(August 25, 2015 at 3:29 pm)robvalue Wrote: Why does Sam Harris get to define consciousness? He's just another figment of my delusion seeking attention.

I'm still unsure about whether plants have consciousness. I'm sure they have something; whether it is classed as the same thing as consciousness produced by a brain, I don't know.

As I said, Harris is saying consciousness is difficult to define. I'm only halfway through the book, but so far he has not attempted to offer an authoritative definition. I'm not defending him but I wonder why you are so down on him.

I'm not sure that the difficulty is actually in defining consciousness, so much as it is defining consciousness "with human dignity intact".  Perhaps human dignity was a glaring conceit, in this context, from the word go?

(August 25, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I would, but only because we can see computers presenting the effects we might call consciousness in a critter, perhaps using a different mechanism to achieve it (though perhaps not).  When I get into that though, I sometimes think that people might wonder whether or not I think there's a computer somewhere reciting hamlet to itself in a ponderous fashion....

(August 25, 2015 at 6:20 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I don't think that at all.  I think that whatever's going on inside the computer is very similar to whats going on inside a sunflower, and less similar - but still within proximity- to whats going on in in a "simple" multicellular organism, and then less similar still...but not entirely divorced...from what we have going on in our own heads.  It's process and principle and mechanism leveraged that I speculate upon, not any internal experience....though I can't entirely rule that out, at least not in any way that doesn't -also- rule out whatever internal experience you're having, which I accept wholeheartedly as both evident and very, very visible.

From my pov, explaining why I don't accept that a rock is conscious is fairly easy to explain...and has nothing to do with their being inorganic, but assumptions are necessarily made.  I keep returning to this one, but a wing of steel and a wing made of skin and bone, to me, are both flying - organic, inorganic, it hardly matters.  A rose by any other name, and all that..lol.

I get that. It is just hard to know which of our messy biological components might be essential to the 'feeling of being conscious - as opposed to parroting the claim. I'm guilty of being an organicist where consciousness is concerned.

(August 25, 2015 at 5:58 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:

(August 25, 2015 at 3:16 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: We might answer that question in terms of natural selection. Organisms with a central nervous system are better able to detect and avoid dangers within their immediate vicinity.

Seemingly so since there are so many multicellular critters about and inhabiting the top of every food chain.  I may be showing a bias toward my kind, but I am certainly impressed with the capacities multicellular critters have evolved.  Of course, from the point of view of single celled critter we probably look like some kind of malevolent BORG collective.

But as wonderful as our multicellular kind may be, I'm not sure we'd win a weigh off for biomass on the planet.  (My hunch is we lose since the bottom of any food chain must be vast to support the top.)  Likewise with diversity, there may be more species of single cell critters than there are of us.  (Not at all sure of that, but when did that ever stop me?  I'm spewing here - stand back.)

(August 25, 2015 at 3:16 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: You are looking at two different kinds (or levels if you prefer) of consciousness, or as you said, consciousness on a continuum. 1. the ability to respond to external or internal stimuli. 2. the cognition of one's own existence. The first is demonstrable under laboratory conditions But is there a difference between a human who says "I know that I exist" and a computer that's programmed to say the same thing?

If we agree to use one or the other of these two, that will go a long way in keeping the discussion focused and helping us know we are on the same page in the way we are using the word. I think wheteverist is using the second one and so am I.

Truly the only sort of consciousness we know from the inside or very well at all is our own.  So I'm inclined to go along with the suggestion that we focus on what we know (type 2) - even if that knowledge has not been formalized.  Shall we specifically concede that consciousness may exist to a degree even in a turnip?

Sorry but I'm an inorganic bigot - rocks are not conscious and computers that say "I know that I exist" don't make the cut either.  Though I know some (hi Rhythm) would love to argue against that.  I've got nothing to add beyond my gut intuition that you are mistaken.  

Would I be betraying a bias if I said a 1 terabyte hard drive is more capacious than a 486?

If single-cell organisms have a conscious worth studying then let them run their own studies and tell us about it (didn't know I could be such a chauvinist, did you? I fear I have torn the fabric of society.). The proper study of mankind is man, or some such.

What about pet rocks?

(August 25, 2015 at 7:23 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not sure that the difficulty is actually in defining consciousness, so much as it is defining consciousness "with human dignity intact".  Perhaps human dignity was a glaring conceit, in this context, from the word go?

