• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Consciousness question

HypnoPsi said:
Okay, but I'm not asking about self-awareness specifically, unless you think that is an absolute requirement for any form of consciousness - unlike your associates who believe toilet cisterns to have a rudimentary form of consciousness.
Click to expand...

Well, I made that distinction between my view of consciousness and others already.

HypnoPsi said:
Thank you. But scientific faith is different from religious faith. In the textbooks on my shelf, I expect the experiments and research described therein to have actually occurred. Whether the Buddha really achieved Enlightenment or whether Jesus was the Son of God (or himself Enlightened) is entirely a subjective matter of faith.
Click to expand...

So then, I have scientific faith (which, according to you, is belief based on verifiable evidence) that consciousness is brain generated. You regard evidence of brain generated consciousness as just as subjective as evidence that Jesus was the Son of God. I disagree.

I tend to regard faith as belief without evidence. You have specific forms of faith in your vocabulary that I don't usually use.

HypnoPsi said:
There seems to be no single materialistic view of consciousness.
Click to expand...

Well, there are different forms of materialism. And there are different definitions of consciousness. So good luck.

HypnoPsi said:
Nobody is explaining why they think information processing or EM radiation is consciousness or why these things produce awareness.
Click to expand...

In light of the number of posts in this thread concerning information processing, I regard that as a disingenious statement

HypnoPsi said:
Yet, nobody at all will admit that it's faith....
Click to expand...

The absolute minute more compelling evidence that is repeatable and verifiable (scientific) is published that shows that consciousness is not brain generated, I will accept it. Therefore, my opinion on consciousness is not routed in faith as I define faith.

I'm deist. I have no verifiable, repeatable tests to prove the existence of God. Yet I believe. THAT is faith. I have faith there is a God.

I'm willing to admit I have faith. My belief that consciousness is brain generated is not faith. Npw, using YOUR definition of scientific faith (belief in tests that are actually conducted and documented and verified), I have scientific faith that consciousness is brain generated.
 
Last edited:
Five pages later, we're still focusing on toilets and thermostats.

The main problem is that at least two of us regard our bodies as biological machines. Our view of awareness is termed in the manner of machinery. We have been more than willing to accept an alternate definition, but instead are asked to give examples using our definition. When we do that, we are told we are not only wrong, but nuts.

Next time someone starts a topic on abstractual thought, let's define exactly what we are judging, and exactly what the goal of the discussion is, before we start posting different perspectives and miss the entire point of the thread itself.

That said, I give up! :D I have no idea what we are discussing, from what angle, and what the goal of the discussion is. I look forward to chatting with you all (even you, HypnoPsi) in future threads.
 
Last edited:
HypnoPsi said:
Whether the Buddha really achieved Enlightenment or whether Jesus was the Son of God (or himself Enlightened) is entirely a subjective matter of faith.

There seems to be no single materialistic view of consciousness. Some think it's EM radiation, some think it's information processing, but ultimately it's all theoretical. Nobody is explaining why they think information processing or EM radiation is consciousness or why these things produce awareness.

Yet, nobody at all will admit that it's faith...
Click to expand...

Dont generalize. I have said clearly that current knowledge points in one direction, which is very different from stating such direction as a fact. Or believing that we know all the details, or that there will be no more discoveries in the area.

On the other hand, your position is not of someone who simply doubts current discoveries or where do they lead us. You are the one with stronger faith here (well, Iacchus would be the other one).

ETA: And its not matter of faith if Buddha achieved enlightenment. In fact (at least Zen Buddhism) is actually "experimental philosophy" not a faith based religion.
 
Last edited:
zaayrdragon said:
OK, so you want to know if something is conscious or not?

According to my definition, determining a conscious state is fairly simple.

1) Does the object in question possess the means to process sensory input? That is, does the object have a means of sensing its environment, then converting that sensation into information to be analyzed, cross-associated, memorized, etc?

2) Does the object in question have an ongoing and continual sense of memory? Is data stored by some means for future reference, with a genuine sense of chronology?

3) Is the object in question aware of itself, as distinguished from things in its environment, including awareness of its own information processing?

4) Is the object in question capable of learning in any form? That is, can it be taught to modify its behaviors according to sensory information gained over time?

I would say, at a minimum, these are the four key questions to be asked when considering whether a thing is conscious or not. Obviously, rocks are not conscious, as covered in the very first question. It is questionable whether virii or bacteria are conscious, as covered by the second question. Certainly, most normal mechanical devices fail at question three, and only the most advanced computers have a hope of passing question four. Most humans, of course, pass all four questions as do most mammals, but some do not. Clearly, any machine which can pass these four questions must seriously be considered as at least partially conscious.

So obviously, thermostats, toilet cisterns, thermometers, etc. are not conscious, in accordance with the above questions; nor are simple electronics like scientific calculators or television sets. But when we get into the cutting edge of cybernetics, I certainly think some things we have built might well be conscious.
Click to expand...

I will go with this definition of conciousness if it is acceptable to you. If it is not, provide your own. Defining the terms is done BEFORE an argument. If you think there need to be multiple terms for different concepts, then bring those to the table. Keep in mind that all we are doing when we define terms is just defining the word, not reality. If I define a dog as a thing that can meow, I'm not actually stating Canine species are capable of meowing. When I do that, I'm saying I will call whatever it is that CAN meow a dog. This is what needs to be done.

