clear definition, and the dictionary won't be any help.

Luckally, your non-acceptance has no bearing on what anyone else thinks.

In particular, everyone else who has participated in these threads in order to actually learn something agree that such terms must have a clear definition if any progress is to be made.

 

[Robin]

Luckally, your non-acceptance has no bearing on what anyone else thinks.

In particular, everyone else who has participated in these threads in order to actually learn something agree that such terms must have a clear definition if any progress is to be made.

This seems to be a version of the True Scotsman fallacy.

 

[annnnoid]

So we get back to the meat of the matter.
The meat of the matter is not ‘what is consciousness’?
The meat of the matter is ‘why don’t we know’?

In order for a scientist to observe, evaluate, or analyze any phenomenon….the scientist must first ensure the integrity of the instrument through which the phenomenon is measured. IOW….does the instrument work the way it is supposed to work….does the instrument produce reliable readings?

The instrument is the scientist. The phenomenon is the scientist.

So why don’t we know?

…but that can’t be a question because we don’t know how to answer it? Better to ask the questions we can answer, even if they’re the wrong ones.

I sometimes get the impression that certain entities would rather have a-sex with their dead grandmother than admit that ‘why’ is even a relevant question.

Whatever….you guys can debate this one till you’re blue in the face. I’ve been reading some of the past JREF threads on consciousness and no one ever resolves anything (just like here). Of course, (most) everyone always asks the same questions….over and over and over and over and over. Maybe there’s a connection. I guess I’ll defer to the superior wisdom of the JREF veterans on this one. No doubt I’m wrong.

Thanks, by the way, for the compliment Robin. I developed the idea whilst pursuing one of my professional sidelines….writing self-help books for alien species. You tend to get weird ideas when speculating upon varieties of sentience that don’t require Tom Robbins. IMO it’s more than mere metaphor but it would take a seriously redefined POV to understand that. Most peoples POV exhibit a fundamental resistance to redefinition. One of the characteristics of being a POV I guess….you inevitably think the world is the way you see it. But then there’s this ‘irritating anatomy of god’ thing which, as POV’s go, is just marginally more defined than ours (assuming, of course, that our interpretation of ‘it’ is….accurate). Mathematics…real, live, woo (just because we understand it doesn’t mean we understand our understanding of it [which, quite indisputably, we don’t]…which rather aptly describes the entirety of our existence…no wonder we need philosophers).

Someone once said: We use words so we can avoid having to face the fact that we don’t know what we’re talking about.

Though it may mean an end to ‘what is consciousness’ threads, the resolution to that statement may be necessary before an answer to consciousness can be known. But that would be boring and sometimes, I guess, asking the wrong questions can lead to the right answers (for some people).

 

[LightningStrike]

There is no life in the universe

There are only life forms.

The only life in the universe is in this body.

 

[westprog]

What do you think of my proposal to separate the components of consciousness that can have a behavioural definition from the components that have only an ostensive definition?

I think it's an interesting approach, but it's more a matter of problem analysis than a linguistic definition that everyone can agree on.

I don't think that's a bad thing - but I tend to agree with Crick that precise definitions are premature.

 

[westprog]

This seems to be a version of the True Scotsman fallacy.

With a touch of the Inquisition thrown in. If you don't subscribe to the Party Line, excommunication is appropriate.

 

[Belz...]

I don't accept that "consciousness", "awareness" or "perception" have any clear definition, and the dictionary won't be any help. Dictionaries are not philosophical or scientific treatises. The circular references are between a number of ill-defined, and probably undefinable terms.

You didn't ask for a scientific treatise, dammit. You asked for a DEFINITION, which to me simply states that we understand how to distinguish consciousness from other stuff. I provided you with a definition and now you're moving the goalposts.

 

[Belz...]

The ostensive components are sensations, where I can only say, "like pain for example".

And pain being an observable behaviour, how is that different from other indications of consciousness ?

 

[Belz...]

Allow me to update my definition of consciousness.

