Pure Consciousness?

[Gee]

The evidence from astronomy pointed to either interpretation; geocentric or heliocentric. Copernicus and Aristarchus both preceded Galileo in their heliocentric hypothesis.

Did the church condemn them as heretics also? Or are you trying to say that I am the first person to suggest that consciousness is part of our reality instead of all in your head?

Our reality is all in our head. You are not making any sense at all.
I doubt that I will ever make sense to you. Have you ever heard the word perspective?

Your analogy is false. They were not looking to understand a phenomenon where it did not exist. They were not trying to decide if the sun existed at the bottom of the ocean.

Good, because I don't think that the sun is there.
Exactly. Why? because it is not evident, just like consciousness in Space. You are shooting yourself in the foot here.
You think that consciousness is in Space? Outer space?
I don't think that consciousness is there either, but I do think that consciousness has a relationship with, or maybe a dependency for its start or continuance, on water.
Indeed. All the evidence suggests that consciousness comes from neural matter.
No. Evidence suggests that thought comes from neural matter.

Now we have a question about consciousness. We question is; what is it about the higher animals that make them demonstrate more conscious behaviour than the lower animals.
We also have another question; what is it about the universe that makes it the way it is?
You seem to want to confuse the questions.

If you want to answer those questions, maybe you should start a thread on those questions. Look up to the top of the screen. This thread asks if consciousness is pure, which is an entirely different question.
A question which you have long abandoned.
You are correct. I should just ignore you and your insane rants, and just stick to my topic.

So lets play your game and see if it makes any sense.

This is not a game to me Chaz. If it is a game to you, then please back out of this thread. If you are bored, then find someone else to entertain you, as we have been here before, and I am not interested in debating issues that you think are important.
Ohhhhh, I think I have hit a sore point here. The point is that you have nothing to say in response to my points so you want me to leave the thread. Maybe you should try to think harder, and not keep shooting yourself in the foot?
Well of course you have hit a sore point. Do you really think that I get out of bed every day with the idea that I get to go on-line and find out how many people Chaz has called stupid? Do you really believe that the ten or so lines that you keep repeating are informative after the first three minutes? Are you trying to imply that anyone could possible pump information into your dull witted, single minded, less than abstract brain? No, no, and no.

I have advanced MS, Chaz. That means that I have limited time. It also means that I can shorten my time by exposing myself to heat, infection, and/or stress. You do not listen, you do not understand, then you demand answers to questions that are off point--you are a bully, Chaz, and I am not ready to let you push me into a nursing home for your personal entertainment. Fuck you. If you won't leave, I will.


Gee

[thedoc]

Gee, Some people are here just to pick a fight, be careful, and take care.

[Ginkgo]

Back to the topic.

Following is, hopefully, a link to a Microbiology site. I got this site information from Wiki, and it deals with endospores. For those who don't know, endospore is bacteria that has put itself into a hibernating dormant state. Endospore are impervious to most things that would kill any other life form, and when in this state, it can continue for millions of years. It is dormant in this state and does not eat, or reproduce, or do anything--it could almost appear to be a fossil.

[Endospores http://www.microbiologytext ... &art_id=69

What I found most fascinating about this, is not that it can hibernate this way, but how it comes back to life. Apparently, after centuries or even millions of years, when it finds itself in a situation that is conducive to life, it simply turns back into bacteria, eats, reproduces, and continues. So how does it know that it is in a situation that is conducive to life? What causes it to turn back on? Wiki did not say, so are we saying that this endospore is aware?

Most people do not believe that bacteria are aware, so this is why I brought this up. I will grant that bacteria may well not have thought, memory, or emotion, but if they are aware, do they have feeling? Do they sense that the environment is suitable?

Any ideas?

Gee

I think I can see where you are coming from . This could be along story, but if I were you I would do away with the term, 'awareness' and replace it with the term, 'informed behaviour'. So rather than talk about the endospores exhibiting awareness, we could say instead that they exhibiting a type of informed behaviour.