If you do not do this, I will have to take my leave of this thread myself, as much as it pains me to do so.

And further, I have no problem at all with accepting our minds are eternal and exist beyond the body (I would actually love to hear such news). I simply lack any evidence, so if you can't provide it, the default position is otherwise.
 
Iacchus said:
Doesn't consciousness essentially imply that something is alive?
Click to expand...

That depends on how you define it. You can define it like that, but then you'll have to accept that plant-life has consciousness, even if it isn't the same as us humans. This is the problem with discussing such things. It's not impossible to discuss, but everyone has to be on the same page as far as definition from the get-go, even if that agreed-upon definition is for the sake of that conversation only.
 
Iacchus said:
Doesn't consciousness essentially imply that something is alive?
Click to expand...
It does indeed. Consciousness has only been observed in living, corporeal beings, thus describing such a thing as a "universal consciousness" or a "consciousness that survives death" requires completely redefining the word to the point that it has no meaning.

Frankly I'm surprised and pleased to see you make this point.
 
Tricky said:
It does indeed. Consciousness has only been observed in living, corporeal beings, thus describing such a thing as a "universal consciousness" or a "consciousness that survives death" requires completely redefining the word to the point that it has no meaning.

Frankly I'm surprised and pleased to see you make this point.
Click to expand...

Two minor points:

First, consciousness implies life, but life does NOT always imply consciousness.

Second, if we consider 'life' as 'that which can and must die', then we have a whole new can of philosophical worms to examine... Is God alive? :D

ETA: One other point: define 'alive'.
 
Tricky said:
It does indeed. Consciousness has only been observed in living, corporeal beings, thus describing such a thing as a "universal consciousness" or a "consciousness that survives death" requires completely redefining the word to the point that it has no meaning.

Frankly I'm surprised and pleased to see you make this point.
Click to expand...
And, since all life begins at the cellular level, it no doubt has something to do with DNA. At least that would be my guess. Perhaps each cell, in the manner that I'm speaking (regarding a universal consciousness), is its own receptor of consciousness?
 
Tricky said:
It does indeed. Consciousness has only been observed in living, corporeal beings, thus describing such a thing as a "universal consciousness" or a "consciousness that survives death" requires completely redefining the word to the point that it has no meaning.

Frankly I'm surprised and pleased to see you make this point.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Consciousness is a very fuzzy term--look at the contortions people here go through in order to define, or to keep from defining, their view of consciousness--and not all of the fuzzy definitions of it require the "conscious thing" to be alive. (Dennett, for instance, has a consistent definition that does not require "life"--although, frankly, the definition of "living" is, itself, hazy.)

If you look at our language, we frequently ascribe consciousness terms to ostensibly inanimate objects: my computer hates me and does everything it can to screw up my files; my car hates to start on cold mornings; my hot water heater has decided to start acting up. One thing that is similar in most of these cases is the salience of the causes of the "behavior". If we know what my car's problem is, it is the alternator; if we do not, it is the car acting up on me. If we know the computer has a particular virus, that is one thing; if we do not know, my computer hates me. The same thing applies to us. If we saw the environmental variables that lead us to behave in one or another manner, we could ascribe our behavior to that variable; too often, we do not (and historically, we have not even looked for these causes), and so we say that this behavior is due to a conscious decision, a conscious choice, a conscious will.

Certainly, we do not use "consciousness words" only with living things. To understand consciousness, we need to look at how we really use the word, not how we ideally define it. We learn the word from real use, not from ideals.
 
Iacchus said:
And, since all life begins at the cellular level, it no doubt has something to do with DNA.
Click to expand...
No.
At least that would be my guess.
Click to expand...
Based on...(oh, never mind, I know it is based on ignorance of DNA.)
Perhaps each cell, in the manner that I'm speaking (regarding a universal consciousness), is its own receptor of consciousness?
Click to expand...
No. Your view is not even coherent. Please define ... never mind, I forgot who I was responding to.
 
zaayrdragon said:
First, consciousness implies life, but life does NOT always imply consciousness.
Click to expand...
As I explain above, consciousness may imply life in the definition we hold as an ideal, but as we actually use consciousness words, consciousness does not at all imply life.
 
Mercutio said:
No.

Based on...(oh, never mind, I know it is based on ignorance of DNA.)

No. Your view is not even coherent. Please define ... never mind, I forgot who I was responding to.
Click to expand...
All it takes is a single cell (with the DNA intact of course), to produce a full functioning body, with a brain.
 
Iacchus said:
All it takes is a single cell (with the DNA intact of course), to produce a full functioning body, with a brain.
Click to expand...
A) not just any single cell.

B) that does not mean the single cell is a fully functioning body with a brain.

C) All it takes is a single cell...to be a fully functioning amoeba.
 
Mercutio said:
A) not just any single cell.
Click to expand...
Yes, but life does not begin with a single brain cell.

B) that does not mean the single cell is a fully functioning body with a brain.
Click to expand...
The brain (in conjunction with the body) is a collective of cells. Which kind of makes sense, since consciousness entails the whole level experience of the body ... to the degree that it is alive that is.

C) All it takes is a single cell...to be a fully functioning amoeba.
Click to expand...
Yes, and is an amoeba conscious?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom