What is Consciousness?

[Grim]

I asked what is consciousness?..someone answered me already his name is Bernard..he said if its living its conscious..that makes some sort of sense to me.. although dead men do speak..we read their literature everyday

Chalmers' definition is that an entity has consciousness: if it is something it is like to be that entity.

I also read an interesting book about Nietzsche as philosopher of mind. You may be interested in: The Surface and the Abyss. I highly recommend it (no small matter for me) as one of the better books I have had a chance to do a close reading of lately.

Interesting topics in the book include: Nietzsche's theory of subjectivity as a critique of ideology, ideologue, and the ideological subject; conscious motives as surface phenomenon; the suggestion of a model of pragmatic self-reflective communication; an outline of the components or ingredients of will; and, thrillingly, in summation - notions of ego-cluster and subjective fragmentation emerge quite fruitfully.

[Bernard]

After our severe navigations in the plant consciousness thread, I believe we should use the term consciousness as a term that is most apt for human awareness, which has had the advantage of reflection, and therefore reason. Now, a tree may be aware, and even aware that it is aware, but that may not be a thing of consciousness. It does hough for me necessitate something that functions in a way that equates a mind, or brain (!) Seeing that a tree has no obvious organ in this sense, then I'll let that one go through to the keeper (cricket vernacular).

A term I've heard for what humans awareness becomes, through maturation, is attention.

[chaz wyman]

Chalmers is a hoot!
You can definitely see in the Youtube videos a definite evolution.
Chalmers has been working in consciousness for over 20 years.
There is a strong sense of development if you go through the vids from the late 80s to the present day.
The hair changes in cut and shape whilst maintaining length and grows more gray whilst the beard goes through a range
of configurations!!!
Sadly what he says in 1989, is almost identical to what he says in 2011. He seems to have added "Emergence" but admits that
this represents a range of applications to phenomena, without having a strict scientific meaning.

Still keep at it!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiEVkDdm ... re=related

[Grim]

The thing to try to remember is that there are often aspects of a philosophers thinking which will only emerge in the future. This is the nature of philosophy, thinking the future. Although it may seem that much of what is said is repetitive, often it is because rationally argued these 'fundamentals' are incapable of changing. Much is discussed, much is repeated. Historically the greatest philosophers where under-appreciated in their time, only to be read by later scholars as visionaries far ahead of their then contemporaries. Am I saying that Chalmers is a great visionary? No, not exactly, what I am suggesting is that he should be read with a certain forwardness (or future orientation) for that which is to come.

It does one little to skim for new profound thoughts, carried forward by the sheer thrill of the new, or the shocking all the while those 'dusty' truths remain, immutable and fixed. My concern being that excessive stimulus-motivated extrapolation will swiftly lead one to err (of which I am no innocent). In my opinion this is one of the reasons why philosophy is best done by professional or academic Philosophers.

[chaz wyman]

The thing to try to remember is that there are often aspects of a philosophers thinking which will only emerge in the future. This is the nature of philosophy, thinking the future. Although it may seem that much of what is said is repetitive, often it is because rationally argued these 'fundamentals' are incapable of changing. Much is discussed, much is repeated. Historically the greatest philosophers where under-appreciated in their time, only to be read by later scholars as visionaries far ahead of their then contemporaries. Am I saying that Chalmers is a great visionary? No, not exactly, what I am suggesting is that he should be read with a certain forwardness (or future orientation) for that which is to come.

Whoah!!! I think Popper is turning in his grave!

It does one little to skim for new profound thoughts, carried forward by the sheer thrill of the new, or the shocking all the while those 'dusty' truths remain, immutable and fixed. My concern being that excessive stimulus-motivated extrapolation will swiftly lead one to err (of which I am no innocent). In my opinion this is one of the reasons why philosophy is best done by professional or academic Philosophers.

[Grim]

??

[chaz wyman]

??

You are making an historicist statement.

The main thrust of The Open Society and its Enemies, his (magnum opus), is his attack of historicism.

[Grim]

That we should allow the present to frame the scope of our outlook regarding ideas of an abstract unproven process? Even in light of past scientific progress in relation to philosophy of science and mind? Are you sure? No, I don't think you are applying the criticism of 'historical statements' properly to what was written. I require further explanation from you...

[Bernard]

In my opinion this is one of the reasons why philosophy is best done by professional or academic Philosophers.

Do you mean Western philosophy? I doubt that even exists yet.

[Arising_uk]

Do you mean Western philosophy? I doubt that even exists yet.

What do you mean by "philosophy" in this instance?

[chaz wyman]

That we should allow the present to frame the scope of our outlook regarding ideas of an abstract unproven process?

Where did you copy&paste this from?

Even in light of past scientific progress in relation to philosophy of science and mind?

This is not a follow up statement. Do you mean me, Popper, or yourself here?

Are you sure?

I'm sure of what I am talking about, are YOU sure of what I am talking about?



No, I don't think you are applying the criticism of 'historical statements' properly to what was written.

You mean by you or Popper?

I require further explanation from you...

Plonk!

[Bernard]

Do you mean Western philosophy? I doubt that even exists yet.

What do you mean by "philosophy" in this instance?

Off the bat: a normative approach to assessing and responding to life and death, and inner and outer-space.

[chaz wyman]

Do you mean Western philosophy? I doubt that even exists yet.

What do you mean by "philosophy" in this instance?

Off the bat: a normative approach to assessing and responding to life and death, and inner and outer-space.

What would enforce the conditions of normativity?

I think you might have defined Theology, but certainly not Philosophy.

[Bernard]

I've become recalcitrant over the last few does that consciousness is more aptly applied to a human condition then to a condition of other living creatures. My thought was that awareness is more easily applied generally than consciousness. It simply isn't the case. The cause of my initial bias was the connection between consciousness and reflection, and therefore reason, but this bias is a general human bias that is simply not sustainable, in my way of thinking. Any similar terms are likewise bias toward human ends eg; awareness, will, intent.

I'm considering, actually, that consciousness prefigures awareness. Proposing two notions: that 'one can be conscious and not aware', and that 'one can be aware and not conscious', I get a bit of give toward validity in the former proposal, but none at all in the latter (except in the form of a crude joke). This, for me, places consciousness more in the realm of an abstraction.

Consciousness is all there is to inform us of our individual sense of being, though this information is not necessarily acknowledged: it seems to be able to exist Independently in a life form, taken for granted. When it is acknowledged, awareness immediately comes into play and consciousness becomes interdependent with the life form and its specific type of awareness. This points to consciousness as being equal in scope, character and potential in all beings, whereas awareness is more specific to type.

That's not to say that this raw nature of consciousness is mutually apparent to all, in the same way that consciousness itself is not mutually apparent.

If I were to give a colour to consciousness it would be white, I don't know why - conditioning perhaps.

[Bernard]

What would enforce the conditions of normativity?

I think you might have defined Theology, but certainly not Philosophy.

Did I mention God somewhere? He can get f.....d.

The conditions of normativity would be enforced by necessity. In the normal run of affairs for humans that means necessity bred mainly through war, pestilence and other general unspeakable sufferings. An example of such a necessity would be a necessity to localize infrastructures such as food distribution, medical care, etcetera. This in turn may directly or indirectly promote a new normative approach - perhaps through the fusion of several others that had become redundant, or which were simply hidden in abeyance.