Re: Consiousness is inert therefore there is a mind
Posted: Fri Dec 30, 2022 10:55 pm
however, if ert is full, consciousness has no home...
-Imp
-Imp
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Delicacy indicates degree of sensitivity...sensitivity to causes.
One will not be going anywhere rationally with the very loose term 'consciousness' until we put it within the whole perspective of life from the day living things emerge till the present of human evolution.
Consciousness, as I mentioned is necessary for causation but not sufficient.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 10:57 amDelicacy indicates degree of sensitivity...sensitivity to causes.
Further the existence of consciousness led to our talking about it. If it cannot be causal, then it would never be mentioned. I am not making the trite observation that without consciousness we would talk, perhaps robots or zombies without consciousness would still talk, jsut have no experiencing. I am saying that the fact of consciousness triggers us to talk about it. To think about it and not sex and TV programs. Suddenly it strikes us, on occasion, hey, I am experiencing, what is that about? how did that happen?
Those are effects of the phononmenon consciousness.
We have been through this several times. There is no strong emergence. What you observe in more complex beings, such as thinking, is soft emergence. So you could not have consciousness as a result of neural activity.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:00 pmOne will not be going anywhere rationally with the very loose term 'consciousness' until we put it within the whole perspective of life from the day living things emerge till the present of human evolution.
Problem is you are merely defining consciousness from yours or some specific perspective while other have different perspective.
1. The first consideration is whether an organic thing is either alive or dead.
2. So, we are considering only organic things that are alive within a hierarchy from the simplest to the most complex.
3. Within the hierarchy, from the simplest upward, we have an emergence of organic things within the more complex beings that have abilities to be conscious, i.e. from beings with no brains to having brains.
4. For those beings with brains we then have two basic levels of consciousness, i.e. awake or asleep and perhaps in coma.
5. As we move up to more complex being to the uppermost we have different levels of consciousness, i.e. awake, sleep, dreaming, coma, subliminal consciousness, reflective consciousness and highest of all self-consciousness.
From the above we can infer consciousness is a psychological state.
This psychological state is represented by its neural correlates, i.e.
"We seek, in particular, the Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness (NCC), defined as the minimal neuronal mechanisms jointly sufficient for any specific conscious experience."
In this sense, we cannot claim that consciousness is inert as you did.
Such a minimal neuronal mechanisms is only inert when a being which has such a feature is dead.
As such, consciousness is merely a biological-psychological state represented by its relevant minimal neuronal mechanisms, i.e. the Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness (NCC) that emerged from the 4 billion years of evolution from single cell to the humans.
There is nothing mystery to this process of evolution.
The task now is for humanity and scientists to nail down this Neuronal Correlates of Consciousness so that improvements can be made to enable the average human to increase his level of consciousness for the better.
If you are trying to nail consciousness as some sort of entity that is inert and was infused into the brain from somewhere out there, you are going nowhere.
Interesting. I do see that you said it wasn't causal on it's own. I probably didn't put enough stock in that. But you also said it is inert. If it can make any difference I'm not sure we can use that adjective. That said, I didn't see in the OP that you consider it necessary for causation. But I assume you mean in that situation where observation makes a difference. Or? You don't mean it is necessary in all causation, or?
The problem with your view is you take 'consciousness' in the loosest sense with no specific meaning, i.e.
By inert, I mean that it cannot cause anything on its own. I am sure that there is a better word for this.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:13 pmInteresting. I do see that you said it wasn't causal on it's own. I probably didn't put enough stock in that. But you also said it is inert.
That was kinda obvious to me and that is why I didn't mention it OP. You cannot possibly cause anything if you are not conscious.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:13 pm If it can make any difference I'm not sure we can use that adjective. That said, I didn't see in the OP that you consider it necessary for causation.
There cannot be any causation if there is no observation.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:13 pm But I assume you mean in that situation where observation makes a difference.
It is necessary for all causation.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Mon Jan 02, 2023 9:13 pm Or? You don't mean it is necessary in all causation, or?
By inert, I mean that it cannot cause things on its own. How possibly could you cause if you are not conscious? So consciousness is important on its own. But, consciousness does not have the capacity to cause since by definition is the ability to experience. You need to have the ability to cause too.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 03, 2023 5:20 amThe problem with your view is you take 'consciousness' in the loosest sense with no specific meaning, i.e.
"Consciousness is inert therefore there is a mind."
which is fallacious with equivocation, i.e.
What is inert cannot lead to a mind which is active.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/inert
The "consciousness" that I have described is empirically real which can be justified and verified.
There are no other type of real consciousness other than the empirical consciousness I have demonstrated above.
There cannot be any causation without conscious minds.
So, presumably you do not believe, at least entirely, in the chronology of darwinian evolution OR you believe some things are conscious that are not (yet) considered conscious by scientific consensus. Or?
I don't think that the strong emergence is correct so you cannot have consciousness from something which is unconscious. You don't believe in magic. Do you? I have an argument against the strong emergence.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:24 pmSo, presumably you do not believe, at least entirely, in the chronology of darwinian evolution OR you believe some things are conscious that are not (yet) considered conscious by scientific consensus. Or?
That's going general, I'm trying to get a sense of specifics. Darwinian evolution and, well, most cosmology, generally sees organic life (pardon the redundancy) as coming after inorganic forms of matter. So, the options I could see were 1) you think some things not considered conscious by consensus science are in fact conscious (and were, for example, conscious before animal life evolved) OR 2) you think there has been some form of conscious life going all the way back to the beginning of the universe or at least to the Big Bang. I may very well be missing some other options, so let me know. I suppose their could be something different about time.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:43 pmI don't think that the strong emergence is correct so you cannot have consciousness from something which is unconscious. You don't believe in magic. Do you? I have an argument against the strong emergence.Iwannaplato wrote: ↑Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:24 pmSo, presumably you do not believe, at least entirely, in the chronology of darwinian evolution OR you believe some things are conscious that are not (yet) considered conscious by scientific consensus. Or?