• What is consciousness?
    80 replies, posted
[I]“Consciousness is a fascinating but elusive phenomenon: it is impossible to specify what it is, what it does, or why it evolved. Nothing worth reading has been written about it.”[/I] -- Sutherland 1989, Macmillan Dictionary of Psychology Consciousness is something we think we know best, but we actually almost know nothing about. It can be safely assumed that we are all conscious individuals that experience the world around us. But what does it mean to be conscious? We can define it as a [B]subjective phenomena[/B]. Phenomena in this context means that we see things as they appear to us. This reasoning might feel a bit redundant, but it is a safeguard to keep us all on the same page. Equipped with this subjective phenomena we can see, hear and feel the world around us. From our experiences we construct a mental image of what we perceive. We react and feel differently to different stimuli around us. Our experiences are our own and no one else, and nobody can understand what it is I, or anyone else for that matter, really are experiencing, or what the quality of the experience actually is. In 1974 Thomas Nagel wrote the famous piece [url=http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil1000/Nagel.pdf]"What is it like to be a bat?"[/url], in which he talks about the idea on [I]what it is like to be[/I]. Moving on. We have established that we all possess a subjective phenomenal consciousness, and now we get to the meaty bits. What is it that actually makes us conscious? There are a lot of different theories out there. I will present the basic fundamental ideas, and present each branch. Although I will not go into much detail into explaining them yet. Remember now that I am only scratching the surface here. There are tons of different ideas, totally different from the ones I list. First off, there is Dualisms. This basically means that the mind and body are separate entities that exist in parallel. This can branch of into either: Interactionism Epiphenomenalism Parallelism Then there are the Monisms, which means that body and mind exist in unity in one way or another. Materialism --- Physicalism --- Microphysicalism --- Emergentism (weak or strong) Neutral Monism --- Double Aspect Theory --- Panpsychism --- Functionalism (and Computationalism) Idealism --- Solipsism --- Phenomenalism My personal standpoint is that of biological naturalism (which would be closely related to weak emergence). I believe we can pick the big blocks of our consciousness apart (like visual or auditory system), but never objectively observe the subjective experience of others, which in turn must mean that there is a phenomenal emergence somewhere along the line. [B]Useful resources:[/B] [URL=http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html]Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy[/url] [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page]Wikipedia[/URL]
I'd say consciousness is the manifestation/result of some of our bodily functions. It's probably the most important attribute(??) of all sentient life. All animals possess consciousness, and without it there would be nothing.
[QUOTE=onebit;42953209]Is a person who is not aware of his surroundings conscious?[/QUOTE] Great question. When we go to sleep are considered to be unconscious rather than nonconscious. Being nonconscious could be compared to being in a vegetative state. The most famous case could be Terri Schiavo. Even if she appeared to be awake as she could make some facial expressions and move about to some degree, all of it were random as she had zero cortical activity. [img]http://i.imgur.com/L6tmRRI.jpg[/img] When we are asleep we are considered to be unconscious, but being unconscious doesn't mean that we are asleep. During sleep we can have vivid dreams or make some purposeful motor actions (turning in bed, pulling up a blanket). But we rarely have any self awareness. [img]http://i.imgur.com/E4h2pbh.jpg[/img] [editline]23rd November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;42953261]I'd say consciousness is the manifestation/result of some of our bodily functions. It's probably the most important attribute(??) of all sentient life. All animals possess consciousness, and without it there would be nothing.[/QUOTE] Level 0) Everything physical Level 1) Everything that is alive (including microbes, single cell organisms etc.) Level 2) Plants Level 3) Tardigrades and parasites Level 4) Invertebrate animals (insects) Level 5) Fish and other amphibians (frogs) Level 6) Reptiles (snakes, lizards etc.) Level 7) Birds Level 8) Mammals Level 9) Sea mammals (dolphins, whales) Level 10) Primates (monkeys and apes) Level 11) The Great Apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans) Level 12) Humans Which levels would you say are nonconscious and which are phenomenally conscious?
