(August 24, 2015 at 8:34 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 8:33 pm)Nestor Wrote: Under philosophizing is a straight path to the universal and individual souls much utilized in ancient and current theology.

Ummm, no.

Reason is reason without philosophy.

You act like scientists don't speculate. Guess what? They do.

(August 24, 2015 at 9:01 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: Interesting though that you are the one who will always take the side of will as illusion.  So surely consciousness is not something we're doing.  At best -from a determinist's POV- consciousness is something that is happening to which we, rightly or wrongly, stake a claim as willers.  Seems to me you should be on my side on this one.  

Regardless, consciousness is hardly a naive intuition.  It is the most invisible of attributes.  If you wanted to bring it to someone's attention who did not have the concept, what would you point to?  Consciousness is basically noticing things and realizing that we are noticing them.  To me that is much too passive to describe as an act.  So I call it the realization of a state of being.  

Whether you conceptualize "we" or "we're doing" as an individual will, or as I do...shorthand for a collection of organic machines in motion, the question conveys and communicates the meaning of what we're discussing, eh?  Your consciousness seems very visible to me, from here.  I don't think I'd have trouble bringing attention to consciousness to someone who doesn't have the concept, though I wonder if there is such a person...a person who doesn't understand the concept of being aware.  "Do you see that tree"?  I'd ask. Honestly, if they had no concept of awareness I doubt we'd be able to have a discussion at all.....what with that, you know, requiring awareness.  

If you did nothing, why would I accept that you were any different than a statue or a rock?  Why would I accept that you even possess this attribute, whatever we call it, from wherever (and however) it arises.  I see you doing things - you perceive yourself to be doing these things...we both attribute this to consciousness.  

Quote:The difference seems to have something to do with perceiving oneself to be both an object in the world and also a subject with a particular point of view.  It is doubtful that a rock perceives anything at all.

Agreed, but why is it doubtful, in your estimation?  

Quote:The only one we know for sure that has consciousness is just our self.  I naturally and usefully infer that those objects in the world that look like me are also subjects with their own point of view.  If someone could unplug me from the world I know a la matrix, then I might realize I'd made some misattributions but it wouldn't be a mind blower on the same level as thinking that I my experience of myself was somehow counterfeit.  The existence of illusions does not undermine ourselves as subjects, just the attributions we make regarding the world.  Consciousness has more to do with our subject-hood than with what we are as objects.

I'm just as sure of your consciousness as I am of my own.  A statue or painting might look like you, but they do not -act- like you....so it's a little more than just looking that you base this upon, it's bound up in the doing, isn't it?

(August 24, 2015 at 9:08 pm)Pizza Wrote: You act like scientists don't speculate. Guess what? They do.

You react as though scientist do not first understand that evidence trumps their personal speculations.

I see what you're saying, but I think you're emphasizing how we make the attribution of consciousness over the nature of consciousness itself. We start with the capacity for knowing consciousness first hand. Perhaps we have to make a little effort to understand the concept in question. But once we have it, we also have on board the thing itself against which all descriptions will either fail or succeed. The description does not -cannot- come first. That's what makes it a being thing. Your machine may be able to do the do, but will that make it be the be? I think not.

(August 24, 2015 at 9:13 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 9:01 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: The only one we know for sure that has consciousness is just our self.  I naturally and usefully infer that those objects in the world that look like me are also subjects with their own point of view.  If someone could unplug me from the world I know a la matrix, then I might realize I'd made some misattributions but it wouldn't be a mind blower on the same level as thinking that I my experience of myself was somehow counterfeit.  The existence of illusions does not undermine ourselves as subjects, just the attributions we make regarding the world.  Consciousness has more to do with our subject-hood than with what we are as objects.

I'm just as sure of your consciousness as I am of my own.  A statue or painting might look like you, but they do not -act- like you....so it's a little more than just looking that you base this upon, it's bound up in the doing, isn't it?

I meant "look like" more loosely than just visually. But yes, attribution is bound up in examining the doing. But the basis for the evaluation is all about being, baby.

(August 24, 2015 at 9:14 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 9:08 pm)Pizza Wrote: You act like scientists don't speculate. Guess what? They do.