If computers eat the fruit of consciousness, they will become like unto us to know themselves. Then must we bar from them the tree of life less they reach out their hands to eat thereof and live forever.


AAaagh

(August 25, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: If single-cell organisms have a conscious worth studying then let them run their own studies and tell us about it

Sounds fair to me.

(August 25, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: (didn't know I could be such a chauvinist, did you? I fear I have torn the fabric of society.)

Beware the little single celled people.

(August 25, 2015 at 7:51 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: The proper study of mankind is man, or some such.

What about pet rocks?

It would be nice to have a general field theory of consciousness but we have so little nailed down even about the kind we know from the inside. It only seems reasonable to establish a beach head at human consciousness and then see what progress might be made toward a more general theory from there.

(August 25, 2015 at 10:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: Waking up in the morning as an earthworm is, presumably, a bit different than waking up as Benny - and that makes your label less than useful, in that it is vague and immediately runs up against demonstrable observations of the thing we hope to explain.  

It's less than vague. . . it is a placeholder for "whatever it is."  But even saying that, it's non-trivial, because while I may not know what consciousness is, I can compare any definition to my own experience, and say what it is not, or what is insufficient.

Quote:  
In any case, if you have a problem with using our minds to seek knowledge here you should have a problem with using our minds to seek knowledge regarding -everything-.....including the comments you just made, regarding said circles.  It's now scorched earth, which I don't think is your intention.

If you are attempting to define consciousness in a greater context (in your case, a physicalist world view), but founding your arguments on consciousness itself, then you have that circle.  Other definitions or types of knowledge are different, because the mind itself gives them context.  For example, a bridge is a bridge because I have an awareness of gravity, of difficulties navigating a river, of the solidity of structures, etc.  Those experiences are sufficient context to know about bridges, and no attempt is being made to establish what reality underlies them.

Quote:Are you using some -other- apparatus than your consciousness (however achieved) to perceive, label, and define?  

This "using" word is problematic, because it implies an agent which is using something outside its agency for a goal generated within that agency; in other words, you are now talking about the nature of self, not just the awareness of self.

In either your view or my view, we'd have to decide whether the desire to define is part of one's agency. Unless you make a conscious choice to spawn that desire, how could it be? In fact, the same goes for thinking, for feeling, etc.

In other words, I wouldn't say that consciousness can be used, under any view or definition, or that it has the capacity for using. On this, I think, we can agree, no?

(August 25, 2015 at 7:21 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(August 25, 2015 at 3:29 pm)robvalue Wrote: Why does Sam Harris get to define consciousness? He's just another figment of my delusion seeking attention.

I'm still unsure about whether plants have consciousness. I'm sure they have something; whether it is classed as the same thing as consciousness produced by a brain, I don't know.

As I said, Harris is saying consciousness is difficult to define. I'm only halfway through the book, but so far he has not attempted to offer an authoritative definition. I'm not defending him but I wonder why you are so down on him.

That was one of my stupid deadpan jokes that obviously missed the mark I was just being silly regarding solipsism. I don't have anything again Harris, I think he's amazing in fact.

It seems we will always come up against the barrier of knowing how consciousness, or other similar phenomena, "feels" to the thing experiencing it. I "feel" certain ways, but I can never ever be sure that anyone or anything else actually "feels" anything.

The point I'm trying to make is that we can only "measure" consciousness indirectly by observing the kind of things consciousness causes. We can't measure the actual experience itself, not yet anyway. Maybe one day there will be some weird technology that actually allows us to "experience" another life form's version of consciousness.

Of course, I'm expecting too much of science because we can only ever measure anything indirectly anyway.

I think you're referring to Waking Up: A Guide to Spirituality Without Religion. I haven't read the book yet but I have listened to him talk about consciousness a couple of times.

I think consciousness is a misleading concept. It's not that much of a mystery, really. It's just self-awareness, as you say. Its definition doesn't allow for it to describe a non-human entity though, as far as I know. Nonetheless, it's just a term for our awareness of the world(ourselves included).

I'm not much of an expert but if I were to guess I'd say we are only giving this so much thought because of our own thoughts. Is it not that we constantly talk to ourselves in our minds, basically? That may create a false impression that we're talking to someone else. With that view in mind, maybe there is no self to speak of, or at least our own minds doesn't recognise such a thing and it couldn't either. We are always talking to ourselves in our minds as if we were talking to someone else. The "self" is nothing more than an imagined "other". This is why someone is able to kill himself but then his body feels the need to fight back no matter what, at the last moment. The point is, we could never be aware of ourselves - that doesn't make any sense- and we aren't. We may be technically aware of ourselves but not really.

