Hi @Possibility,

Perhaps I should have said "affect" rather than "emotion". I was speaking quite loosely and I did put "emotion" in scare quotes.

Would you be happy with "affect is primary and is located in the brain stem"?

I don't think it is a mystery. I think most of the confusion comes from a lack of imagination. People can't help but think that consciousness is something special and that we need to identify special sources for it. — T Clark

Happy Monday!

In the spirit of using some sense of logic, if the [your] premise is that consciousness is not 'special' or that there is no 'mystery' associated with same, it seems then we have a default of sorts back to logic and reason in order to determine why that is so.

If we try to put logic to the meaning of consciousness, more often than not, we naturally default to whether consciousness can be explained meaningfully. And as such, we ask if it can be explained logically.

Do you feel consciousness can be explained logically? Is it outside the domains of formal logic or the usual categories of human thought (much like other things/phenomena in life)? Does it violate rules such as bivalence, excluded middle, and other a priori axiomatic methods? If your answer is that consciousness can be explained logically, then your foregoing supposition that it's not special holds. But, unfortunately, I don't think it does (unless you can support your claim). It's as if you're repeating some false paradigm that says 'there's no mystery in life; my self-awareness is not unique'.

But that's ok, perhaps a completely different approach (maybe more fun), may simply be in the form of the so-called limitations of language, to capture this meaning of consciousness. For instance, if we parse the actual meaning of meaning, we find some interesting definitions to play with:

The word "flight" has two different meanings: a plane journey, and the act of running away.

It's sometimes very difficult to draw a clear distinction between the meanings of different words.

Intended to communicate something that is not directly expressed.

In linguistics, meaning is what the source or sender expresses, communicates, or conveys in their message to the observer or receiver, and what the receiver infers from the current context.

Synonym: A reason or justification given for an action or belief.

Generally, if one were to parse consciousness and its meaning, one definition could be that it's polysemous in nature. Meaning (pardon the pun), because not only do we have the phenomena associated with the conscious, subconscious and the unconscious mind (all working together in an illogical mix), we have philosophical ambiguities connected with an individual's perception of truth (Subjectivity). Different people experience the same text, and come away with different statements of fact about that text’s meaning. Humans all react to the same world-text, but we all live in our own simulation of how that world “factually” exists.

And so some would argue that meaning itself, is neither objective nor subjective, deterministic nor relativistic; meaning is contingent. In that simple context, consciousness means that one simply enjoys the opportunity to experience meaningfulness.

Would you be happy with "affect is primary and is located in the brain stem"? — Daemon

Not really. Affect is probabilistically located at best - it refers to a core ingredient of all mental states that is “at once, tied to a person’s interoceptive sensations from the body and exteroceptive sensations from the world”. Affective circuitry is in the brain stem, but it’s also ‘located’ in a number of other areas of the brain, and is characterised by degeneracy. I suggest you read the article.

one definition could be that it's polysemous in nature. Meaning (pardon the pun), because not only do we have the phenomena associated with the conscious, subconscious and the unconscious mind (all working together in an illogical mix), we have philosophical ambiguities connected with an individual's perception of truth (Subjectivity). Different people experience the same text, and come away with different statements of fact about that text’s meaning. — 3017amen

Indeed. See also @Wayfarer right at the beginning
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532466

Responses:

I tried to pick the definitions I think are relevant to the kinds of discussions we have on the forum. It would be nice if the people starting those discussions would be clear about these kinds of issues. That's not likely to happen. I mostly started this post to clarify in my own mind what I mean when I use these words. — T Clark

From: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532484

I at least want to come up with a meaning that applies to the "hard problem of consciousness" people talk about.
— T Clark

Are you familiar with the original paper, which is here http://consc.net/papers/facing.html

Perhaps it might be useful to talk in terms of what you do or don't agree with or understand about this paper, as that is the one that defined the problem. — Wayfarer

From: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/532486

Follow up:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/533243
Ending with:

I must admit I'm not much interested in the experience of consciousness from a scientific or philosophical perspective. It doesn't seem that important to me. For me, consciousness is a behavior. We know it the way we know other human and animal behaviors - by observing it, including what the person says about it when that is available. There really is only one experience of consciousness in my universe - mine.
Yes, yes. of course I believe other people experience it too, but that's because I've observed their behavior. This list from Chalmers identifies at least some of the behaviors related to consciousness that we can observe. He acknowledges that. — T Clark

Followed by an interesting discussion re behaviour with @Joshs

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/533311

What does probabilistically (located) mean in this context?

My definition of ostensive definition wasn't a non-standard definition of ostensive definition. — Daemon

I did not find this:

ostensively, that is, by pointing to examples. — Daemon

in any of the dictionaries I looked in. I'm reasonably well-read but I had never heard the word used in that way. I wouldn't have been able to figure out what you meant from context. I think that is true of most people on the forum and in the world in general.