Consciousness is a state of self-interaction exhibited by descrete things. A conscious thing is at least partially aware of its own functions through these interactions, at least some of the time. Such a state is detectable mainly through behaviour, for example self-reporting.

There. Awareness defined in terms of interaction between particles or stuff made of particles, hence behaviour. Now, westprog, I hope you won't be asking for a definition of "interaction". Or "is".

 

[annnnoid]

Allow me to update my definition of consciousness.

Consciousness is a state of self-interaction exhibited by descrete things. A conscious thing is at least partially aware of its own functions through these interactions, at least some of the time. Such a state is detectable mainly through behaviour, for example self-reporting.

There. Awareness defined in terms of interaction between particles or stuff made of particles, hence behaviour. Now, westprog, I hope you won't be asking for a definition of "interaction". Or "is".

IOW….you don’t know what consciousness is. Since this is clearly a fact, does this mean you do not know what your own consciousness is? So what does it mean if a creature defined in part by its ability to describe reality symbolically is incapable of describing the defining feature of its own existence? IOW…Belz can’t describe what he is. Does that mean…………..anything?

Any scientists out there?

The defining feature of consciousness is that it has one: subjective reality. It can hardly be hypothetical to suggest that there is a connection between a reality capable of knowing/being and it’s ability to know/be what it is. Knowing/being is…knowing…being (one of those things that simply is what it is). To put it simply, the knowing of science is eons ahead of the science of knowing.

Consciousness is the ability to know what it is. Consciousness is something that knows what it is. In another paradigm this would be described as absurdly idealistic, but this isn’t another paradigm (ie: religion)…this is science. Science describes things objectively and impartially. A thing defined by its ability to know cannot be a complete reality if it does not know itself (various arguments do actually support this but essentially it reduces to logic…and faith). It doesn’t take much more than a cursory glance at the geography of the human landscape to conclude that consciousness does not merely exist….or not. It is a phenomenon that exists as a function of degree. IOW….all these operational features define a reality that is more, or less, alive. IOW....there is functional consciousness, and there is dysfunctional consciousness. If science is looking for a definition of consciousness then it would logically be sensible to create a definition of functional consciousness. IOW…know what it is…and then it will be possible to determine what it is not.

As I said earlier…many ‘scientific’ entities seem ideologically opposed to the reality of the phenomenon known as human truth…suggesting it is merely a psychological misrepresentation. Ironic I suppose that science now finds itself in the position of condemning others for going where it chooses not to. Where have we heard that variety of social phenomenon occur before.

The blatant hypocrisy of this is revealed by the simple statement: The knowing of science is eons ahead of the science of knowing. IOW….science is practiced by so-called-experts who have no idea how they achieve what they achieve…yet are quite prepared to conclude that this is irrelevant. And not only that, many of these same experts heap scorn upon those who actually admit their ignorance and seek some authentic response to the colossal mystery of their existence.

All of this would, of course, be merely academic (or confined to theology) except for the fact that science…or us…or whatever…has made consciousness the final frontier. And for better or worse, the realities of consciousness have far more in common with mysticism than any kind of science anyone is familiar with (…for example…the ability to apprehend/comprehend a reality that resembles nothing less than a universal vocabulary….mathematics….which also seems to exist nowhere except as a function of the only reality capable of recognizing it as one).

Thus…the second most defining feature of consciousness (currently) is that it exists as something that doesn’t know what it is. Why?

 

[Robin]

And pain being an observable behaviour, how is that different from other indications of consciousness ?

Well then - provide a behavioural definition of pain.

Let us say, for example that I am not an English speaker and don't understand what the word "pain" means - give me your behavioural definition.

 

[westprog]

Allow me to update my definition of consciousness.

Consciousness is a state of self-interaction exhibited by descrete things. A conscious thing is at least partially aware of its own functions through these interactions, at least some of the time. Such a state is detectable mainly through behaviour, for example self-reporting.

There. Awareness defined in terms of interaction between particles or stuff made of particles, hence behaviour. Now, westprog, I hope you won't be asking for a definition of "interaction". Or "is".

