Immanuel Can wrote:
It's the only assumption worth considering....I'm not a solipsist. You'll search in vain for someone to defend that view here. But the view you're suggesting as an alternative amounts to solipsism.
Then by all means make the assumption..
But you have wandered far from the point. We are discussing whether the concept 'consciousness' is meaningful, whether it describes anything in particular. You assume that I have a 'consciousness'. I am saying that this assumption is unnecessary.
I am not a solipsist, I also assume that there is an external world, but I don't assume it is all conscious. To assume some external objects, like humans (and perhaps other things) are conscious is a separate step. To think that 'consciousness' isn't meaningful doesn't make you a solipsist.
Only in the broadest sense. Physical entities are "things," but so are abstractions like "courage" or "love." All are nouns: some are concrete, and some are not.
If 'consciousness' qualifies as a 'thing' simply because it is a noun, then I have no problem with that. As are 'soul', 'God', 'unicorn', 'phlogiston', 'ghost'....
Me: I cannot disagree that we have the concept 'morality' (or 'consciousness'), but there is no mystery where concepts come from; we create them.
Prove it. Plato thought we got them from the realm of higher forms. Objectivists say they are real-world entities we are interpreting. Theists say they are grounded in God. Metaphysicians say they're metaphysical. Dualists say they are one of two kinds of entity in the universe, and Idealists say that they ARE reality....
I'm not sure about the accuracy of that brief guide to philosophy. However, if you consider concepts are one of those things, then by all means make the argument. However, I got the impression that you thought of 'consciousness' as more than a concept, that it was something in itself, rather than being an abstraction.
However, if your notion of 'consciousness' is simply 'a concept' then I am fine with that.
Me: I know you don't think this, but that it what we are discussing here, whether there is this mysterious medium 'consciousness' that allows you to escape from the sort of determinism that governs everything else.
Well, we don't actually know that Determinism governs ANYTHING, to be honest. But if we did, perhaps this would indeed be the next question. But I think "How much of the world is Deterministic" would probably be the better one, then. So maybe yours would be third.
By all means ask those questions. It is just that I had got the impression you had jumped them and were asserting the existence of this thing called 'consciousness'.
Couldn't disagree more. What is very clear is that Determinism grounded in Materialism can do absolutely nothing by way of explaining consciousness. That's a good prima facie reason for rejecting it...especially if, as you and I believe, consciousness is real. If you don't believe it, of course, then we're not talking to each other at all.
I am baffled how in the quotes above you point out all the reasons we must lack certainty, and then in this paragraph write that you believe consciousness is 'real'. You cannot undermine my position with considerations of metaphysical doubt, then refuse to apply it to your own. In one place 'consciousness is merely a noun, or a concept, then it becomes something for which there is empirical evidence i.e. conversations.
It is a very slippery fellow!
But we have had this point about conversation. I react to all sorts of things and they react to me. I do not need to posit something called 'consciousness' in order to explain that.
Me: It is a pity you will not describe where the difference is between humans and other animals.
The line you're drawing is in the wrong place; that's why. The real line is between conscious entities and non-conscious ones, not between entities of differing levels of consciousness. They HAVE important differences, to be sure: but that's not the essential question of consciousness, because it's already conceded to exist in some form even in lower animals.
I'm not drawing any line. I don't think there is a line. I'm trying to discover what
you mean by consciousness.
For example, now you say that even lower animals have consciousness. But lower animals do not have conversations of the type we are having. I'm doubtful if they form concepts like 'morality' and the others you listed in an earlier post (Wednesday) as being 'inextricably tied' to consciousness. So, if you think lower animals have 'consciousness' then your reason must be other than what you say is evidence of consciousness in humans.
Indeed, if there is no clear definition, but instead what you call '
differing levels of consciousness' then you agree that there is no line to be drawn. In which case, since no living thing is positively excluded, then 'consciousness' just means 'alive'.
But it is absurd at this stage in this exchange about 'consciousness' that I am still trying to find the meaning of 'consciousness'. It really isn't for me to guess, it is for those who assert it has meaning to say what that meaning is.
Let's take an entity that we both agree doesn't exist: say, ghosts. If ghosts existed, they would interact with the natural world, but not be governed by its laws. Natural science would remain unable to describe them, since it by definition limits itself to the purely empirical. But that would be caused by science's self-imposed parameters, not by the non-existence of the supernatural phenomena in question.
If the ghost does interact with this world, then it would be governed by its laws, because science would have to adjust its laws to take account of this new force. (If the ghost didn't interact with this world, then questions about its 'existence' would be meaningless because both its existence or non-existence would have no consequences and thus amount to the same thing).
Me: So 'consciousness' takes its place alongside God; being spiritual it cannot be investigated through science.
Add the word "exhaustively," and you're probably right. Put it between "investigated" and "through." There's no reason we might think it has to be impossible to get some knowledge of the supernatural world, if such exists, through the natural world. It just wouldn't ever be a complete view.
Likewise, we can learn some things about consciousness through observation of ourselves and others; but we can't be quite sure, or present a complete theory, because that's indicative evidence, but not exhaustive.
But why would we need the notion of 'consciousness'? If we are learning through empirical observation of ourselves and others, then why aren't we just learning about ourselves and others? Why the need for this extra entity? Why won't all the existing words we have, like 'biology' or 'psychology' cover all our findings?