The problem with using your own private language is that there wouldn't be a way to confirm rules. That same issue shows up if you ask yourself what rules you've been following up till now. There's no fact of the matter. — frank

Can you not make up your own rules for own private language, confirm and agree with the other member who uses the private language too?

Yes, it is a point to mull over as you indicated. Will get back for further thoughts on the point, if crops up.

However, I don't see that there are rules that determine our concepts. In other words, what rules determines our concept of freedom (what a concept is). — RussellA

The rule of random determination? Can't randomness be considered as a rule?

1. It doesn't appear that language acquisition in childhood could be explained by rule following. — frank

But when they are learning language, are they not also learning the rules i.e. how to use the words? When child learns words, it will be by experience of seeing objects and hearing the words for the objects. I am not sure child language acquisition is 100% innate ability.

2. By way of Kripke's insights, the Private Language argument itself gives us reason to doubt that you're discerning rules when you look out at human communication. — frank

I am not familiar with Kripke, but again when you are using your own private language, doesn't it presuppose rules for its origin of the words in the private language? If you and your wife agree to mean "frog" for "cup" just between you too, then you will have your personal reason why you decided and agreed to call "frog" to mean "cup". Something like, you have many cups with frog images on them or whatever. Or it could have been randomly chosen too. But the rule doesn't need explain why it was set. The crucial point of of a rule is that it had been set. You have been following it.

But there are no rules as to why we have the concept in the first place (rules as to what the concept is) — RussellA

Fair enough on your point. But it seems that no rule is necessary for why concepts have rules and logic in them. We could only say some concepts are a priori, and some are a posteriori. We know by instinct pleasure is good, pain is bad. We know by experience stone is heavier than water, and if you throw a stone to the window, the window will break.

Without the rules and logic in concepts, we wouldn't be able to build sensible statements or propositions. And all logical and rational thinking will fall apart, because we think and communicate with concepts in language and speech. Without concepts, there is no language and no speech.

I've provided you with ample evidence of evolution. If you chosen path is to talk about grammar, in the face of my pointing out that typos exist, I can only assume you are attempting to remain ad hominem. — AmadeusD

Your examples don't prove human evolution conclusively. Not sure where you shoveled across the examples from, but those are just features which could be different from individuals to individuals. Some folks are more tolerant than others, and some folks have different sizes just like everyone has different heights and weights for their bodies. Not concrete evidence for evolution.

It is not a good practice to claim ad hominem when your weakness has been exposed by your own doings. I would have never mentioned your grammar and spelling, if you didn't attack the simile statements as if they were the central part of the argument.

Are you not quite aware of typos? This is an absolutely ridiculous ad hominem. — AmadeusD

I was only pointing out your ability of understanding English and bad spelling at times, which seems to be the cause for your misunderstanding, because you asked silly questions. It was not ad hominem at all.

As noted i the quote you've used, no, it did not :) Status quo remains...Evolution is occurring. — AmadeusD

"i the quote you've used"? It doesn't make sense grammatically. There is no sign of evolution anywhere. :)

Do you have trouble getting around the city? — AmadeusD

It wasn't about me, but it was about clarifying your misunderstandings. Your posts contain spelling mistakes on the basic simple English words too, which gives impression you are not in clear mind when typing posts.

This may be because you provide no arguments to make your similies work. They are suggestions, in your comments. If you want to be clear, be clear. If not, continue :) — AmadeusD

You sounded you were taking in the figure of speech statements in wrong way, hence it was for clearing your misunderstandings on them. Hope it helped.

As there is a difference between what a rock is and what a rock does, there is a difference between what a concept is and what a concept does. — RussellA

Concept doesn't do anything. Humans do things - use concepts in thoughts and statements. Stone is heavier than water. - The concept of stone has the inherent meaning what stone is, which implies and states the clear logic and formal rule.

There is a difference between what a concept is and what a concept does. — RussellA

A concept is not just a word, but it has meanings. When the meaning is stated, it presents the formal rules and logical structure of the concept.

I don’t see that a concept is something with a logical structure or formal rules. — RussellA

Concepts are logical structure and have formal rules. A human is not a cup. Consciousness is not unconsciousness. A fool is not wise. Socrates is mortal. etc.

This misunderstands evolution in many ways: We do not need to fly around cities. Pollution hasn't been a big issue for more than about 300 years. — AmadeusD

The suggestions were purely to give some ideas if evolution worked, what could be the case. It is not saying that we need to fly around cities. But if we could, we would save lots of money for transportation and time too. Who says we don't need to fly around cities apart from you?

Pollution is a serious problem. I am not sure where you live. If you lived in some place forest off grid hunting for your daily meals, maybe you could be pardoned for your ignorance on the issue.

