Do you understand that "materialist" is not a distinct category from "philosopher"? — wonderer1

I dont understand the problem.

A plumber can have opinions about other plumbers that don't comport with those plumber's attitudes.

A materialist philosopher can have opinions/views on philosophers in general. Am i missing something here? I mean, analytic/continental philosophers are at loggerheads often in this way..

I dont understand the problem. — AmadeusD

That's ok. My question was directed @Gnomon.

That's ok. My question was directed Gnomon. — wonderer1

That's nice dear.

Do you understand that "materialist" is not a distinct category from "philosopher"?
Your writing frequently suggests that you don't understand this. — wonderer1

For me, it is. I view Philosophy as the study of the meta-physical (immaterial) aspects of nature, such as Consciousness. However, I do understand that Materialism is a metaphysical philosophical position ( a belief system), in that it is a non-empirical generalization from limited evidence.

For all practical purposes, I am a materialist. But for philosophical endeavors, I am not limited to the evidence of the 5 senses. And I don't deny such immaterial entities as "consciousness, mind, & psychic states". Besides, when scientists make theoretical postulations, they are doing Philosophy, not Science, as distinct categories --- distinguished by their range of evidence. :smile:

PS___ Philosophically, I don't categorize forum arguments into the traditional opposing dual divisions of Materialism vs Spiritualism. Instead, I propose a new, more comprehensive & inclusive category, that I call "Enformationism".


Materialism :
In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent of, material changes or processes.
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/materialism/v-1

Nice. I rarily see people connecting consciousness with experience. (In the sense of human feeling, as you say.) — Alkis Piskas

Yes. I quoted Christof Koch in my post above : "consciousness is the feeling of life". :smile:

I confess, I think you've lost me here.

I quoted Christof Koch in my post above : "consciousness is the feeling of life" — Gnomon

Well, the word "feeling" has millions of meanings, and such a definition of conciousness is quite vague. Yet, it could be acceptable, if neurophysiologists (like Koch) did not correlate consciousness with the brain --see neuronal correlates of consciousness (NCC)-- in a way that everything, even subjective experiences, ends up in the brain. Which brain BTW is almost identified with the mind (!). But this is expected, since this is their field of specialization. However, I know about known scientists --not neurophysists/neurobiologists, but I have read about some them too-- who are examining consciousness outside the the traditional scientific and in a totally new frame of mind. Maybe Koch is among them. I have to read more from him than just "Consciousness is everything you experience", which I just read, and which I liked it. :smile:
Thanks from bringing up this ref.

Well, the word "feeling" has millions of meanings, and such a definition of conciousness is quite vague. — Alkis Piskas

I doubt that Koch was trying to provide a technical or dictionary definition of "Consciousness". But "feeling" encompasses how each of us experiences a unique interpretation of the world : a worldview. Likewise, Nagel's "what it's like" notion is vague, but comprehensive, in summarizing how sentient beings experience their world.

Both "feeling" and "what it's like" are referring to the essential characteristic of consciousness : a personal subjective perspective on the world. Presumably, each individual brain & sensory apparatus delivers a unique mind-picture of the world, constructed from processing various inputs of energy/information from the material environment. So, IMHO "consciousness" can't be specified ; it can only be generalized, as something that is not universal, but extraordinary in the near-infinity of the physical universe. :smile:

Hence in my opinion, those who believe in a "Hard Problem of Consciousness" misunderstand the purpose of science, and that this hard problem is better understood as being a "Hard Feature of applicable Physics" — sime

I doubt that Chalmers was talking about Physics when he coined the phrase "hard problem". Consciousness is not "hard" in a physical sense, but in the holistic philosophical sense of : not subject to simplistic reductionism. :smile:

onsciousness is not "hard" in a physical sense, but in the holistic philosophical sense of : not subject to simplistic reductionism. :smile: — Gnomon

Given he also identifies a few “easy” problems of consciousness I think you’re safe here :)

You are right. The word "definition" was not a good choice of mine. But I certainly didn't mean a technical definition. I meant rather a description.
Now the difference with Nagel's famous description of "what it is like" --which I like very much-- is that it des not include any term, even as simple as "feeling". "What it's like to be ..." is independent of any concept or connotation. It is the closest to "experience" that we are talking about.

