Are You Conscious?

[Robin]

Thinking about this issue of definitions and descriptions, it occurs to me that any non-circular definition or description would have to be either ostensive, behavioural or stipulative, or else be constructed from elements that were ostensive, behavioural or stipulative.

I can't see any other possibilities.

 

[AlBell]

Is your subjective self ostensive, behavioural or stipulative?

 

[perseus]

Yes I am conscious, but are you?

Even a PZombie by definition could make the same anti-physicalist pro-qualia arguments that a property duallist would (irrespective if they were right or wrong). Of course a logical PZombie might be not be possible.

 

[Robin]

Is your subjective self ostensive, behavioural or stipulative?

Tell me what you mean by my subjective and I will tell you which one it is.

Note that I said :

...any non-circular definition or description would have to be either ostensive, behavioural or stipulative, or else be constructed from elements that were ostensive, behavioural or stipulative.​

So give me a definition or description of my "subjective" and I will tell you which it is.

 

[AlBell]

Tell me what you mean by my subjective and I will tell you which one it is.

Note that I said :

...any non-circular definition or description would have to be either ostensive, behavioural or stipulative, or else be constructed from elements that were ostensive, behavioural or stipulative.​

So give me a definition or description of my "subjective" and I will tell you which it is.

That of course is where your argument meets reality and disappears like smoke in the wind; or disappears like your ability to define your subjective self even for your subjective self.

 

[Dancing David]

Thats easy and a solution that caused Gautame Shakyamuni to say "Eureka", there is no self.

 

[AlBell]

Thats easy and a solution that caused Gautame Shakyamuni to say "Eureka", there is no self.

Who wonders why that seems subjective?

 

[Robin]

That of course is where your argument meets reality and disappears like smoke in the wind; or disappears like your ability to define your subjective self even for your subjective self.

Actually, if you read the exchange again you will find that it was you who were unable to define "subjective self", not me. You never even asked me to define it.

So it is your argument that meets reality and disappears like the smoke in the wind, not mine.

If can't state what you mean by the expression then how do you know it means something?

I am not sure what you are actually disagreeing with, so maybe we should take it step by step:

1. Do you disagree that we should have clear, precise and non-circular definitions or descriptions for the key terms in our statements, where possible?

2. Do you disagree that stipulative, behavioural and ostensive are valid types of definitions or descriptions?

3. Do you know of other valid types of definitions or descriptions?

 

[Robin]

Who wonders why that seems subjective?

So your definition of "subjective self" is "something which wonders", so it is behavioural.

 

[Dancing David]

Who wonders why that seems subjective?

The buddha's solution, there is a body, it appears to have thoughts, emotions, perceptions and habits.

There is no atman. There is a body, thought, emotions, perceptions and habits.

As the AHB stated "Pluck out thine eye, will thou see more clearly?"

 

[AlBell]

Actually, if you read the exchange again you will find that it was you who were unable to define "subjective self", not me. You never even asked me to define it.

You are correct in that I cannot define my subjective self.

Explicitly rather implicitly I now ask you to define your subjective self, or deny you have such.

So it is your argument that meets reality and disappears like the smoke in the wind, not mine.

Facts not yet in evidence.

If can't state what you mean by the expression then how do you know it means something?

It does pose a problem, doesn't it. Yet I suspect you are as aware of your subjective self as I am of mine.

I am not sure what you are actually disagreeing with, so maybe we should take it step by step:

1. Do you disagree that we should have clear, precise and non-circular definitions or descriptions for the key terms in our statements, where possible?

No. Where possible.

2. Do you disagree that stipulative, behavioural and ostensive are valid types of definitions or descriptions?

No. Good luck finding any that meet our needs in defining subjective self.

3. Do you know of other valid types of definitions or descriptions?

None immediately come to mind(so to speak).

So your definition of "subjective self" is "something which wonders", so it is behavioural.

It that how you define yours?

IIRC, behaviorists believe they've leaped the chasm by assuming "private behavior" as actualized by overt behavior actually has meaning regarding one's subjective self.

The buddha's solution, there is a body, it appears to have thoughts, emotions, perceptions and habits.

There is no atman. There is a body, thought, emotions, perceptions and habits.

Do you find that a useful stratagem in dismissing your subjective self?

 

[Robin]

You are correct in that I cannot define my subjective self.

So how do you expect me to deal with the phrase when you don't have a c;ie what it means or if it means anything at all?

Explicitly rather implicitly I now ask you to define your subjective self, or deny you have such.

So you are introducing a term and then asking me to define it?

And that makes sense to you does it?