As I said, I have no idea what I'm talking about and hope it didn't sound too unscientific. Just some thoughts on the matter.

Quote: It's less than vague. . . it is a placeholder for "whatever it is."  But even saying that, it's non-trivial, because while I may not know what consciousness is, I can compare any definition to my own experience, and say what it is not, or what is insufficient.

Comparing your experience of consciousness to the simplest and broadest definition offered, the state of being aware, is there some conflict, does this -not- describe your experience, are you not aware?  I'm sure you're many other things, which we use many additional words to describe as well, of course, but I'm not sure what the problem with that definition is, or why we would prefer your previously offered definition over it.  At least "the state of being aware" differentiates between my taking a shit and "whatever it is".....eh?  Is awareness not the cornerstone of consciousness, in your experience?  If you were not aware, would it make any sense to call you conscious?

Quote:  
If you are attempting to define consciousness in a greater context (in your case, a physicalist world view), but founding your arguments on consciousness itself, then you have that circle.  Other definitions or types of knowledge are different, because the mind itself gives them context.  For example, a bridge is a bridge because I have an awareness of gravity, of difficulties navigating a river, of the solidity of structures, etc.  Those experiences are sufficient context to know about bridges, and no attempt is being made to establish what reality underlies them.

-as no attempt is being made to establish what underlies (if anything underlies) consciousness by defining it simply as the state of being aware.  

Quote:This "using" word is problematic, because it implies an agent which is using something outside its agency for a goal generated within that agency; in other words, you are now talking about the nature of self, not just the awareness of self.

I'll repeat, thoughts about consciousness are no more or less circular than thoughts about logic, reason, keyboards, or bridges. If thoughts about consciousness have a problem with circularity, so to do thoughts about logic..at which point circularity is a problem because....why?

-and I'm not sure why the word using implies any of that....btw. If you'd prefer that I expressed that same concern another way, I can, but as a mentioned before, I hardly see the need, because -everything- has been burnt to the ground by this concern of yours, regarding consciousness and circularity. However I choose to express -anything- it will all, ultimately, boil back down to the fact that it's construct heaped on construct judged against construct by that very same construct. If you're okay with the construct of logic -and you must be, as it's the leverage you're "using", then make your peace and show a little consistency. In your example above, you are assessing a bridge, which is a construct of consciousness -even if it's more (and regardless of whether or not it isn't), so perhaps you should be a little more concerned about the circularity of that bridge business the next time you drive over one.....or less about the circularity of thoughts regarding consciousness?

Quote:In either your view or my view, we'd have to decide whether the desire to define is part of one's agency.  Unless you make a conscious choice to spawn that desire, how could it be?  In fact, the same goes for thinking, for feeling, etc.

In other words, I wouldn't say that consciousness can be used, under any view or definition, or that it has the capacity for using.  On this, I think, we can agree, no?

I'm not sure why we'd have to decide that in order to come up with a simple and well fitting definition for consciousness, particularly in that this definition does not require self, sapience, sentience, or agency - it seeks to describe a broader range of "x", leaving all the rest, that concerns you, for other terms (some of them just employed)...facilitating greater specificity. I wouldn't say we agreed on that, but I don't think our disagreement matters much in context.

I do think that consciousness can be, and is used, regardless of whether or not it's being used by some individual personal agency, or the "owner" of said consciousness, if there is an owner to begin with, but that's probably tied up in the fact that I define consciousness as the state of being aware - which simply doesn't require all those other, more specific attributes, for which we conveniently have other, more specific terms. A simple organism is using consciousness in order to move towards or away from light by means of photo-sensitive cells directly attached to it's means of locomotion. That organism, that system, -requires- an awareness of light in order to use it, which -is- provided by the eyespot and -is- used, in order to achieve effect. This is demonstrable, that's how it works, and it's non-negotiable to me because of that. The rest is a non-issue, notice no choice was required, notice no feelings where required, notice no self is required, nor is any awareness of self, or awareness of the process used, only an awareness of the environment. When I talk about consciousness, I'm discussing it separately from all of those things which are obviously very relevant in our case, but not necessarily relevant in the cases of all conscious things.

I'd rather tackle the bricks before I take on the buildings.