[QUOTE=onebit;42957100]I don't think you can simplify it like that. An animal might fail the mirror test, but be more aware of its own body than any other animal. Intelligence is a very, very wide spectrum, just look at autism. A person might be great at math and fail terribly picking up a toothbrush. In my opinion repetition leads to skill, so if you put a mirror in a birdcage, the bird might eventually recognize itself, but that might be the only thing that happened. Plus, animals have an insanely short attention span, so whether it fails the mirror test might just be a question of the color of the walls or if there's any food about. Look how fast these dogs shift their tilt[/QUOTE] I'd say it is still a valid question, although I'd rather say it is more of a thought experience than a question seeking a correct answer. There is a genuine difference between the experiences of a fly compared to that of a primate. I agree that it is more of a gradient than clear steps of what is and isn't conscious, but somewhere along the line a difference is made. And it is that difference that is interesting. This isn't about intelligence per se. A child with autism is still as conscious as the rest of us, but the subjective experience they have could be widely different. They can see threats were there are none, for example.
[QUOTE=Kazumi;42954982] Level 0) Everything physical Level 1) Everything that is alive (including microbes, single cell organisms etc.) Level 2) Plants Level 3) Tardigrades and parasites Level 4) Invertebrate animals (insects) Level 5) Fish and other amphibians (frogs) Level 6) Reptiles (snakes, lizards etc.) Level 7) Birds Level 8) Mammals Level 9) Sea mammals (dolphins, whales) Level 10) Primates (monkeys and apes) Level 11) The Great Apes (chimps, gorillas, orangutans) Level 12) Humans Which levels would you say are nonconscious and which are phenomenally conscious?[/QUOTE] I'd say everything else except Lvl 0. Wouldn't Lvl 0 be.. matter, in its basic elements? But the levels 1-3 also have a seemingly lower level of understanding (or consciousness), almost to the point of none (like plants), as opposed to levels 4-12 where more "sensory systems" come into play, and therefor more complex bodies. In the end I'd even say consciousness is there for survival, too. Also I am not even sure what I'm trying to argue for.. or against. Like established in OP, it's an "unknown" field of study or something.
What if our computers are currently "conscious" as well? If we built a computer controlled humanoid robot with extremely complex learning abilities and eventually it would act exactly like any other human, would it be conscious? Consciousness is not necessary. Why are we conscious and not just philosophical zombies? Consciousness might be a side effect.
very tough question, i think the real problem is we would need to have met something that is able to articulate its emotions, thoughts, and perceptions in a manner that we can understand, basically communicate intelligently with, before we would ever be able to really define consciousness.
[QUOTE=TNOMCat;42957444]Consciousness is not necessary. Why are we conscious and not just philosophical zombies? Consciousness might be a side effect.[/QUOTE] But the absurdity of philosophical zombies proves that consciousness IS necessary.
Consciousness is chemical reactions and electrical impulses in your brain.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;42957231]I'd say everything else except Lvl 0. Wouldn't Lvl 0 be.. matter, in its basic elements?[/QUOTE] Indeed. Panpsychists means that everything, even a rock or a table, has a consciousness. It is a very interesting perspective, but one that is quite difficult to follow. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;42962805]Consciousness is chemical reactions and electrical impulses in your brain.[/QUOTE] That would be what constitutes consciousness, yes. But not the subjective phenomenal consciousness itself. What it is like to experience things. When you see or smell a red rose, your brain doesn't turn red nor does it carry the actual particles that is the scent of the flower.
I'll bite. The way I see it. The universe is very much alive. Alive in the sense that everything is aware to a certain extent. We human beings are a certain configuration of unified awareness that make us what we are. Asking what awareness or consciousness is doesn't make sense because all you are doing is looking for a set of words or sentences that will only serve to label something that should never be labled. Why shouldn't it be labled you ask? Because that would take away the beauty, the power, the mystery, the awe. It is when we feel that we know that we're a mess. Words are fun to play with and all, but they only help us feel comfortable in the face of chaos and our impending doom. We talk and talk and talk, but when it is time to face the world in front of us, words fail. The question of our existence and awareness is a great challenge presented by the universe itself. To answer the challenge with words is to fall short of what you can truly do.
[QUOTE=Audio-Surfer;42962655]But the absurdity of philosophical zombies proves that consciousness IS necessary.[/QUOTE] If the world is deterministic (and it most likely is), it would currently be exactly the same if we didn't have consciousness. We can't make any choices anyway. Our brain might know about the consciousness but thats about it. Its basically just an "output" of our brain which we observe... It wouldn't really change anything if it wasn't there.