Ostensive definition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An ostensive definition conveys the meaning of a term by pointing out examples. This type of definition is often used where the term is difficult to define verbally, either because the words will not be understood (as with children and new speakers of a language) or because of the nature of the term (such as colors or sensations). It is usually accompanied with a gesture pointing to the object serving as an example, and for this reason is also often referred to as "definition by pointing".

An ostensive definition assumes the questioner has sufficient understanding to recognize the type of information being given. Ludwig Wittgenstein writes:

So one might say: the ostensive definition explains the use—the meaning—of the word when the overall role of the word in language is clear. Thus if I know that someone means to explain a colour-word to me the ostensive definition "That is called 'sepia' " will help me to understand the word.... One has already to know (or be able to do) something in order to be capable of asking a thing's name. But what does one have to know?[1]

The limitations of ostensive definition are exploited in a famous argument from the Philosophical Investigations (which deal primarily with the philosophy of language), the private language argument, in which Wittgenstein asks if it is possible to have a private language that no one else can understand.[2]

John Passmore states that the term was first defined by the British logician William Ernest Johnson (1858–1931):

"His neologisms, as rarely happens, have won wide acceptance: such phrases as "ostensive definition", such contrasts as those between ... "determinates" and "determinables", "continuants" and "occurrents", are now familiar in philosophical literature" (Passmore 1966, p. 344).

Do you feel consciousness can be explained logically? — 3017amen

Do you feel that an apple can be explained logically? Consciousness is a phenomenon, it's behavior.

And so some would argue that meaning itself, is neither objective nor subjective, deterministic nor relativistic; meaning is contingent. In that simple context, consciousness means that one simply enjoys the opportunity to experience meaningfulness. — 3017amen

I really don't know what you're trying to say. I think we've laid out good ways to talk about consciousness in this thread. What else is needed?

I never doubted you had used the word correctly. That doesn't change the fact that this usage is not one most people are familiar with. Instead of "non-standard" I should have said "unfamiliar." That doesn't change the substance of what I was saying.

I'm reasonably well-read but I had never heard the word used in that way. I wouldn't have been able to figure out what you meant from context. I think that is true of most people on the forum and in the world in general. — T Clark

This distracts from the point @Daemon was making*
It was clear to me from the context.

*John Searle says that, like many other terms, consciousness is best defined ostensively, that is, by pointing to examples.

I meant to ask @Daemon if he could provide the source.

Do you feel that an apple can be explained logically? Consciousness is a phenomenon, it's behavior. — T Clark

T Clark!

I'm not following 'the logic' on that. Maybe you could ask that question in another way. In other words, are you trying to equate consciousness with an apple? If so, then I suppose your supposition holds that it (consciousness) is not special nor is it a mystery. But, of course, using logic, that would be false. Does that sound right?

And so some would argue that meaning itself, is neither objective nor subjective, deterministic nor relativistic; meaning is contingent. In that simple context, consciousness means that one simply enjoys the opportunity to experience meaningfulness. — 3017amen
I really don't know what you're trying to say. I think we've laid out good ways to talk about consciousness in this thread. What else is needed? — T Clark

Gosh, that's a loaded question. I agree your thread 'laid out good ways to talk about consciousness'. It's a fascinating subject no doubt. The thread doesn't explain it though.... . So in a way, we're kinda back to the so-called logic of conscious existence, for which there seems to be mystery...

The thread doesn't explain it though.... . — 3017amen

As I think I've made clear, the purpose of this thread is not to explain consciousness.

:up:

This distracts from the point Daemon was making* — Amity

I wasn't commenting on the content of what @Daemon said. I used it as a positive example of why it is important for us to make sure people understand the meaning of the words we use.

It was clear to me from the context. — Amity

It was clear to you because he gave the definition, which was my point.

We've been slightly at cross purposes @T Clark, no worries.

Agreed.

I wasn't commenting on the content of what Daemon said. — T Clark

That is my point. The substance of the post was a useful contribution to the way consciousness is defined. Why not make a response to that ?

I used it as a positive example of why it is important for us to make sure people understand the meaning of the words we use. — T Clark

I understood that albeit in a roundabout way.

It was clear to you because he gave the definition, which was my point. — T Clark

Yes Actually - No. I first guessed at meaning of 'ostensively' as I read. Then the 'that is...' confirmed it. It wasn't an obvious definition of 'ostensively'.
So why then did you appear not to 'get it' ?

I wouldn't have been able to figure out what you meant from context. I think that is true of most people on the forum and in the world in general. — T Clark

John Searle says that, like many other terms, consciousness is best defined ostensively, that is, by pointing to examples. — Daemon

So, what did or do you think, if anything, of Searle's view as put forward ?

I'm afraid I don't recall where Searle says that @Amity.

That's OK.
Unfortunate - because referencing sources is good practice.
It helps to substantiate and readers can decide if it is a correct interpretation of a view.
However, I can follow it up. Appreciate your contribution.

I think I'm done here in any case. Enjoy :smile:

I have often seen people saying "you can't even define consciousness so what's the good in talking about it?" or "how can we explain it if we don't know what it is?". Searle's point might be taken as implying that we do know what it is.

I think Damon and I have resolved any misunderstanding there was.