There would be several reasons for doing this. Firstly, the term 'awareness' in modern philosophy of mind carries with it certain connotations when it comes to the research. Secondly, the way you are using awareness will probably end up offering a teleological explanation, i.e the end purpose of an endospore.


I am not sure if this is what you want, but I think 'informed behaviour' would work in a lot better with explanations put forward by physicists such as David Bohm. Naturally, his theories are not widely accepted in science, but he does do what I suggested earlier. He used science to show that science cannot explain the science. If you know what I mean.

Ginkgo

[chaz wyman]

The evidence from astronomy pointed to either interpretation; geocentric or heliocentric. Copernicus and Aristarchus both preceded Galileo in their heliocentric hypothesis.

Did the church condemn them as heretics also? Or are you trying to say that I am the first person to suggest that consciousness is part of our reality instead of all in your head?

Our reality is all in our head. You are not making any sense at all.
I doubt that I will ever make sense to you. Have you ever heard the word perspective?

Your analogy is false. They were not looking to understand a phenomenon where it did not exist. They were not trying to decide if the sun existed at the bottom of the ocean.

Good, because I don't think that the sun is there.
Exactly. Why? because it is not evident, just like consciousness in Space. You are shooting yourself in the foot here.
You think that consciousness is in Space? Outer space?
I don't think that consciousness is there either, but I do think that consciousness has a relationship with, or maybe a dependency for its start or continuance, on water.
Indeed. All the evidence suggests that consciousness comes from neural matter.
No. Evidence suggests that thought comes from neural matter.

Now we have a question about consciousness. We question is; what is it about the higher animals that make them demonstrate more conscious behaviour than the lower animals.
We also have another question; what is it about the universe that makes it the way it is?
You seem to want to confuse the questions.

If you want to answer those questions, maybe you should start a thread on those questions. Look up to the top of the screen. This thread asks if consciousness is pure, which is an entirely different question.
A question which you have long abandoned.
You are correct. I should just ignore you and your insane rants, and just stick to my topic.

So lets play your game and see if it makes any sense.

This is not a game to me Chaz. If it is a game to you, then please back out of this thread. If you are bored, then find someone else to entertain you, as we have been here before, and I am not interested in debating issues that you think are important.
Ohhhhh, I think I have hit a sore point here. The point is that you have nothing to say in response to my points so you want me to leave the thread. Maybe you should try to think harder, and not keep shooting yourself in the foot?
Well of course you have hit a sore point. Do you really think that I get out of bed every day with the idea that I get to go on-line and find out how many people Chaz has called stupid? Do you really believe that the ten or so lines that you keep repeating are informative after the first three minutes? Are you trying to imply that anyone could possible pump information into your dull witted, single minded, less than abstract brain? No, no, and no.

I have advanced MS, Chaz. That means that I have limited time. It also means that I can shorten my time by exposing myself to heat, infection, and/or stress. You do not listen, you do not understand, then you demand answers to questions that are off point--you are a bully, Chaz, and I am not ready to let you push me into a nursing home for your personal entertainment. Fuck you. If you won't leave, I will.


Gee

[/quote]

You are doing yourself a ridiculous disservice telling me 'fuck you' and getting all sensitive.
I asked my questions in a polite and calm way. You chose to get upset.
Maybe you should mull it over and re-read my responses.
I can only conclude that you have found a weakness in your argument.

PS I checked through this whole thread and have not called you or anyone else stupid.
The word 'stupid' appears twice, and it is you accusing me of using the word.

[chaz wyman]

Back to the topic.

Following is, hopefully, a link to a Microbiology site. I got this site information from Wiki, and it deals with endospores. For those who don't know, endospore is bacteria that has put itself into a hibernating dormant state. Endospore are impervious to most things that would kill any other life form, and when in this state, it can continue for millions of years. It is dormant in this state and does not eat, or reproduce, or do anything--it could almost appear to be a fossil.