But if you lived in a large city with loads of cars, then you will know the problem. Air pollution destroys folks lungs putting them in the hospitals in large numbers every year.

To develop wings would take in excess of 100 million as I understand. These are simply silly suggestions the betray misunderstandings of hte theory. Some examples of observed evolutionary changes in humans: — AmadeusD

Again it was a simile suggestive point to emphasize that evolution doesn't work. It sounds like you always try your best criticizing the simile suggestions for putting the point across as if it were the central point of the argument. That is real silly.

Your comments give strong impression that you can't read and understand any suggestions put forward in simile statements.

I wasn't. And I don't know what "abrupt" when reading posts in forums like this. — L'éléphant

Without any logical argument, just your blurting out "Fail" and "Nonsense" to the others' point sounded abrupt and pretentious too.

First, I'm neither of the above. But I didn't think your post, which I criticized, should even be the question -- meaning, I expected more from you than posting nonsense like that. — L'éléphant

It appears that you feel it is nonsense due to your prejudice on something. Talking in vague science words beating around the bush clouding the point is not always a good way to do philosophy. Looking at the problem from different angle is. You seem to rubbish the latter, and blindly adore the former.

No, atoms, molecules, neurons, brain - that is structure. But when engaged in its highly complex function - that produces consciousness. A brain has to be working to produce awareness. — Questioner

Yes, I said no one is denying that. But they are not consciousness.

And doesn't that just make the brain all the more the marvel of human evolution? — Questioner

It does. But it needs good education and philosophical training for maximum performance. :grin:

I don't think it is so much "explaining" as finding the structural source for it. — Questioner

More or less the same thing, but more accurate word is "explaining".

Since we all have it, we know what consciousness is. The role of science is to try to link consciousness - the function - with the structure - the brain. — Questioner

It really doesn't say much. No one is denying brain is connected to consciousness. But consciousness is not brain or neurons. It is not atoms or particles.

Consciousness cannot be meaningful without time (knowledge of past present future) and space (knowledge of where one is existing in), as well as self identity. Alertness just awakened from matter is CCTV camera.

Consciousness presupposes far more than that. It needs personal history, emotions, thoughts and reasoning and imagination as well as linguistic abilities which are backed by past memories of living individual.

Science tries to explain how information is processed in what path of the neurons conjunction to which part of brain, when they claim to be explaining consciousness. It is much similar explanation analogous to computer processing information in conjunction to the central processor. It does not touch anything about what consciousness is.

Easy consciousness could be explained by physicalism in the distant future without having to explain hard consciousness. — SolarWind

I am not sure, if it is meaningful for the division. Because as I said, consciousness is a word describing a biological being behaving in certain way. It is not some entity emerged from physical matter, atoms and particles in the brain making the lights flickering flashing in the head what is called consciousness.

If consciousness is physical matter with properties, then it would make sense to say, hey can I have your consciousness for few days? or I will replace your consciousness with hers .. etc. It doesn't make sense.

It makes sense to say, you are conscious because you can see the world revealing to you, and you expressed an "awe" on its beauty. Or she was conscious when she opened her eyes this morning talking about her weekend.

I have been following the discussion for some time now and I have no problem whatsoever understanding the OP. — SolarWind

Fair enough solar. I haven't read any of your posts before, but maybe you have written something on the topic? Not sure. But if you do follow the OP, good on you. When you read the others posts, they sound all cloud catching.

Why don't we just use the terms 'easy consciousness' and 'hard consciousness'? Easy consciousness could be explained by physicalism in the distant future without having to explain hard consciousness. — SolarWind

They talk about "hard problem" must exist. But it only exists, because they think consciousness as some sort of physical entity, or something that emerged from brain, which is not very meaningful.

Conscious is just the way biological beings with brain functions - being aware of the environment and self. There is no entity in the concept. Nothing emerges from anything. It is just a state of being alert. The only way I can tell you are conscious is, because you talk and behave like a conscious being. So in the regard, they have been barking at the wrong tree.

I'm glad you picked up on what I was trying to tell you about your comment. It's just nonsense. — L'éléphant

I feel that you didn't need to be so vulgar and abrupt in your comment on what is after all a philosophical topic discussion. Let's be honest. The OP is very vague, and nobody seems understand what it is trying to say. And you can tell many including yourself have no single clue where the discussion is going to, or what it is about.

I gave the most accurate and realistic account of consciousness. But you somehow sound not only negative but also rude. I can only assume either you are hurt in your feelings for some reason or you are just obtuse and pretentious in your comment. Maybe both.

Intelligent life is that which is aware, can adapt, problem solve and make choices. — kindred

Amoebas can be aware of the type of water and depth of water they are in, can adapt for different temperatures of the water, and can solve problems in their navigating to different places in the water making choices which way to move to. Are Amoebas intelligent life?

