Philosophy Now Forum

chaz wyman wrote:

Gee wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: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?

chaz wyman wrote: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.

chaz wyman wrote: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.

chaz wyman wrote: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

Gee wrote: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

Gee wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: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?

chaz wyman wrote: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.

chaz wyman wrote: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.

chaz wyman wrote: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

Ginkgo wrote:

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

MGL wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: 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.

Ginkgo wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:
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 wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: 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.

Ginkgo wrote: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.

Ginkgo wrote: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.

Gee wrote:

Ginkgo wrote: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.

Ginkgo wrote: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.

chaz wyman wrote: 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.

chaz wyman wrote: 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.