[QUOTE=SilverBullet;42965328]I'll bite. The way I see it. The universe is very much live. Alive in the sense that everything is aware to a certain extent. We human beings are a certain configuration of unified awareness that make us what we are. Asking what awareness or consciousness is doesn't make sense because all you are doing is looking for a set of words or sentences that will only serve to label something that should never be labled. Why shouldn't it be labled you ask? Because that would take away the beauty, the power, the mystery, the awe. It is when we feel that we know that we're a mess. Words are fun to play with and all, but they only help us feel comfortable in the face of chaos and our impending doom. We talk and talk and talk, but when it is time to face the world in front of us, words fail. The question of our existence and awareness is a great challenge presented by the universe itself. To answer the challenge with words is to fall short of what you can truly do.[/QUOTE] Well said! I have a very nice quote for you by Gustav Fechner (1801-1887), regarding his idea of panpsychism. [I]"I stood once on a hot summer's day beside a pool and contemplated a water-lily which had spread its leaves evenly over the water and with an open blossom was basking in the sunlight... It seemed to me that nature surely would not have built a creature so beautiful, and so carefully designed for such conditions, merely to an object of idle observation...I was inclined rather to think that nature had built it thus in order that all the pleasure which can be derived from bathing in sunlight and in water might be enjoyed by one creature in the fullest measure."[/I]
[QUOTE=Kazumi;42967912]Well said! I have a very nice quote for you by Gustav Fechner (1801-1887), regarding his idea of panpsychism. [I]"I stood once on a hot summer's day beside a pool and contemplated a water-lily which had spread its leaves evenly over the water and with an open blossom was basking in the sunlight... It seemed to me that nature surely would not have built a creature so beautiful, and so carefully designed for such conditions, merely to an object of idle observation...I was inclined rather to think that nature had built it thus in order that all the pleasure which can be derived from bathing in sunlight and in water might be enjoyed by one creature in the fullest measure."[/I][/QUOTE] That brought a lot of feelings and memories out of me. The universe is aware of us, and everything we do, and it acts accordingly, regardless of how we see it. I say, act not for the self, but for the spirit. The universe does so much for us, that it would only be fair to repay it in every one of our actions.
[QUOTE=SilverBullet;42968061]That brought a lot of feelings and memories out of me. The universe is aware of us, and everything we do, and it acts accordingly, regardless of how we see it. I say, act not for the self, but for the spirit. The universe does so much for us, that it would only be fair to repay it in every one of our actions.[/QUOTE] Reality is so much better than any of this New Age sophistry.
[QUOTE=Sweet_Water;42968233]Reality is so much better than any of this New Age sophistry.[/QUOTE] I see it this way and you see it that way. You're way of seeing it is not any more right or true than my way of seeing it and visa versa. Reality is only how you see it, and I choose to see it this way because it is the best of me to do so. There are many implications to what I say, but it depends on your capacity for understanding to see it. It may seem boring on the surface, but it is anything but. I will further develop on what I have said. We are going to die. This is a given. An appointment that will be kept without fail. We will not be alive long enough to see all the marvels of this world. The universe challenges us in this way. We only have limited time, and it could end at any moment. To act as an average person would is a waste, and yet it wouldn't matter. We are being challenged to become as aware as possible before we die. Without death, there would be no drive to become more aware. Life cannot exist without death. And yet, death surrounds us. Everything you can see around you is a product of death, and everything you see around you will die too. Everything around you in its current form is temporary, like you. Death is challenging us, but death surrounds us. To realize what that means is terrifying and wonderful. You have an appointment with infinity. It is only when we are against the wall with nowhere else to go, that the best of us comes out. Personally, I wouldn't have it any other way.
[QUOTE=SilverBullet;42968418]???[/QUOTE] [i]"Too much ornament is a fault in every kind of production."[/i] ~ David Hume It's very difficult to wade through your empty verbiage, so that I might form some deductive arrangement to better analyze your argument; but, you appear to rely more heavily on [i]words[/i] than on [i]reason[/i]. I do so want to learn from you, but I just don't get it: how can you connect natural processes, like death, to your seemingly very metaphysical and spiritual claims? Your conclusions, as I understand them, don't even pretend to be justified; it's just your own sentimental interpretation of nature, now set atop stilts.