I never claimed otherwise. When one level of organization emerges from another, they aren’t the same thing. Living organisms are not the same thing as the chemicals that make them up. — T Clark

And one more thing. I have no access to your subatomic structure for your consciousness. I doubt if anyone else does. The only way I can access your consciousness is by your mind expressed in the statements you are making. If you were in front of me while making the statements, I would also be able to see your facial expressions too for accessing your consciousness. That's all there is to it.

Nothing to do with the chemicals in your head or subatomic structure of the brain. All I know is that you have the biological living body, and nothing more I know further apart from your statements on the state of your mind. It is the most honest and realistic analysis on the consciousness of humans.

In general, that’s true, but I’m not interested in taking it up right now. — T Clark

I have absolutely no idea what is in your mind, apart from a telltale sign of your unwillingness for further discussions on this topic. Happy days. :smirk:

I’ve already told him I disagree with him. Now it appears I disagree with you too. — T Clark

Science is based on observation and experiments for their laws and theories. When science is working and claiming their own metaphysical views on the invisible or non-existent objects, often it turns to alchemy and magic with the devious pretense, hence it is sensible we keep our minds open with investigative motives on these topics, and keep the traditional philosophical traditions alert with analytic methods.

I don't know what else to make of this comment, Corvus, but to simply say if an opinion could be marked "Fail", this is it. — L'éléphant

It is up to you how you read and understand others opinions and interpretations on the point. No one can dictate how you feel and understand it. That is the exact point about consciousness too.

And what does "You will only observe the telltale signs...from the conscious living people and animals" mean? Our whole constitution is conscious! It is certainly not just telltale signs. — L'éléphant

Your comment sounds like a pretense just like what the politicians do and say. There is no logical or factual content in it.

We are fully in the realm of "the hard problem of consciousness." We've discussed it here on the forum many times. Some people think it's a big deal. Others, including me, just don't get why it's considered a problem at all. Never the twain shall meet. I'm not particularly interested in taking it up now. — T Clark

There is no problem in revisiting already discussed topic in the past, if new truths could come out from it. After all, many folks are still discussing the topics in discussion over 2000 years ago in philosophy.

Sez you. — T Clark

If you care to read about consciousness, you will notice that it is a vast subject. There are range of different views on the topic from the hard materialism to psychologism, idealism, functionalism and even spans to religious spritualism.

One thing that is common with the topic is that they all view consciousness as "awareness" based on the biological living body and brain. The point you must remember is that awareness is NOT the same thing as matter or brain itself.

Awareness and consciousness is the word describing aspects, operations, states and functions of mind, not the physical matter.

The only one I know of is the one we are discussing. — T Clark

If you keep reading the OP's post, he has not been talking about science or matter. Rather he means consciousness must have come from something that you put into the mind, not from nothing.

I think what he means is, that when you see physical objects (input into your mind), your consciousness must be also physical in nature (output), because the physical matter input cannot come out in any other form than physical matter.

So it appears that you are not reading the OP accurately.

Yes. Just as studying the motion of galaxies might suggest the existence of what we call dark matter, it is not a study of dark matter. — Patterner

:up: :fire:

I don’t think it’s true that any aspect of consciousness or the mind in general cannot be studied effectively by science. — T Clark

You can study consciousness by science. But the problem is, you will not see or observe actual consciousness itself, no matter what you dissect and look into. It is not in the form of matter.

You will only observe the telltale signs, functions and behavior of consciousness from the conscious living people and animals.

There’s no reason it can’t be a function of living biological agents and also emerge from matter. — T Clark

I disagree with that. Matter cannot give birth to consciousness. Could you give some examples of consciousness emerged from matter?

I strongly disagree. The problem isn't that it can't be defined, it's that it hasn't been in this discussion. Note that in my original post I wrote " — T Clark

You cannot understand the problem of consciousness without understanding what consciousness means and implies. My point was consciousness is function and ability of the living biological agents, not something emerges from matter. Do you still disagree on the point?

the term was well defined — T Clark

Revisiting your point here, I don't believe that consciousness is something which can be defined clearly.
Does it cover only being awake with the knowledge of self identity?, or seeing objects too?, what about intelligence?, how about characters and personality, will power?, creativity?, thinking? etc etc.

One thing for sure is that consciousness is not something that "emerges" from physical entity. Of course, it starts in the biological body, but it evolves into very complex abstract ability and functions of the biological body which has foundation in the lived experience with the social and cultural back ground.

It doesn't belong in the category of physical force or mechanical nature.