[Endospores http://www.microbiologytext ... &art_id=69

What I found most fascinating about this, is not that it can hibernate this way, but how it comes back to life. Apparently, after centuries or even millions of years, when it finds itself in a situation that is conducive to life, it simply turns back into bacteria, eats, reproduces, and continues. So how does it know that it is in a situation that is conducive to life? What causes it to turn back on? Wiki did not say, so are we saying that this endospore is aware?

Most people do not believe that bacteria are aware, so this is why I brought this up. I will grant that bacteria may well not have thought, memory, or emotion, but if they are aware, do they have feeling? Do they sense that the environment is suitable?

Any ideas?

Gee

I think I can see where you are coming from . This could be along story, but if I were you I would do away with the term, 'awareness' and replace it with the term, 'informed behaviour'. So rather than talk about the endospores exhibiting awareness, we could say instead that they exhibiting a type of informed behaviour.

There would be several reasons for doing this. Firstly, the term 'awareness' in modern philosophy of mind carries with it certain connotations when it comes to the research. Secondly, the way you are using awareness will probably end up offering a teleological explanation, i.e the end purpose of an endospore.


I am not sure if this is what you want, but I think 'informed behaviour' would work in a lot better with explanations put forward by physicists such as David Bohm. Naturally, his theories are not widely accepted in science, but he does do what I suggested earlier. He used science to show that science cannot explain the science. If you know what I mean.

Ginkgo

Do you not think that this 'evidence' of awareness, is distinctly different from 'consciousness'?
What you are calling 'informed behaviour' is an automatic response caused by the genetically established modes of behaviour, and as deterministic as say the orbit of a planet. Few suggest that the planet 'knows' how to orbit the sun, or that it is 'aware' of the sun's pull on its motion, Is, then the planet in any way 'conscious' of its predicament?
The proposition that it might be is the inverse of a strict determinism that suggests that all things are cause and effect, by implying that the entire universe is conscious.
Surely the only valuable distinction between what is and what is not conscious, it the ability to learn from your experience and to act differently next time? This is a thing that a planet cannot do, that microbes cannot do, and a leaf turning towards the sun for light cannot do. This ability can be found to a limited extent in some higher animals, and to a greater extent in humans and dolphins.

On the point about Aristotle's' telos. He did not use it to imply awareness or consciousness. Even a falling rock's purpose is to be drawn to the earth.

[Ginkgo]

Do you not think that this 'evidence' of awareness, is distinctly different from 'consciousness'?
What you are calling 'informed behaviour' is an automatic response caused by the genetically established modes of behaviour, and as deterministic as say the orbit of a planet. Few suggest that the planet 'knows' how to orbit the sun, or that it is 'aware' of the sun's pull on its motion, Is, then the planet in any way 'conscious' of its predicament?
The proposition that it might be is the inverse of a strict determinism that suggests that all things are cause and effect, by implying that the entire universe is conscious.
Surely the only valuable distinction between what is and what is not conscious, it the ability to learn from your experience and to act differently next time? This is a thing that a planet cannot do, that microbes cannot do, and a leaf turning towards the sun for light cannot do. This ability can be found to a limited extent in some higher animals, and to a greater extent in humans and dolphins.

On the point about Aristotle's' telos. He did not use it to imply awareness or consciousness. Even a falling rock's purpose is to be drawn to the earth.

I think the bottom line is that your criticism of Gee's thesis is largely correct. If I understand her ideas correctly, then they go against what modern science tells us about consciousness. Unfortunately, they also go against where things are at in the philosophy of mind at the moment They may not go against a religious interpretation, but I think she said she does not want to go there.

The question as to whether she can 'revise' an Aristotelian view of consciousness is very problematic. I don't think in this day and age we can, especially when Aristotle did not specifically write about consciousness. So 'evidence' and 'awareness' are not very good terms to use when applying it to trees, grass and simple one cell organisms. It just create confusion. Such things as awareness, attention and consciousness are better reserved for complex living things (such as humans) within a scientific context.

As I said in my pervious response when we start to think about trees, grass, endospores as have a type of conscious awareness we are usually forced to give a teleological explanation as to why they react the way they do, e.g in the presence of light or gravity.