Now, if we want to describe consciousness in more concrete terms, we have to think about its central element. Something with which it is always connected. Something that without it, it doesn't exist (as feeling, as experience, etc.) In other words, the presence of that element makes consciousness possible. And the opposite, its absence indicates also absence of consciousness. And this element is perception.

Yes, it is that simple. :smile:

And from this central, basic element we can now define consciousness as the state and ability to perceive. It also covers the physical aspect of "consciousness" as considered by neurobiologists and science in general, about which I talked in an earlier message.

I usually expand a little the above definition, to make it more plain and refer to humans, as follows: the state and ability to perceive our outside world (surroundings) as well as our inside world (thoughts, emotions, etc.)

Now, if we want to describe consciousness in more concrete terms, we have to think about its central element. Something with which it is always connected. Something that without it, it doesn't exist (as feeling, as experience, etc.) In other words, the presence of that element makes consciousness possible. And the opposite, its absence indicates also absence of consciousness. And this element is perception. — Alkis Piskas

I think you have the right idea, but I have one quibble : physical Perception is sub-conscious until metaphysical Conception. We only become consciously aware of sensory inputs when they are converted into meaningful mental images. Is there a word that combines the two aspects into a single central philosophical element of Consciousness? Perhaps "Apprehension" (concrete metaphor : to grasp) or "Comprehension (to seize & surround) or maybe even "to Grok" ? :smile:


"To perceive is to become aware of something directly through the senses. To conceive is to form something in the mind or to develop an understanding. So perceiving is merely seeing, and conceiving is deeper."

To Grok : understand (something) intuitively or by empathy.
When you grok something, you just get it — in other words, you totally grasp its meaning.

physical Perception is sub-conscious until metaphysical Conception. We only become consciously aware of sensory inputs when they are converted into meaningful mental images. — Gnomon

Having the experience of consciousness, i.e. being aware, does not necessary involve meaningful mental images, or even mental images (i.e. thinking) at all. I can be aware that I am alive, that I exist, that I'm looking to an object, etc. I don't have to interpret or undestand what these things mean. In the case of the obkect, its image is of course created in my mind, but it can be just that, an image. If I start to think about the meaining of this image, etc. I'm using mental faculties, which have nothong to do with consciousness, except that I can be aware that I am doing so! :smile:

Is there a word that combines the two aspects into a single central philosophical element of Consciousness? — Gnomon

Good question! I don't know! :grin:
Anyway, I wouldn't try to combine the physical with the non-physical in any way. There's an interaction between them. That's all. And if we try to investigate this interaction, we get into the mechanics of consciousness, which maybe we'll never undestand. If we could, we would have done it after all this time that we are exploring the sanctuary of consciousness. Maybe we have created a conceptual trap and fell in it.

"To perceive is to become aware of something directly through the senses. To conceive is to form something in the mind or to develop an understanding. So perceiving is merely seeing, and conceiving is deeper." — Gnomon

Exactly.

***

I have to add something here about how I use the term "perception": It normally means to become aware of something by means of our senses. And our senses are meant to be physical, of course. So I have to expand the term to also include being aware of our inner world --thoughts, emotions, etc.-- for which we are not using our senses. Unfortunately I don't have any other word.

Having the experience of consciousness, i.e. being aware, does not necessary involve meaningful mental images, or even mental images (i.e. thinking) at all. I can be aware that I am alive, that I exist, that I'm looking to an object, etc. I don't have to interpret or undestand what these things mean. In the case of the obkect, its image is of course created in my mind, but it can be just that, an image. If I start to think about the meaining of this image, etc. I'm using mental faculties, which have nothong to do with consciousness, except that I can be aware that I am doing so! :smile: — Alkis Piskas

I don't know how you mean this. I am not usually "aware" that I'm alive. I am when I think about it, as I am now. And if anyone ever asked, I'd suddenly be thinking about it.

