GENIUS FORUMS

Shahrazad;

I have heard that or a similar argument presented that all things are conscious because all things react to other things. The only issue I have with such a view is that it make the term "consciousness" empty of utility as it no longer differentiates between things.

The only issue I have with such a view is that it make the term "consciousness" empty of utility as it no longer differentiates between things.

What makes the difference is the degree of consciousness. Can you tell me where the exact line is between a bald man and a hairy man? If you can, wouldn't this line be quite arbitrary?

This view tries to take out the magical aspect of consciousness, which comes out of the all-or-nothing approach David Quinn subscribes to.

-

The main problem with defining consciousness as "response to stimuli - according to type", is that it is grounded in empirical uncertainty. i.e. it depends on associations that can't be proven (as Hume showed).

Shahrazad wrote:

The only issue I have with such a view is that it make the term "consciousness" empty of utility as it no longer differentiates between things.

What makes the difference is the degree of consciousness. Can you tell me where the exact line is between a bald man and a hairy man? If you can, wouldn't this line be quite arbitrary?

There are still quantum leaps between various kinds of consciousness. For example, the difference between human consciousness and slug consciousness is immense, owing to our abstract abilities, highly structured thought-patterns and self-awareness.

When you die, your highly-developed consciousness is going to be snuffed out like a light, leaving only the minimal consciousness of causal processes to continue. That's a pretty big difference.

This view tries to take out the magical aspect of consciousness, which comes out of the all-or-nothing approach David Quinn subscribes to.
-

If I can take out "magical aspects" from consciousness simply through my thoughts, then it means they aren't really there to begin with.

It is better to discern the magic of Reality itself which underpins all things, including consciousness, for it is a magic that is real and can never disappear. But to discern this great magic we have to give up the fake magics that we like to project onto things, like consciousness, whose only purpose is to make our egos feel more special.

-

Shahrazad wrote:philosopher David Chalmers makes an argument in favor of thermostat consciousness.

So he believes that thermostats are conscious?

David Quinn wrote:There are still quantum leaps between various kinds of consciousness. For example, the difference between human consciousness and slug consciousness is immense, owing to our abstract abilities, highly structured thought-patterns and self-awareness.

When you die, your highly-developed consciousness is going to be snuffed out like a light, leaving only the minimal consciousness of causal processes to continue. That's a pretty big difference.
-

Hubris!
And how do you know any of this for certain?!
How do you know what kind of consciousness a slug is in possession of?

David Quinn wrote:There are still quantum leaps between various kinds of consciousness. For example, the difference between human consciousness and slug consciousness is immense, owing to our abstract abilities, highly structured thought-patterns and self-awareness.

David; That may be, but that slug consciousness is awareness without conceptualization! QED

clyde wrote:slug consciousness is awareness without conceptualization!

It would seem that a slug is about as aware as a thermostat.

From: http://www.poly-solipsism.com

Skepticism:

Fundamentally Skepticism originated as a response to the eternal debate between Realism and Idealism. The Skeptic intervened with the observation we cannot determine whether Reality is real or an illusion, therefore the debate between Realism and Idealism can never be settled. We will never know the truth.
A more radical form of Skepticism is a natural extension of this observation which then assumes since we cannot know this fundamental truth about Reality, and all we perceive is part of Reality, we cannot know the fundamental truth about anything.

Solipsism:
Fundamental Solipsism begins where Skepticism leaves off. The Solipsist states 'I don't care' whether Reality is real or an illusion. If I cannot tell the difference, then to me there is no difference. The only thing that matters to me is how I perceive Reality. If I kick a rock I will perceive pain whether or not the rock is real or only an illusion in my own mind.

Rational Solipsism goes further in its observation that since I know I exist, but I cannot be certain anything else actually does, then the only Reality is the Reality that exists in my own mind. It makes no difference what so ever if there is independent existence beyond my perception. If I do not observe it; it does not exist in my Reality.
Fundamentally we are all Rational Solipsist within our own minds as the only Reality we can be aware of is the Reality which we personally perceive. Whether our perceived Reality is a true representation of what actually exists is beyond our ability to ascertain since we can only know what exists within our own perceptions. When we perceive an object we are not actually seeing the object itself; we examine the image of that object that is projected within our own minds.
We cannot know for certain how any other mind is perceiving that same object, or its own Reality.
Rational solipsists do not genuinely entertain the concept their minds are the only minds that exist. Their fundamental abstraction is in the observation of their own Reality and make no real distinction between Realism and Idealism. This is the solipsism formulated by Rene' Descartes in his Discourse on the Method and his Tabula Rasa. He does not entertain for an instant that his mind is the only mind in existence, but that he cannot ascertain the true nature of anything beyond his on perceptions of them.