I was trying to think up a way to help Gee with her thesis by taking the 'consciousness' aspect away from simple living organisms and placing it with an agency outside of their control.

[MGL]

You and Gee want to use 'awareness' in an Aristotelian way.
Matter behaves in a way in accordance with its telos.

Not sure I understand how you inferred that I have an Aristotelian\teleological view of matter.
I was merely pointing out that Chaz's inference that there is no consciousness to be found in matter other than brains is not warranted by the fact that consciousness has only been "observed" in brains.

If phenomenal consciousness is something fundamental to matter\reality and not something produced by brains this does not necessarily imply that all matter has some purpose. The teleological nature of brain activity, may be explainable in terms of\reducable to basic non-teleologicical laws of nature. What seems impossible to explain in these terms are the conscious phenomenal properties ( eg the sensations of pain or redness ) that accompany brain behaviour. A sensation of redness has no purpose itself, but as a part of a conscious mind it performs a function of descriminiating one part of reality from another.

[chaz wyman]

You and Gee want to use 'awareness' in an Aristotelian way.
Matter behaves in a way in accordance with its telos.

Not sure I understand how you inferred that I have an Aristotelian\teleological view of matter.
I was merely pointing out that Chaz's inference that there is no consciousness to be found in matter other than brains is not warranted by the fact that consciousness has only been "observed" in brains.

This is not inference. It is an empirical fact that "there is no consciousness to be found in matter other than brains." Empirical facts need no warrant. My conclusion that consciousness is a consequence of the existence of brain matter, is warranted by the evidence. You would be right to suggest that I have no warrant to suggest that brain matter is the only possible source of consciousness, but then I do not have to make that suggestion to assess the quality of arguments concerned with this topic.. I cannot prove that a banana is not capable of calculating the circumference of the earth either, but such things do not worry me.


If phenomenal consciousness is something fundamental to matter\reality and not something produced by brains this does not necessarily imply that all matter has some purpose. The teleological nature of brain activity, may be explainable in terms of\reducable to basic non-teleologicical laws of nature. What seems impossible to explain in these terms are the conscious phenomenal properties ( eg the sensations of pain or redness ) that accompany brain behaviour. A sensation of redness has no purpose itself, but as a part of a conscious mind it performs a function of descriminiating one part of reality from another.

THere is a difference between speculation and idle fantasy. This particular one seem to be based on an assumption that we cannot account for mind in terms of physicalism. However there are many examples where we find X from not X. For example a collection of people can be a nation; sand can be a castle - but we do not have to attribute nationhood to all people, nor do we have to suggest that there is castle-hood in all grains of sand.
But even if it were somehow true that all matter contains the potential for consciousness, what of it? Not only is there a serious problem in having to account for some systems such as computers NOT having demonstrable consciousness despite having inputs and outputs and processing power, it is simply the case that ordinary matter does not exhibit any conscious behaviour.

[chaz wyman]

Do you not think that this 'evidence' of awareness, is distinctly different from 'consciousness'?
What you are calling 'informed behaviour' is an automatic response caused by the genetically established modes of behaviour, and as deterministic as say the orbit of a planet. Few suggest that the planet 'knows' how to orbit the sun, or that it is 'aware' of the sun's pull on its motion, Is, then the planet in any way 'conscious' of its predicament?
The proposition that it might be is the inverse of a strict determinism that suggests that all things are cause and effect, by implying that the entire universe is conscious.
Surely the only valuable distinction between what is and what is not conscious, it the ability to learn from your experience and to act differently next time? This is a thing that a planet cannot do, that microbes cannot do, and a leaf turning towards the sun for light cannot do. This ability can be found to a limited extent in some higher animals, and to a greater extent in humans and dolphins.

On the point about Aristotle's' telos. He did not use it to imply awareness or consciousness. Even a falling rock's purpose is to be drawn to the earth.

I think the bottom line is that your criticism of Gee's thesis is largely correct. If I understand her ideas correctly, then they go against what modern science tells us about consciousness. Unfortunately, they also go against where things are at in the philosophy of mind at the moment They may not go against a religious interpretation, but I think she said she does not want to go there.