[QUOTE=Sweet_Water;42968770][i]"Too much ornament is a fault in every kind of production."[/i] ~ David Hume It's very difficult to wade through your empty verbiage, so that I might form some deductive arrangement to better analyze your argument; but, you appear to rely more heavily on [i]words[/i] than on [i]reason[/i]. I do so want to learn from you, but I just don't get it: how can you connect natural processes, like death, to your seemingly very metaphysical and spiritual claims? Your conclusions, as I understand them, don't even pretend to be justified; it's just your own sentimental interpretation of nature, now set atop stilts.[/QUOTE] You bet your sweet ass it is. I see it this way because it is my predilection. In a way, it is all I have. It's easier to go on the path that is justifiable, than it is to go on the path with heart. Every path leads nowhere. So it matters not where it ends, but whether or not you will be joyous walking that path. The path with heart is the one we walk when we do our absolute best.
[QUOTE=SilverBullet;42968832]You bet your sweet ass it is. I see it this way because it is my predilection. In a way, it is all I have. It's easier to go on the path that is justifiable, than it is to go on the path with heart. Every path leads nowhere. So it matters not where it ends, but whether or not you will be joyous walking that path. The path with heart is the one we walk when we do our absolute best.[/QUOTE] My only error so far has been in taking you seriously.
[QUOTE=Sweet_Water;42968947]My only error so far has been in taking you seriously.[/QUOTE] True that. But another one of your errors, no... our, errors is to take ourselves seriously. Nothing I do or say matters. I am going to die. Same goes for everyone else.
[QUOTE=SilverBullet;42968988]True that. But another one of your errors, no... our, errors is to take ourselves seriously. Nothing I do or say matters. I am going to die. Same goes for everyone else.[/QUOTE] Perhaps it is so, perhaps it is not; certainly, this is irrelevant to the subject of consciousness.
[QUOTE=Sweet_Water;42969022]Perhaps it is so, perhaps it is not; certainly, this is irrelevant to the subject of consciousness.[/QUOTE] Perhaps it is, perhaps it's not. I'd like to think it is relevant.
Consciousness is defined by the ability to know you have it, but not necessarily the ability to define it.
[QUOTE=(AMS-$)ILOVEPIE;42969707]Consciousness is defined by the ability to know you have it, but not necessarily the ability to define it.[/QUOTE] What about creatures that fail the [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test]mirror tests[/URL]?
[QUOTE=Kazumi;42969856]What about creatures that fail the [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test]mirror tests[/URL]?[/QUOTE] I think an animal can be aware of it's own consciousness and still not be able to understand how a mirror works. When we develop the way we see the world, mirrors make sense to us, but then again, there are an infinite amount of ways to interpret what a mirror is. Consciousness is only an idea. You know you are aware of yourself, but are you really? What are you when you remove all lables? There are other things we need to think about. For example, does our perception define our consciousness? Do we still percieve if we remove all 5 senses? Look at your dreams for example. You are definately aware, and percieving, but you are not always nessesarily aware of "yourself". Now, one could say you are conscious, as opposed to being passed/knocked out, but maybe its not as simple as saying you are or aren't. Is there shades of grey in between? Is there a limit to how "conscious" you can be?
[QUOTE=SilverBullet;42970178]I think an animal can be aware of it's own consciousness and still not be able to understand how a mirror works. When we develop the way we see the world, mirrors make sense to us, but then again, there are an infinite amount of ways to interpret what a mirror is. Consciousness is only an idea. You know you are aware of yourself, but are you really? What are you when you remove all lables? There are other things we need to think about. For example, does our perception define our consciousness? Do we still percieve if we remove all 5 senses? Look at your dreams for example. You are definately aware, and percieving, but you are not always nessesarily aware of "yourself". Now, one could say you are conscious, as opposed to being passed/knocked out, but maybe its not as simple as saying you are or aren't. Is there shades of gray in between?[/QUOTE] The question I posed was aimed towards ILOVEPIE's stated definition of consciousness. Being conscious does not necessitate the ability know about it as it in relation to oneself as it is such an abstract concept. Animals can still make, what we assume, are conscious decisions. But that doesn't mean that they can identify and reflect of their own subjectivity. Now, moving on to your other statements. Susan Blackmore brings up some excellent points on when we say that we are conscious. She makes the comparison to that of a fridge light. In the same way we can only know if the fridge light is on if we open the fridge door, we can only say that we are conscious when we ask ourselves "am I conscious now?". We live through a big part of our everyday lives unaware of our awareness. The points regarding our perception in relation to our senses can easily be summed up in the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment. If we take a brain and put it in a vat, would it then possess a consciousness? If we take things further and simulate a world for the brain to perceive. The brain wouldn't know that it sits in a vat and not inside the simulated person it happen to possess. Your definitions of aware and perceiving is a bit fuzzy here. The casual definition of awareness and perception is in