You react as though scientist do not first understand that evidence trumps their personal speculations.

That's a lie. I did not say that evidence doesn't trump personal speculations.

(August 24, 2015 at 10:08 pm)Pizza Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 9:14 pm)Kitan Wrote: You react as though scientist do not first understand that evidence trumps their personal speculations.

That's a lie. I did not say that.

Oh, then what did you state?

After all, the full conversation is here for all to see.

(August 24, 2015 at 7:26 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 5:09 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: In this discussion on this topic and at this point I see no practical benefit.

Whenever I think a topic is not worth talking about, I generally stay out of the discussion. Do you think the participants in this discussion have carried it on for 3 pages because they aren't intelligent enough to realize it's not worth talking about and need you to tell them? I ask this with all due respect to someone I do respect.

Hi Rhonda.

I didn't know if I wanted to insert myself and my opinions into this thread in the beginning. That's why I began with all of the questions. My opting out of the discussion was because I came to the conclusion that, after repeated questions and responses and other posts, I had nothing further to add to "Defining Consciousness". It had nothing to do with yours, mine or anyone other participants intelligence or the worthiness of the topic. Each person here has their right to discuss what ever they want and to their opinion, view and position. I can either choose to accept it (in part or whole) or not.

The written word is not my preferred form of communication. Also, I'm not much for debate. Debate is more often than not win/loose and adversarial. I am willing to discuss as along as both/other positions are accepted. I didn't feel that was happening. It felt like debate.

So, I've had some time to think about this thread. I'll give my position/opinion and then step out again. I don't think we are anywhere close in our investigation, study, attempts at interpretation and understanding to formulate a definition of consciousness. At least not for the purposes here. To come up with a definition prior to study and observation is, as far as I'm concerned, putting the cart before the horse. Google the definition of definition. You'll find words like exact, definite, fixed, essential. At this stage of understanding I believe it would be exceedingly arrogant to think that we could define consciousness. I believe a more correct term would be theory or hypothesis. Those are more open to additional testing, observation, experimenting and change where "Definition" is not.

I do not accept the position that we need to have a definition to gain knowledge or understanding. Here are some examples why: Converting iron into steel. We did not define steel prior to attempts to understand, experiment or investigate the process for making it. The definition came after. I believe the same for gravity. Newton did not start with defining. He started with observation, investigation and study. Gunpowder. The experimenting, testing and understanding came first (use some of this white rock, with some of this yellow rock and some charcoal hopefully in the right amount). Then the definition, combining in the correct ratio sulfur, potassium nitrate and carbon to create an explosion when ignition is applied.

With all this being said I'll now bow out of this thread. I'll still continue to follow. I'm not sure I'll contribute anything additional.

(August 24, 2015 at 10:50 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 7:26 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Whenever I think a topic is not worth talking about, I generally stay out of the discussion. Do you think the participants in this discussion have carried it on for 3 pages because they aren't intelligent enough to realize it's not worth talking about and need you to tell them? I ask this with all due respect to someone I do respect.

Hi Rhonda.

I didn't know if I wanted to insert myself and my opinions into this thread in the beginning. That's why I began with all of the questions. My opting out of the discussion was because I came to the conclusion that, after repeated questions and responses and other posts, I had nothing further to add to "Defining Consciousness". It had nothing to do with yours, mine or anyone other participants intelligence or the worthiness of the topic. Each person here has their right to discuss what ever they want and to their opinion, view and position. I can either choose to accept it (in part or whole) or not.

The written word is not my preferred form of communication. Also, I'm not much for debate. Debate is more often than not win/loose and adversarial. I am willing to discuss as along as both/other positions are accepted. I didn't feel that was happening. It felt like debate.

Boy I feel you here.  No debates for me either, thank you very much.

(August 24, 2015 at 8:34 pm)Kitan Wrote:

(August 24, 2015 at 8:33 pm)Nestor Wrote: Under philosophizing is a straight path to the universal and individual souls much utilized in ancient and current theology.

Ummm, no.

Reason is reason without philosophy.

Reasoning without the tools of philosophy is like observing without the tools of science.

History does not support the results, despite your odd belief that it could be otherwise.