The question as to whether she can 'revise' an Aristotelian view of consciousness is very problematic. I don't think in this day and age we can, especially when Aristotle did not specifically write about consciousness. So 'evidence' and 'awareness' are not very good terms to use when applying it to trees, grass and simple one cell organisms. It just create confusion. Such things as awareness, attention and consciousness are better reserved for complex living things (such as humans) within a scientific context.

As I said in my pervious response when we start to think about trees, grass, endospores as have a type of conscious awareness we are usually forced to give a teleological explanation as to why they react the way they do, e.g in the presence of light or gravity.


I was trying to think up a way to help Gee with her thesis by taking the 'consciousness' aspect away from simple living organisms and placing it with an agency outside of their control.

Thanks. I feel that Aristotle's was a very early attempt to give a monist solution to account for all phenomena. This reflects the philosophies of his day, where in the absence of a long tradition of science, one-size-fits-all solutions were the way to go. Here one thinks of a list of philosophers that offered single element solutions such as everything is water or Fire etc.. By the time of Aristotle at least the 4 elements were being offered as a model of the Universe and the attribution of the telos was a significant advancement. However, far too much has flowed under the bridge of knowledge for us to be able to revive this simplicity. When we seem to be boggled by sub-atomic particles that seem to have no end, with quasars and pulsars and the panoply of complex and differential behaviours of differing causality amongst a range of energies and matter. Telos does not help, and can actually damage clear interpretations of evolutionary theory, and else besides.
Scientific and philosophical progress is has not been achieved by ignoring distinctions by suggesting that everything is the same but by the embrace of difference and complexity.

[Ginkgo]

You and Gee want to use 'awareness' in an Aristotelian way.
Matter behaves in a way in accordance with its telos.

Not sure I understand how you inferred that I have an Aristotelian\teleological view of matter.
I was merely pointing out that Chaz's inference that there is no consciousness to be found in matter other than brains is not warranted by the fact that consciousness has only been "observed" in brains.

If phenomenal consciousness is something fundamental to matter\reality and not something produced by brains this does not necessarily imply that all matter has some purpose. The teleological nature of brain activity, may be explainable in terms of\reducable to basic non-teleologicical laws of nature. What seems impossible to explain in these terms are the conscious phenomenal properties ( eg the sensations of pain or redness ) that accompany brain behaviour. A sensation of redness has no purpose itself, but as a part of a conscious mind it performs a function of descriminiating one part of reality from another.

Perhaps this was a misunderstanding on my part.

The example of an endosperm would be an example of an organism that undergoes change. As far as I know Aristotle didn't address consciousness in any direct way. He talks about matter and form. So we would probably could say that the endosperm has remained the same yet it also has undergone change. Give the right environment conditions some type of process brings about change.

For me this is where the whole thing get a bit tricky. I agree that by saying matter is in some way conscious does not necessarily mean that all matter has a purpose. But there always exists the possibility that some people will say this. Obviously I have misunderstood your position on this.

Some people might understand Aristotle as saying that the endosperm is capable of, 'being directed'- perhaps assuming different forms. Thus the changing aspect of the endosperm and its permanent aspect are always with the organism. This could be interpreted by some to mean that the organism 'deliberately' moves towards an end purpose. In other words,the organism somehow 'consciously' undertakes this process. But again, I have obviously misunderstood your position.


When you talk about sensations of redness and pain as being a subjective nature of brain activity, then you are obviously talking about an argument for qualia. I think there is qualia and I also think that the physicalist explanation does not do justice to our mental lives. So we obviously share a common position on this. However, I would say, no brains - no qualia.

[Ginkgo]

double posted, sorry.

[Gee]

I think I can see where you are coming from . This could be along story, but if I were you I would do away with the term, 'awareness' and replace it with the term, 'informed behaviour'. So rather than talk about the endospores exhibiting awareness, we could say instead that they exhibiting a type of informed behaviour.

