(October 28, 2012 at 6:17 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:(October 28, 2012 at 6:12 pm)Darkstar Wrote: Even if 95% of their actions are raw instinct, if the other 5% are the result of some sort of thought,Non-instinctual thought I would call consciousness, I don't see why action would be required. If action was required that would imply that paralysis was incompatible with consciousness. then they might meet definition #2.
Okay, if you want to be technical...
(October 28, 2012 at 6:17 pm)DoubtVsFaith Wrote:Quote:[...]if we are willing to add the definition of 'selr-aware' then how would we know if soemthing was self-aware?
We wouldn't, unless it was scientifically detectable or logically proved. I don't see how logic would get us there and, as for scientifically detectable, once again, we need to know what to look for, and it has to be detectable.
Well, I don't think that logic alone could get us there. We would need to use science to find it. The best logic can do is help us think of criteria to look for. However, it seems that it is simply not possible to draw a definitive line as to what is conscious and what isn't, so...perhaps we aren't actually getting anywhere...