I wasn’t finding fault with anything you said. I was pointing out that the term was well defined in the OP. That is a common problem with discussions about consciousness. — T Clark

I wasn't saying you were. I was just reiterating the point that philosophy doesn't deal with atoms and particles in physical or biological science. Only thing it deals with is the meaning of words and sentences one uses and makes in communication and statements for clarity and logical coherence.

This is not typically what people who believe in the hard problem of consciousness mean when they say “consciousness.” For them, it means an awareness of subjective experience. That type of consciousness is not limited to humans or other animals with near-human intelligence. This discussion has a problem which is common to this type of discussion— they fail to define what they mean by “consciousness.” — T Clark

Sure. But if you think where the meaning of consciousness comes from, it is just a word describing awareness of biological being. It has little to do with subatomic particles. Stretching the meaning of the word that far sounds like seeing a rainbow and saying - there must be a divine being up there somewhere doing some painting.

Here in the U.S., we've become fatter. — Ecurb

I appreciate what you mean. But it is not a result of evolution. Could it be the effect of bad diet, no exercise and too much television watching?

Life could not have developed at all which leads me to think it had a helping hand to get it kickstarted. — kindred

You need to define what intelligent life is. You also need to clarify the origin and nature of the divine being who pushed intelligent life into being.

First, I take it that 'problems' of consciousness only arise if you assume that physical things are what ultimately exist, such that consciousness has to be found a home in that picture (a project that is then problematic). — Clarendon

Consciousness means that you are awake, and able to see things around you, and respond to others in rational linguistic manner in interpersonal communication. You are also able to do things for you in order to keep your well being eating drinking good food, and sleeping at right times caring for your own health, your family folks and friends.

It is not something in atoms and particles of physical existence of some spooky nature.

Humans have evolved. It's just not very noticeable. Evolution is a gradual process. — Ecurb

If you care to look closely into ancient Greek art objects such as sculptures drawings of humans, you will notice there is no changes in the human physical body compared to folks in recent times. If evolution were true, humans should have wings to fly around the cities and some other physical features combating environmental pollution. No such things can be noticed.

It would entail providing the right conditions and chemistry for life to happen at earliest stage and then let evolution do the rest. — kindred

So, what is the nature and origin of some sort of divine who pushed to get things started i.e. where does the divine itself come from, and how did he find out the right conditions and chemistry for life? What was the divine's intention / motive for providing the right conditions and chemistry for life to happen?

If evolution is true, then why humans have not evolved since Socrates and Buddha were alive?

I just find it improbable that life could emerge on its own without some sort of divine push to get things started…what is your take on this ? — kindred

You need to define what divine push is, and list the range of actions he/she can/does perform.

ADDED: One day, AI, due to its original programming, and it's [free] development/evolution over time, will come to "believe" in its own "sentience," and most of us, although like anything else, debated, will come to "believe" it too. We are conditioned to. — ENOAH

Belief in something means that the believer will respond in the way that the belief is leading the believer to act, make statements or decide ... etc. What responses can you list from the belief you are referring to?

What really is 1+1=2? — ENOAH

What is number system, counting and math?  They are just conceptual language to describe objects, movements, changes and events in the external world.  They don't exist as physical objects.  They are the conceptual tools for human intelligence.   

If there were no objects in the universe, then there would be no numbers, counting system or math, hence the reason why no other animals, but only humans have math and numbering system in their mental world. All other animals can live without numbers and math quite comfortably and with no problems, but humans need them for their more complex life style.

1+1=2 can describe many real objects in the world such as you picked up 1 apple from the tree, and 1 apple from the shop.  How many apples do you have?  You will say you have 2 apples, because you can count, add, and you know the numbers. Likewise, I bought 1x book from Amazon, and 1x book from eBay. How many books did I buy? 2x books. and so on so forth so fifth .... to infinity.

That is what numbers, counting and adding, subtracting multiplying and dividing are about.
So if you talk about infinity, it is just a description of any thing - objects, time or space that keeps expanding or adding or rotating forever without stopping.  That is all there is to it.  You don't need the irrelevant math formulas to prove it.  You just know what infinity is by understanding the concept.

You write a computer program which asks the computer keep adding a number forever by

x=0, y=0
Do While x < y;
x= y+1x:=y
End

The program will fail with overflow error, and halt.  Because it knows that it is invalid instruction for the real world application.

Computer program also knows that when IF statements were input, they would check for the validity and truth value for the premises (IF statements), and when invalid or false, they would refuse to process further instructions.   Some dim humans cannot do that, insisting that you cannot deny premises in logic.   This sad fact is perhaps due to their blind worshiping on what they read on some shady internet sites rather than thinking clearly on the points with their own mind.

In that respect, the computer program is smarter than some human intelligence.
However, I don't believe AI or computer programs are sentient.  As I said before, they lack feelings and emotions, which are the basic perceptual abilities for all biological existence.