relation to your surrounding environment. When you dream of a tree your brain fires signals as if you were actually looking at a tree, but you do not actually perceive the tree. You only experience it as a construct of your own mind. Same goes with the image of the self. Most of the time (but not always) we dream in first person. When we dream we aren't really aware per se. Again, that would refer to our mind and body in relation to the real world. In most cases when we dream we're only silent onlookers of a very weirdly directed subjective movie inside our mind. We might think that our actions are guided, but that isn't the case unless we're in a lucid dream. Here's where things get interesting. In a normal dream we don't reason. A giant mammoth could sit in your kitchen and you wouldn't even question why or how. However, if you are in a lucid dream, you know, understand and are aware that you are fast asleep in your bedroom, you are aware that you are dreaming. You are aware that the mammoth you experience isn't real. So when we dream you could say that we aren't consciously aware, both in the sense of the sleeping body and the silent onlooker. One can argue that we still perceive during dreaming, but I would rather say that we are experience a fabricated internal reality conjured up with the contents of our memory and imagination. Our own brain creates its own subjective experience, not our external senses nor the computer the brain in a vat is hooked up to. Perception itself is the unconscious processing of external and internal (in the sense of the peripheral nervous system) input. [editline]24th November 2013[/editline] But yeah, there are definitely shades of gray in regard of levels of consciousness. [img]http://i.imgur.com/E4h2pbh.jpg[/img] Not shown here is the mindfulness of meditation, which is one step higher than conscious wakefulness on the phi scale.
[QUOTE=Kazumi;42970809]The question I posed was aimed towards ILOVEPIE's stated definition of consciousness. Being conscious does not necessitate the ability know about it as it in relation to oneself as it is such an abstract concept. Animals can still make, what we assume, are conscious decisions. But that doesn't mean that they can identify and reflect of their own subjectivity. Now, moving on to your other statements. Susan Blackmore brings up some excellent points on when we say that we are conscious. She makes the comparison to that of a fridge light. In the same way we can only know if the fridge light is on if we open the fridge door, we can only say that we are conscious when we ask ourselves "am I conscious now?". We live through a big part of our everyday lives unaware of our awareness. The points regarding our perception in relation to our senses can easily be summed up in the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment. If we take a brain and put it in a vat, would it then possess a consciousness? If we take things further and simulate a world for the brain to perceive. The brain wouldn't know that it sits in a vat and not inside the simulated person it happen to possess. Your definitions of aware and perceiving is a bit fuzzy here. The casual definition of awareness and perception is in relation to your surrounding environment. When you dream of a tree your brain fires signals as if you were actually looking at a tree, but you do not actually perceive the tree. You only experience it as a construct of your own mind. Same goes with the image of the self. Most of the time (but not always) we dream in first person. When we dream we aren't really aware per se. Again, that would refer to our mind and body in relation to the real world. In most cases when we dream we're only silent onlookers of a very weirdly directed subjective movie inside our mind. We might think that our actions are guided, but that isn't the case unless we're in a lucid dream. Here's where things get interesting. In a normal dream we don't reason. A giant mammoth could sit in your kitchen and you wouldn't even question why or how. However, if you are in a lucid dream, you know, understand and are aware that you are fast asleep in your bedroom, you are aware that you are dreaming. You are aware that the mammoth you experience isn't real. So when we dream you could say that we aren't consciously aware, both in the sense of the sleeping body and the silent onlooker. One can argue that we still perceive during dreaming, but I would rather say that we are experience a fabricated internal reality conjured up with the contents of our memory and imagination. Our own brain creates its own subjective experience, not our external senses nor the computer the brain in a vat is hooked up to. Perception itself is the unconscious processing of external and internal (in the sense of the peripheral nervous system) input.[/QUOTE] I've been a lucid dreamer for about 3 years now. Call me crazy but when you get deep into it you realize that dreams are indeed real. Even crazier you realize that you have two bodies. And each one dreams the other. Sometimes I honestly think I'm going insane. It seems that reality is not as real and "out there" as I thought. But I should probably save this dream stuff for another thread.
[QUOTE=SilverBullet;42970957]I've been a lucid dreamer for about 3 years now. Call me crazy but when you get deep into it you realize that dreams are indeed real. Even crazier you realize that you have two bodies. And each one dreams the other. Sometimes I honestly think I'm going insane. It seems that reality is not as real and "out there" as I thought. But I should probably save this dream stuff for another thread.[/QUOTE] Sounds incredibly interesting! Always wished to learn how to lucid dream but I just can't do it. Academic studies will have to suffice for now. I heartily recommend the book Inner Presence written by Antti Revonsuo.