This would be a bad idea, because when one says, "informed behavior" it begs the question, "Informed by whom or what?" So instead of helping to stop the confusion, it causes more. The reality, in my opinion, is that there is no informer, there is no God, no intelligent designer, no dictating endospore, no thing informs or directs awareness.

It would be easy to imagine that thousands of years ago, some philosophers could be debating about what directs the tides in the ocean. One would say that Posiden directs the ocean tides, the other would say that the moon directs the tides--both would be wrong. Like the ocean, natural forces influence awareness, there is no direction.

I was trying to think up a way to help Gee with her thesis by taking the 'consciousness' aspect away from simple living organisms and placing it with an agency outside of their control.

I appreciate the idea that you want to help, but don't see how that is possible as you have no understanding of my interpretation of consciousness or awareness. For the record, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy does not make a distinction between awareness and consciousness, referring one to the other.

I try to make a distinction because I know that many people equate consciousness with thought; so although I have used "awareness" as a subset of "consciousness", I never use "consciousness" as a subset of "awareness" in my explanations. I sometimes use the words "raw consciousness" to indicate "awareness" and hope that people understand that I am talking about something that is pre-life.

Anyway, you gave me the name of Spinoza, and I looked him up in Wiki. He understood that "need" is a major part of consciousness; he understood the basic emotional issues that Freud would eventually make a major part of his work; and although, like me, he had no information on the Vedanta and Hindu religion, his understanding of consciousness was very compatible with this belief. He is the first philosopher that I have found whose ideas are close to mine, so I will be researching his work. Thank you.

I owe you one, so I am going to try to give you a simple understanding of how I think that awareness (raw consciousness) works with something like an endospore. I use water as a metaphor to understand consciousness and awareness because I think that it shares properties with water. Or they work in a similar way.

So let's say that you dug a ditch one foot deep and one foot wide and ten feet long. The next day you go and look at the ditch and it is full of water. (Much like the endospore seems to be full of awareness.) So who or what directed the water? Did you do it by digging the ditch? Did God do it? Was there an intelligent designer? No. Water is in the ditch because of the properties of water. It may have rained in, it may have flooded in, it may have tapped an underground stream, or it may have drained in from a higher pool of water. I think that "awareness" in our reality works very much this way and is influenced by natural phenomenon. We just need to understand it's properties.

Gee

PS If you log in, you will see a small blue X in the bottom right hand corner of your posts. If you select the X, you can delete your double post.

[Ginkgo]

I think I can see where you are coming from . This could be along story, but if I were you I would do away with the term, 'awareness' and replace it with the term, 'informed behaviour'. So rather than talk about the endospores exhibiting awareness, we could say instead that they exhibiting a type of informed behaviour.

This would be a bad idea, because when one says, "informed behavior" it begs the question, "Informed by whom or what?" So instead of helping to stop the confusion, it causes more. The reality, in my opinion, is that there is no informer, there is no God, no intelligent designer, no dictating endospore, no thing informs or directs awareness.

It would be easy to imagine that thousands of years ago, some philosophers could be debating about what directs the tides in the ocean. One would say that Posiden directs the ocean tides, the other would say that the moon directs the tides--both would be wrong. Like the ocean, natural forces influence awareness, there is no direction.

I was trying to think up a way to help Gee with her thesis by taking the 'consciousness' aspect away from simple living organisms and placing it with an agency outside of their control.

I appreciate the idea that you want to help, but don't see how that is possible as you have no understanding of my interpretation of consciousness or awareness. For the record, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy does not make a distinction between awareness and consciousness, referring one to the other.

I try to make a distinction because I know that many people equate consciousness with thought; so although I have used "awareness" as a subset of "consciousness", I never use "consciousness" as a subset of "awareness" in my explanations. I sometimes use the words "raw consciousness" to indicate "awareness" and hope that people understand that I am talking about something that is pre-life.

Anyway, you gave me the name of Spinoza, and I looked him up in Wiki. He understood that "need" is a major part of consciousness; he understood the basic emotional issues that Freud would eventually make a major part of his work; and although, like me, he had no information on the Vedanta and Hindu religion, his understanding of consciousness was very compatible with this belief. He is the first philosopher that I have found whose ideas are close to mine, so I will be researching his work. Thank you.