No, I'll be asking for a definition of "aware". There's a money word in each of these definitions. I'm not hiding from perfectly sound explanations of exactly what consciousness is. I'm pointing out the big hole in all of the definitions which defines consciousness in terms of some aspect of consciousness, such as awareness, perception, understanding, feeling, knowing etc etc etc.

 

[Robin]

No, I'll be asking for a definition of "aware". There's a money word in each of these definitions. I'm not hiding from perfectly sound explanations of exactly what consciousness is. I'm pointing out the big hole in all of the definitions which defines consciousness in terms of some aspect of consciousness, such as awareness, perception, understanding, feeling, knowing etc etc etc.

But as I pointed out earlier, "understanding" can be defined in a non-circular fashion using a behavioural definition.

There is nothing wrong with defining something in terms of it's aspects as long as those aspects are not circularly defined and as long as they form a minimally sufficient constructive definition of the main concept.

Also, ostensive definitions are non-circular, so I can't see what is wrong with building a constructive definition of consciousness using terms that can be defined behaviourally, and terms which can be defined ostensively.

By the way I would suggest that understanding is not an aspect of consciousness, but a central function.

 

[westprog]

But as I pointed out earlier, "understanding" can be defined in a non-circular fashion using a behavioural definition.

There is nothing wrong with defining something in terms of it's aspects as long as those aspects are not circularly defined and as long as they form a minimally sufficient constructive definition of the main concept.

Also, ostensive definitions are non-circular, so I can't see what is wrong with building a constructive definition of consciousness using terms that can be defined behaviourally, and terms which can be defined ostensively.

By the way I would suggest that understanding is not an aspect of consciousness, but a central function.

But a behavioural definition is simply a way of recognising a phenomenon when it occurs (with no certain guarantee that it is actually there). I've already stated that a behavioural definition is possible, but it's not satisfactory.

If we define consciousness as simply the property possessed by things that act like this, we are merely detecting it, not describing what it is.

 

[Dancing David]

But that is true of gravity, we do not know it is there. We can only observe the behavior.
If we define gravity as simply the property possessed by things that act like this, we are merely detecting it, not describing what it is.
Doik.

 

[Robin]

But a behavioural definition is simply a way of recognising a phenomenon when it occurs (with no certain guarantee that it is actually there). I've already stated that a behavioural definition is possible, but it's not satisfactory.

Not so in the case of "understanding", in fact quite the reverse is true.

If you are in a mathematics lecture and a concept is being explained and you feel that you understand it - does that guarantee that you understand it?

If someone undergoes some heavy meditation practice and suddenly have the feeling that they have acheived some great understanding, - you know that "everything has been made clear and all my questions have been answered" sort of thing - does that imply that they have understood something?

This sensation we have that we associate with "understanding" is not the same as understanding. It is sometimes, in fact often, quite spurious and can quite obviously be triggered in the absence of any sort of subject matter.

In order to know that you have really understood the concept being explained in the maths lecture you would have to use behavioural method of seeing if you could do the exercises in the text book.

If the meditator is unable to say precisely what was made clear or which questions were answered and what those answers were then it is more likely that the sensation they had of understanding was quite spurious.

So if we reject the feeling of understanding as being what understanding really is, and we reject the behavioural definition - what is left? Nothing.

So if "understanding" is anything it is an ability that can only be defined in behavioural terms - any other sort of definition is meaningless

If we define consciousness as simply the property possessed by things that act like this, we are merely detecting it, not describing what it is.

But I did not say that consciousness could be completely defined in behavioural terms, I said we should separate out the things that can and the things that can't. For the reasons given above I think that "understanding" can only be defined in behavioural terms.

Other things, sensations like pain, depression, elation, can only be defined ostensively (and before anybody gets started, that is not the same as saying that they are not reducible to physical entities).

But if we have a structural definition that made from behavioural and ostensive definitions and which is not circular - then we will have as good a definition of consciousness as we have for anything.