[QUOTE=Kazumi;42971127]Sounds incredibly interesting! Always wished to learn how to lucid dream but I just can't do it. Academic studies will have to suffice for now. I heartily recommend the book Inner Presence written by Antti Revonsuo.[/QUOTE] Lucid dreaming is simple, but people make methods of doing it that are unreliable at best. I lucid dream simply because I know i can do it. I started out like anyone else. You just intend it. The same way you intend to wake up at a certain time without an alarm clock. You know you are capable, and you just do it. Don't even think about HOW. You might even find the answer to your questions about consciousness in your lucid dreams.
[QUOTE=Kazumi;42964976][...]In 1974 Thomas Nagel wrote the famous piece "What is it like to be a bat?", in which he talks about the idea on [I]what it is like to be.[/I][/QUOTE] I'd like to make a remark on [I]what it is like to be (so and so)[/I]. I think this is the key to understanding the difference between subjective experiences and things that are not subjective experience. For example in... [QUOTE=Kazumi;42964976][QUOTE=Explosions]Consciousness is chemical reactions and electrical impulses in your brain.[/QUOTE]That would be what constitutes consciousness, yes. But not the subjective phenomenal consciousness itself. [U][I]What it is like to experience things[/I][/U]. When you see or smell a red rose, your brain doesn't turn red nor does it carry the actual particles that is the scent of the flower.[/QUOTE] The conscious experience of smelling the scent of a flower is different from reactions in the brain that occur simultaneous with that experience. I think this difference could be analyzed in therm of the question "what is it like to [B][I]x[/I][/B]?". Here '[B][I]x[/I][/B]' should be viewed as an [I]action[/I]. For example, you can ask "what is it like to [U]smell[/U] the scent of a flower?" or "what is it like to [U]be[/U] conscious?". However, it is hard to imagine how this question should be formulated with chemical reactions. The first that comes to my mind is the following: [QUOTE]Let [I]r[/I] be the chemical reactions that trigger when one smells the scent of a flower. Then the question could be formulated as "what is it like to have [I]r[/I] triggered in (some determined part of) your brain?"[/QUOTE] Now the relationship between an experience and a chemical reaction could be formulated in the following manner: [QUOTE]If [I]r[/I] is the reaction corresponding to an experience [e], then there is some thing [I]x[/I] such that [I]x[/I] [B]is like[/B] (experiencing) [e] and that same [I]x[/I] [B]is like[/B] having [I]r[/I] triggered in some determined part of the brain.[/QUOTE] And now we can perceive the difference easily: [e] is not [I]r[/I], [e] [B]is like having [I]r[/I] triggered in your brain.[/B] Now, regarding consciousness. As you already know, it is not the same as 'experience'. One could have an experience and be conscious of having it, or have it and not be conscious of having it. It is difficult to imagine cases in which a person has an experience, but is not aware of having it. But I think this difficulty is not enough to consider consciousness and experience as the same. Consciousness, in some sense, [I]requires[/I] experience. It is related in a certain way with 'awareness', but again, it is that which [B]is like to be[/B] aware of something, and to be aware of something one requires some kind of experience. At least that is how I see things. [QUOTE=SilverBullet;42964976]The way I see it. The universe is very much alive. Alive in the sense that everything is aware to a certain extent.[/QUOTE] That claim is VERY counterintuitive. Any claim like that needs a very strong argument in order for people to accept it. Taking my view of consciousness, there is nothing which is like to be a chair or a table, or at least there are very few reasons to think being a chair or a table is like something, contrary to the case of human beings (we know how being a human being is like). Therefore, there is no experience of being a chair. As consciousness requires experience, chairs are not conscious. [QUOTE=SilverBullet;42964976]Words are fun to play with and all, but they only help us feel comfortable in the face of chaos and our impending doom. We talk and talk and talk, but when it is time to face the world in front of us, words fail.[/QUOTE] Words do not always fail. Sometimes they are the only thing we can use. And no, their only purpose is not just to help us feel comfortable with things: Haven't you read a good novel lately? Do good novels always make us feel comfortable? I would disagree. In any case, debating is what we do here. If you consider it a waste of time, why post in this thread?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.