Philosophy Now Forum

Bernard wrote:No, its not a delusion.

Bernard wrote:Its all good.

Grim wrote:Here is a gem of novelty for you:

From some viewpoints if you consider that consciousness may be contingent from the physical interconnections of neurons which are similar in overall design to basic elements of common electrical circuits (i.e. Input/output strictly transferring electrical energy). The assumption may follow that all circuits possess simple forms of consciousness, this includes your thermostat! Alright your all laughing, O.K. So I'm stretching the definition but alright let's assume that it is an interesting enough description. Someday humans will attain the technical proficiency to build a brain circuit which has conscious capabilities similar to those of homo sapiens sapiens.

However it then follows that generally if you want to say that something has 'consciousness' or 'is conscious' then there must be something that it is like to be that entity. Although I cannot imagine what it is like to be a plant I would assume that given my conclusion above and perhaps only a small stretch of the imagination there is a rudimentary consciousness present in the plant. Even if I cannot apply an IQ test to it!

chaz wyman wrote:

Bernard wrote:Its all good.

QED the comment I made 12 Mar 2010, 19:31

Bernard wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

Bernard wrote:Its all good.

QED the comment I made 12 Mar 2010, 19:31

What's QED?

Bernard wrote:Anyway I have no idea how to find that comment. But back to the thread topic. Chaz if I'm not incorrect, regards such things as plants and basic forms of organic life to be unconscious, 'automatic' was I think his term used to describe their processes. In which case, apparently, it would be a mistake to call these things living.

That is simply not the case. What you will have to do is simply revise what you think you mean by "living', which for some unknown reason you seem to have equated with consciousness.
Do you think a virus is conscious?

I'm wondering at which case the esteemed gentlemen regards a thing as conscious and living? The fellow also seems to regard the ability of humans to reflect, and therefore reason to be the mark of consciousness. Does he regard this as the one and only mark of consciousness? and why regard what is essentially reason to be consciousness? Why have the word consciousness at all? Does it belong to savage ages perhaps? And why with such considerations should we regard ourselves as anything more than automatic substances of matter?

Why indeed not? We would be following a might tradition of philosophy were we to do so. I certainly think that free-will is an illusion.

We can't quite do that because there is an agreement that we each have a sense of separate being. I could be wrong in that though, as there is the possible consideration that I am absolutely alone and that all you and everything that has existed, or willever exist, are all automatons without a sense of being, as I have. Or does Mr Wyman consider that a tree has a some sense of being?
[color=#FF0000

A tree does not have any organs of sensation so absolutely not- no, a tree does not have a sense of being: it has no sense at all, and no brain to receive that information if it did.

As far as the EVIDENCE goes, what we call consciousness is a continuum, from simple living things with nervous tissue, to complicated things with more nervous tissue. Trees don't have any nervous tissue so they do not qualify. A mouse has a limited form of consciousness, as it has a small veneer of grey matter round its brain, but a creature such as an elephant , a whale and a human have more of this property.
At least this would seem a reasonable place to start the discussion. But saying that a bacterium has consciousness id simply ridiculous, and does not offer any kind of understanding as to what consciousness consists in.
[/color]


So does Bernie believe that all the pebbles on the beach have a sense of self; do they have a purpose; and can they change their mind; maybe they have a bank account and the desire to fly; or maybe they are just waiting to be worn down by the sea and look forward to the time when they are sand?

Arising_uk wrote:Is there a difference between conscious and consciousness?

Could conscious be considered as awareness and consciousness as being aware of awareness?

This way we could have plants, et al as being conscious and us as being conscious and consciousness.

Below is an account of a workshop it was taught in, among other movements and practices.

In which case, apparently, it would be a mistake to call these things living. I'm wondering at which case the esteemed gentlemen regards a thing as conscious and living? The fellow also seems to regard the ability of humans to reflect, and therefore reason to be the mark of consciousness. Does he regard this as the one and only mark of consciousness? and why regard what is essentially reason to be consciousness? Why have the word consciousness at all? Does it belong to savage ages perhaps? And why with such considerations should we regard ourselves as anything more than automatic substances of matter? We can't quite do that because there is an agreement that we each have a sense of separate being. I could be wrong in that though, as there is the possible consideration that I am absolutely alone and that all you and everything that has existed, or willever exist, are all automatons without a sense of being, as I have. Or does Mr Wyman consider that a tree has a some sense of being?

chaz wyman wrote:... I'm not sure what plants would do with awareness, or if it is meaningful to characterise them in that way.