It does pose a problem, doesn't it.

No it doesn't pose a problem to me at all. If you can't define it then we must discard the word.

Yet I suspect you are as aware of your subjective self as I am of mine.

And again, that would depend completely upon what you mean by the term. I can think of a couple of things I am aware of that might be covered by that phrase - but until you define what you mean by the phrase then I am obviously not in a position to know if they are what you mean.

This is exactly the sort of problem I am talking about - non-debates using non-words.

No. Where possible.

Good, so you agree.

No. Good luck finding any that meet our needs in defining subjective self.

But it is not my need - it is your phrase. I have no need of a phrase without a meaning.

It that how you define yours?

No, that is how you defined the phrase. And then in the next post you said you couldn't define it. So I am now confused.

IIRC, behaviorists believe they've leaped the chasm by assuming "private behavior" as actualized by overt behavior actually has meaning regarding one's subjective self.

What chasm? Just what is it that you think needs defining?

You may as well have said that I can't define "flibbety flobbety" therefore my theory is wrong.

I think you are pretty much providing evidence that my theory is absolutely on the money.

 

[AlBell]

So how do you expect me to deal with the phrase when you don't have a c;ie what it means or if it means anything at all?

So you are introducing a term and then asking me to define it?

And that makes sense to you does it?

No it doesn't pose a problem to me at all. If you can't define it then we must discard the word.

And again, that would depend completely upon what you mean by the term. I can think of a couple of things I am aware of that might be covered by that phrase - but until you define what you mean by the phrase then I am obviously not in a position to know if they are what you mean.

This is exactly the sort of problem I am talking about - non-debates using non-words.

Good, so you agree.

But it is not my need - it is your phrase. I have no need of a phrase without a meaning.

No, that is how you defined the phrase. And then in the next post you said you couldn't define it. So I am now confused.

What chasm? Just what is it that you think needs defining?

You may as well have said that I can't define "flibbety flobbety" therefore my theory is wrong.

OK. You have no subjective self. Are you the current version of SHRDLU, or some other AI attempt?

I think you are pretty much providing evidence that my theory is absolutely on the money.

Interesting contention; glad you liked my assistance. What else can I do for you?

 

[Robin]

OK. You have no subjective self.

Now you are pretending that I said things that I didn't say.

I may well have a subjective self.

It all depends - and this is the part that you keep missing - upon what you mean by "subjective self".

Are you saying that you have no Flibbety Flobbety?

 

[Belz...]

What's a subjective self ?

 

[Dancing David]

Do you find that a useful stratagem in dismissing your subjective self?

Yes, but you don't have to agree, the subjective self is what?

Perception, memories and thoughts with some emotions and habits thrown in, dementia, alzheimer's and brain injury show that the sense of self is dependant upon the body and to my thinking a rubric. There is no 'subjective self', there are a bunch of processes we conflate and refer to as the 'subjective self'.

But seriously if you mess with meory the self fades away to some extent.

 

[Dancing David]

OK. You have no subjective self. Are you the current version of SHRDLU, or some other AI attempt?

Nope you use the term subjective self, you defend it. It is a mental construct and conflation.

for most people it is the persistence of memory regarding prior states of the body.

 

[AlBell]

Nope you use the term subjective self, you defend it.

I know not how to defend something you, Belz, Robin and dozens of others who must have voted No in the poll lack; who find 'subjective self' as meaningless as 'Flibbety Flobbety'.

I suspect 'stream of conscious' is equally meaningless for you as well?

 

[Robin]

I know not how to defend something you, Belz, Robin and dozens of others who must have voted No in the poll lack; who find 'subjective self' as meaningless as 'Flibbety Flobbety'.

I voted "Yes, of course", because the question was not "do you have a subjective self?", it was "Are you conscious?".

Are you now telling me that "subjective self" means "consciousness"? If so then we could have saved a bit of time if you had said so in the first place, instead of assuming I knew what you were talking about.

I suspect 'stream of conscious' is equally meaningless for you as well?

I have never heard of the term. It doesn't even seem to make grammatic sense. You don't mean "stream of consciousness" do you? Stream of consciousness is a label for a literary style, used by authors like Jack Kerouac. I have had all Jack's books in my library since I was 14 so the term means quite a lot to me.

Now tell me, are you going anywhere with this, or is it just stream of consciousness?

 

[Robin]

What's a subjective self ?

Could mean just about anything.

That robotic rally car would have a data item in it's computer model of it's environment representing the car itself.

That could be described as a subjective self.

That is the problem, Albell is assuming that everyone knows exactly what he is referring to by the word.