RE: Sam Harris On Defining Consciousness
August 24, 2015 at 7:14 pm
(This post was last modified: August 24, 2015 at 7:37 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
@Little Lunch. There are certainly things that you do and attribute to your consciousness that are analogous to a plant turning to the sun, sure. Doesn't mean that this is -all- that's going on, and it certainly seems like there's a bit more than auxin at play in our brains. Amusingly, we're not 100% on how plants turn to the sun, btw.
@Rhonda. No, but that response to stimuli is the only demonstrable yardstick we have at present, and while it may not be all there is to it, it's a start. Response is, after all, how you'd determine that I am a sentient, self aware organism.
@Jorg. I think that it does, though, obviously I don't think that response implies self awareness or anything even remotely close to human consciousness. I think that if we explored the idea that response does not imply awareness, for example, you'd have to make staggering number of special considerations - similarly, that awareness does not imply consciousness. Perhaps you're right, it would be unfortunate for knowledge if you were, though, imo...lol. I think that maybe you have greater requirements for consciousness that we don't share (and whatever it is you call the bar for consciousness I probably have a different term in mind for, but a similar idea). I'm willing to accept that awareness is the bare minimum. If something is aware, if it presents an effect which we attribute to awareness, I'll call it conscious - though that doesn't really move the chains very far for me.
@Whateverist, When you do thought, you call it being, for some reason.....which I think is fine...but to deny something else that presents a similar effect, which you've used to determine "being" in yourself.... is dicey. Is there some reason that you should "be" whereas the other stuff is only "doing"? Are you "being", whilst a dog is "doing"? How about you vs a mollusk? Maybe you -and- the dog are being but the mollusk is only doing? How could I make that determination.....how have you? Don't get me wrong, I think there's more going on in your head than their is in a dogs head, or a mollusks entire body.......but this division between being and doing seems to be groundless without elaboration. "being" is an easily equivocated word, after all. You're busily "being human", a rock is busily "being a rock", but you're doing some other sort of "being" that the rock isn't, and "doing" is in a similar predicament.....and I think we'd both agree to that. Either way, suppose there was some difference, if there's no way to determine what that is, it's a difference that makes no difference, imo.
@Rhonda. No, but that response to stimuli is the only demonstrable yardstick we have at present, and while it may not be all there is to it, it's a start. Response is, after all, how you'd determine that I am a sentient, self aware organism.
@Jorg. I think that it does, though, obviously I don't think that response implies self awareness or anything even remotely close to human consciousness. I think that if we explored the idea that response does not imply awareness, for example, you'd have to make staggering number of special considerations - similarly, that awareness does not imply consciousness. Perhaps you're right, it would be unfortunate for knowledge if you were, though, imo...lol. I think that maybe you have greater requirements for consciousness that we don't share (and whatever it is you call the bar for consciousness I probably have a different term in mind for, but a similar idea). I'm willing to accept that awareness is the bare minimum. If something is aware, if it presents an effect which we attribute to awareness, I'll call it conscious - though that doesn't really move the chains very far for me.
@Whateverist, When you do thought, you call it being, for some reason.....which I think is fine...but to deny something else that presents a similar effect, which you've used to determine "being" in yourself.... is dicey. Is there some reason that you should "be" whereas the other stuff is only "doing"? Are you "being", whilst a dog is "doing"? How about you vs a mollusk? Maybe you -and- the dog are being but the mollusk is only doing? How could I make that determination.....how have you? Don't get me wrong, I think there's more going on in your head than their is in a dogs head, or a mollusks entire body.......but this division between being and doing seems to be groundless without elaboration. "being" is an easily equivocated word, after all. You're busily "being human", a rock is busily "being a rock", but you're doing some other sort of "being" that the rock isn't, and "doing" is in a similar predicament.....and I think we'd both agree to that. Either way, suppose there was some difference, if there's no way to determine what that is, it's a difference that makes no difference, imo.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