Solipsism and Other Minds:

Since all I can know about any thing is what I perceive, and every thing I perceive is perceived by my own mind, I cannot determine the true nature of anything existing external of my own mind. Therefore everything I perceive is only within my own mind. My mind is the only thing that I in fact can be certain exists. Everything I perceive does not actually have an existence independent of my own consciousness.
But, for my mind to have meaning it must be able to compare itself relative to something else. Relativity tells us anything existing alone has no meaning. If there was but one mind existing alone the meaning of “I” is lost. For “I” to have any meaning it must be able to compare itself relative to “Not I”.
Without another mind to compare my mind relative to, I cannot call myself “I”!

David,

There are still quantum leaps between various kinds of consciousness. For example, the difference between human consciousness and slug consciousness is immense, owing to our abstract abilities, highly structured thought-patterns and self-awareness.

So? There's also a quantum leap between a completely bald man and a man like Laird, for example, but that does not prove that the concept of baldness is not a continuum.

There are many creatures whose consciousness degree lies between a slug and a human.

-

Here's a link to an interview with Chalmers. Read the transcript to part three. He talks about the thermostat there.

http://www.scienceandthesearch.org/prog ... lmers.html

-

cckeiser wrote:

David Quinn wrote:There are still quantum leaps between various kinds of consciousness. For example, the difference between human consciousness and slug consciousness is immense, owing to our abstract abilities, highly structured thought-patterns and self-awareness.

When you die, your highly-developed consciousness is going to be snuffed out like a light, leaving only the minimal consciousness of causal processes to continue. That's a pretty big difference.
-

Hubris!
And how do you know any of this for certain?!
How do you know what kind of consciousness a slug is in possession of?

How about you kill yourself and get back to us on it.

So he believes that thermostats are conscious?

Not really, Kevin. Check out the link I provide in my previous post.

David: It is better to discern the magic of Reality itself which underpins all things, including consciousness, for it is a magic that is real and can never disappear. But to discern this great magic we have to give up the fake magics that we like to project onto things, like consciousness, whose only purpose is to make our egos feel more special.

And somehow the above is not ego itself speaking? (ego = personal conscious discerning value)

On the contrary, it does exactly the opposite; since one gives no special or magical status even to the one and only thing that one can be absolutely certain of – consciousness.

Further more; I don’t think only the “wise” have the privileged right to a private definition of the same word, others can take a stab at it too; for example ‘death’ could have a deeper meaning than the ordinary definition suggests, so could ‘consciousness’.

However, I still prefer to call human consciousness a different level of complex enough awareness, where everything has to necessarily partake in such basic awareness [recognition through differentiation (A=A) that would trigger reactions] for causality to work. The wise can of course take their own definition of ‘awareness’ and... enjoy their wisdom, IMHO.)

Shahrazad wrote:

So he believes that thermostats are conscious?

Not really, Kevin. Check out the link I provide in my previous post.

It is not the “thermostat”, which we define as for practical convenience that is aware/conscious, but every particle that it comprises of has to necessarily be aware and feel the environment and transmit information according to its own interactive dimensional awareness. Unless one is delusional and believes that a thermostat itself is not going under changes in and of an utterly dynamic existence.

What is needed here is focusing on the moon rather than the finger, I guess.

clyde wrote:Shahrazad;

I have heard that or a similar argument presented that all things are conscious because all things react to other things. The only issue I have with such a view is that it make the term "consciousness" empty of utility as it no longer differentiates between things.

So would it for the term "death", but I also see it as transformation, change.

Sapius wrote:every particle that it comprises of has to necessarily be aware and feel the environment and transmit information according to its own interactive dimensional awareness. Unless one is delusional and believes that a thermostat itself is not going under changes in and of an utterly dynamic existence.

That all sounds very vague. Everything in the universe "feels the environment" and "transmits information" and is "dynamic". Does that mean everything in the universe is conscious?

Kevin Solway wrote:

Sapius wrote:every particle that it comprises of has to necessarily be aware and feel the environment and transmit information according to its own interactive dimensional awareness. Unless one is delusional and believes that a thermostat itself is not going under changes in and of an utterly dynamic existence.

That all sounds very vague. Everything in the universe "feels the environment" and "transmits information" and is "dynamic". Does that mean everything in the universe is conscious?

It may sound vague to some, but I understand there is always a possibility of lack of understanding.

I said aware, not conscious (as in you are, (if that's what you mean), which of course then excludes the rest of humanity, except a very few men); and not only aware, but alive (again, not as in you or me). I guess being able to see the deeper meaning helps understand how deep logic is ingrained in and of existence.