No. Based on that definition you only have a fact that you are conscious. You cannot measure consciousness therefore you cannot claim that other people are conscious as well. You don't have an argument as well.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 ambahman wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 9:10 amAll you have is an empirical fact that you are a conscious being. You don't have an empirical fact or proof that other humans are conscious since consciousness cannot be measured.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 8:01 amYou missed my point totally.
I know there is an emergence of human consciousness from observing empirical humans having and displaying their consciousness, i.e. self-conscious and other types of consciousness.
This is so evident empirically.
It is so evident to the person and others that human has wakeful, dream, and other types of consciousness.
Note consciousness in the modern perspective is;
Based on the above definition, it is so easy to prove other humans are conscious beings. This is so common an accepted by Science, psychology, psychiatry, neurosciences, etc.
- Conscious = aware of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
Note other meanings at: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/conscious?s=t
The hard problem of consciousness is very relevant here since you are claiming two things: 1) People are conscious and 2) Consciousness is an emergent property.
Your empirical evidence just shows that you are conscious. You are claiming that your consciousness is emergent too so you need another evidence for this.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 amI am claiming human consciousness and mind is an emergent as inferred from empirical evidences of human actions and thoughts.The onus is for you since you are claiming that consciousness is an emergent property. Regardless, I already provide my argument against strong emergence. Consciousness is a property that is not a function of properties of parts since parts are unconscious in your perspective. Therefore, the emergence of consciousness is impossible.
What has the above to do with the Universe that can experience?
There must be only one conscious being if there is only one process. There are several conscious beings in your view and there is one process, therefore, there is problem in your perspective.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 amEverything that is empirical evident are interdependent [interlinked] within the Universe.Can we agree that there is only one process if everything in universe is interdependent? All parts of the universe move with each other if they are interdependent. Therefore, there is only one process.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 amI am trying hard to understand your point but I believe your communication and explanation in this case is not clear.
I am still guessing your intended point;
Say there is on interdependent process of the Water Cycle, and there is one process for each iceberg in the ocean, but they are all interdependent.
Now, you are claiming that there are several persons who are conscious, have the ability to decide and cause. This means that the concept of person is a local thing, independent of other persons or things. That is true since you have the ability to decide independent of what is going around you.
Moreover, you need to show how there could be several conscious persons. Consciousness to you is a local thing. You are conscious but not the chair that you are sitting on it. So we have two things, one is conscious and another is not. You and chair are however interdependent in your perspective. There is one thing, you and chair together, not two things. Therefore, this one thing is either conscious or not. That is true since you cannot separate the chair from yourself in your perspective.
Yes, it is deterministic and there is only one process with loads of interlinking sub-processes.
Yes, you need more than that. A dead person could be conscious. You need empirical evidence, measuring his consciousness, to show that a dead person is not conscious. Consciousness cannot be measured. Therefore, you don't have any empirical evidence.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 amIt is not difficult to prove you [or other human] are conscious [as defined above] based on empirical evidence.Then prove that humans are conscious. Either empirically or logically.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 amNope it is you who has to prove things [non living things] in the Universe has consciousness.
I don't have to prove how conscious is possible.
All I have to prove is humans are conscious and have various conscious states and act differently within these varying conscious states.
You yourself can confirm you are conscious and are subject to various states of consciousness and you can extrapolate that to all normal human beings.
We and all can raise the hypothesis, how consciousness is possible?, but we do not have to jump to conclusion like you do, i.e. there is an entity called mind that is responsible for consciousness.
Your jumping to conclusion or eagerness to get to a conclusion is heavily weighed by your psychology as explained by Hume.
I suggest you explore this psychological effect in detail, i.e. 'Know Thyself'.
One basic thing, if a human is conscious [as defined], then he is not dead [as defined] and vice versa.
Surely it is easy to prove you are in sleep consciousness, waking consciousness, dream consciousness, drunk consciousness or even in an altered state consciousness.
You dispute such simple proofs?
So you didn't read my argument. Here it is again viewtopic.php?f=10&t=28481. In this argument, I show that any change requires a mind. In another word, you cannot have any motion without mind. You are claiming that the mind is an emergent property that is the result of matter motion. I am challenging such a perspective by arguing that you cannot have any emergence such as mind since you cannot have any motion without mind.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 20, 2020 5:52 amNote sure what you meant?Did you read my argument?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Feb 19, 2020 5:21 amYou are merely making an assumption which is driven by desperate psychology as Hume had indicated. The details can be explained via evolutionary psychology. Check out Michael Shermer's 'Why People Believed in Weird Things'.
Instead of speculating there is an entity called "mind" [ontological], it is more reliable to base my point on empirical evidences of human mental actions in relation to the brain, the whole person, the the whole environment and whole universe.
At present, psychology has a good grasp of "what is mind" psychologically and many mental problems can be resolved with what we understand 'what is mind' with medicines, various treatments and preventive measures. There is no need for psychologists and psychiatrists to search of the entity called mind within the brain of the person.
Why the majority seek to establish what is exactly mind in substance and entity wise is due to some inefficient psychological drives emerging from an existential crisis.
If this existential crisis is managed and modulated the person would not be bother and driven to search for an illusory mind-in-substance and mind-as-entity.
Note Buddhism has successfully introduce a solution to manage and modulate the existential crisis. This is why Buddhism do not accept there is a mind as an independent entity.
I believe I have countered whatever you have raised.
I believe the crunch is you are not familiar with the serious contention between
the Philosophical Realists versus the Philosophical anti-Realists.
If so, can you explain what you understand of the above issue?
This I believe underlies and summarizes all the above issues.