I owe you one, so I am going to try to give you a simple understanding of how I think that awareness (raw consciousness) works with something like an endospore. I use water as a metaphor to understand consciousness and awareness because I think that it shares properties with water. Or they work in a similar way.

So let's say that you dug a ditch one foot deep and one foot wide and ten feet long. The next day you go and look at the ditch and it is full of water. (Much like the endospore seems to be full of awareness.) So who or what directed the water? Did you do it by digging the ditch? Did God do it? Was there an intelligent designer? No. Water is in the ditch because of the properties of water. It may have rained in, it may have flooded in, it may have tapped an underground stream, or it may have drained in from a higher pool of water. I think that "awareness" in our reality works very much this way and is influenced by natural phenomenon. We just need to understand it's properties.

Gee

PS If you log in, you will see a small blue X in the bottom right hand corner of your posts. If you select the X, you can delete your double post.

Hello Gee,

I'm glad you found Spinoza helpful. I think it would would be possible to explain your idea using Spinoza. That is why I chose to use the words, 'informed behaviour'. because it doesn't necessarily mean that anyone, or any thing has to do the informing. This is also why I also mentioned quantum physicist David Bohm. Much of his work and that of psychologist Karl Pribram was incorporated into a book by Michael Talbot called, "The Holographic Universe". Don't let the quantum mechanics and the psychology turn you off. The book is beautifully written and quite understandable.You don't need any background in the sciences or psychology to appreciate the ideas presented.



I probably created a bit of confusion by mentioning the word, 'awareness'. I took the word to mean 'attention'. I guess that is the problem of trying to define a concept. You always have to resort to using another concept. Anyway, consciousness being attention is where the latest ideas in philosophy of mind are going at the moment. No need for you to go there. Keeping in tune with the theme at the moment I guess we could say that consciousness as attention is just one level of a multi-level reality.

[MGL]

This is not inference. It is an empirical fact that "there is no consciousness to be found in matter other than brains." Empirical facts need no warrant. My conclusion that consciousness is a consequence of the existence of brain matter, is warranted by the evidence. You would be right to suggest that I have no warrant to suggest that brain matter is the only possible source of consciousness, but then I do not have to make that suggestion to assess the quality of arguments concerned with this topic.. I cannot prove that a banana is not capable of calculating the circumference of the earth either, but such things do not worry me.

Can you clarify what you mean by "there is no consciousness to be found in matter other than brains"

is it:

1) no consciousness has been observed in matter other than brains
or
2) it has been observed that there is no consciousness in matter other than brains

If #1 then you are welcome to claim this as an empirical fact. If #2 then you need to clarify what you mean by consciousness.

Do you think that to call something conscious requires it to satisfy the following two necessary conjoint conditions:

a) purposive behaviour
b) the existence of phenomenal properties in which that behaviour is mediated.

If you define consciousness as necessarily requiring the exhibition of purposive behaviour then you are perhaps reasonably warranted in claim 2, but you may need to clarify your definition to avoid attracting confused criticism.

So my question now is:

Do you think that there is a necessary connection between the phenomenal properties of consciousness and its purposive behaviour?
If so what is your warrant for claiming this?

[MGL]

However there are many examples where we find X from not X. For example a collection of people can be a nation; sand can be a castle - but we do not have to attribute nationhood to all people, nor do we have to suggest that there is castle-hood in all grains of sand.

These explanations work becasue the higher objects ( nations and sand castles ) can be reduced to more ubiquitous components ( people, grains of sand ).

The only way this kind of explanation to work for consciousness is to presume that its phenomenal properties are alreasy present in the matter and energy that constitute the brain processes. Otherwise these have to be miraculously produced in an unreducable way simply from some mysterious specific arrangement.

To take the nation analogy, it would be like saying that a nation of red-haired people is reducable to an aggregate of people with no hair. That the act of congregating together magically gives them all red-hair.