by Seraphim23 149 Replies latest jw friends
It seemed to me that Seraphim23 's point was that if consciousness is just a series of physical reactions in the brain, then all objects have some consciousness because all objects are physically reacting to forces around them. - Apog
As has been pointed out many times this is nonsense. Almost as silly as Seraphim's claim that we breathe through our skin.
Rocks don't react.
Unless Seraphim means something other than the dictionary definition, we have to go with that.
con·scious·ness ˈkänCHəsnəs / noun noun: consciousness
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
Right. So what does "aware" mean? Do you see where I'm going with this?
Nobody is denying that there ambiguity on the margins of life/non-life, aware/unaware, animate/inanimate.
It's a total red herring and does nothing to support the premise of the OP.
It's not a red herring, but very much the point. What is thinking? What is experience? Aren't our brains just chemically processing the perceptions which our nerves carry to them? How is this different than the reaction of a rock of limestone dropped into an acid solution?
Apog - You seem to be questioning whether any living thing is capable of deliberate agency.
It's an interesting question but it's precisely the opposite of the one Seraphim posed.
Who write dictionaries? Why are they recorded?
Viviane, people define words not dictionaries. Dictionaries simply list the definitions in common use which changes over time in many cases.
Agreed. If you are using a definition that is non-standard and non-common, then it is imperative upon you to make that clear and make your case to see if it makes sense and passes muster.
Due to the fact that there is no scientific consensus on what creates consciousness as yet, caution must be applied in setting up its scientific definition.
Hence the need for you to be explicitely clear in exactly what you mean. If you aren't and people misunderstand, then that is no one's fault but yours for not being specific in meaning. Are you attempting to use a non-standard, non-common definition of consciousness other than what is commonly found in a dictionary?
Comprehension is better than being hamstrung by definitions if science and understanding is to move forward.
Comprehension is impossible unless we define terms and create a common understanding. Are you using the term consciousness in a non-standard way? If so and you won't define that for us, you are creating an incomprehensible mess.
Right. So what does "aware" mean? Do you see where I'm going with this?
I see that you are trying to pretend words don't have commonly understood meanings. If Seraphim is trying to use a non-standard definition, he needs to explain that and make his case. If someone doesn't know what "aware" means, they need to go get some rudimentary education. If you think the meaning of "aware" is not clear, feel free to make that case as to why it's not clear.
Apog - You seem to be questioning whether any living thing is capable of deliberate agency.
It's an interesting question but it's precisely the opposite of the one Seraphim posed.
Right, this is the counter-point that I made to Seraphim in my first post in the thread, and I've been representing that view all along. But although it's an opposite statement to Seraphim's OP, there's not actually a big difference between our views. You see, Seraphim believed that materialists say that there is something special about the consciousness that cannot simply be described in the physical terms that describe the brain. My reply was from a perspective which I would label materialist, and I basically said, "I don't think they do."
Now, I haven't read any materialist work or spoken to someone who identified as a materialist, so I could be wrong about what they say. All I can really do is give my own opinion of what materialism ought to mean, which in this case involves assigning consciousness to the same realm of physical actions and reactions as any other process in the universe, and not accepting any quasi-mystical premise as an explanation. I think that's a reasonable view to take for a materialist, don't you?
Anyway, my posts were basically just stating a difference of opinion about materialism's definition of the consciousness. Seraphim's post was predicated on a different understanding of materialism, and for all I know, many materialists hold a double standard about consciousness and he's right about them. I was just representing my own opinion, ultimately. But absent that difference of opinion between Seraphim's conception of materialism and my conception of it, we're basically saying the exact same thing. Does that make sense?
I see that you are trying to pretend words don't have commonly understood meanings. If Seraphim is trying to use a non-standard definition
Nobody is using or promoting non-standard definitions. I don't question your ability to look up words in a dictionary, however I'm wondering if you can actually explain, in your own words, what consciousness or awareness is. I'm personally advocating the position that it doesn't exist.
Nobody is using or promoting non-standard definitions. I don't question your ability to look up words in a dictionary, however I'm wondering if you can actually explain, in your own words, what consciousness or awareness is. I'm personally advocating the position that it doesn't exist.
Full stop, do not pass go.
Yes, you absolutely were suggesting words needed to be defined or the standard defintions weren't clear. I quote you:
The burden is on you guys to define "consciousness" in a way that allows the brain to be a special object without positing the existence of a spirit or other immaterial "transcendent" component to the brain
What I'm getting at is that you are using words like "consciousness" with the assumption that they have a clear meaning.
So what does "aware" mean?
Unless you didn't mean it when you wrote that, you absolutely were suggesting existing common usages of words was unclear. You don't get to go on and on about words and definitions and clear meaning and then, when called on it, pretend you weren't the one stirring that pot. Stand up for what you wrote.
You can question or not my abilities in any way you like. First, questioning something doesn't mean you have a right to an answer or that the question is relavant. Secondly, it's obvious tactic to deflect from your issues with defintions that you are now denying you brought up.
Please, don't even try it. There are smart people here. Ham-fisted tricks like that don't work.