Butt when Godzilla starts in 20 minutes, I won't be thinking about the fact that I am alive. I don't see how I could be considered aware of it at such times.

I have to add something here about how I use the term "perception": It normally means to become aware of something by means of our senses. And our senses are meant to be physical, of course. So I have to expand the term to also include being aware of our inner world --thoughts, emotions, etc.-- for which we are not using our senses. Unfortunately I don't have any other word. — Alkis Piskas

Do we not, with our senses, perceive things that exist; that can be perceived? I think our thoughts and emotions are created within us. Even if prompted by something external, such as you reading "4+2=", which you perceive, you create the thought "6" on your own. You didn't turn your head and perceive "6" written somewhere.

Never thought about this before...

Having the experience of consciousness, i.e. being aware, does not necessary involve meaningful mental images, or even mental images (i.e. thinking) at all. — Alkis Piskas

Perhaps, but I was thinking in terms of Blindsight*1, in which the physical senses seem to "Perceive" things in the world without forming conscious Concepts : sensing without knowing. Also, in the Vegetative State*2 a person processes sensory inputs (percepts ; data) but show no signs of conscious (concepts ; memory) awareness. For example, a Mimosa leaf will reflexively respond to a "perceived touch", by physically contracting the leaf, but presumably without forming any verbalizable concept, such as "something touched me". Ironically, some people "like" to think that Jade plants, Aloe, and Peace Lilies conceptually "like" to be touched (anthropomorphism?).

The vocabulary problem here is that our functionally materialistic language --- based on sensory impressions --- typically uses Perception & Conception interchangeably, without making the philosophical distinction that is important to distinguish Mind from Brain, as different concepts. Hence, in my dialogs with Physicalist/Materialists, who deny the metaphysical ideality of an immaterial Mind, I often make the distinction between personal Concepts and abstract Percepts. But it usually falls on deaf ears : that perceive, but do not conceive. :grin:

PS___ I found this definition on Quora, that seems pertinent to this discussion :
Conceive “ to form a mental representation of” involves an internal process of thinking that produces a new result.
Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception. That's because they may include emotional or poetic affects, in addition to factual or prosaic data, Concepts are more likely to be remembered, due to their Self-interest. :blush:

*1. Blindsight :
the ability to respond to visual stimuli without consciously perceiving them. This condition can occur after certain types of brain damage.
___Oxford dictionary

*2. Vegetative State of living person :
A vegetative state is when a person is awake but is showing no signs of awareness. A person in a vegetative state may: open their eyes. wake up and fall asleep at regular intervals. have basic reflexes (such as blinking when they're startled by a loud noise or withdrawing their hand when it's squeezed hard)
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/disorders-of-consciousness/#:~:text=A%20vegetative%20state%20is%20when,hand%20when%20it%27s%20squeezed%20hard)

I was thinking in terms of Blindsight*1, in which the physical senses seem to "Perceive" things in the world without forming conscious Concepts : sensing without knowing. — Gnomon

Blindsight. Never heard of that before. Just looked it up. Wow, this looks quite interesting. I will have to learn more about it. So, at the moment I cannot comment on this phenomenon. Maybe ony that I didn't like seeing the words/terms "concepts" and "knowing" related again to consciouness. :smile:
Look it this way: Does perception alone, i.e. just using our senses, involve concepts and knowledge or are these created or do they appear later?

Also, in the Vegetative State*2 a person processes sensory inputs (percepts ; data) but show no signs of conscious (concepts ; memory) awareness. — Gnomon

Gnomon, I think you are giving me too much homework! :smile:
But again, I see concepts and memory connected to consciousness. These things are products of the mind, stemming from mental processes, like thinking. Esp. concepts, which involve undestanding a much higher mental faculty. They all follow perception.

For example, a Mimosa leaf will reflexively respond to a "perceived touch", by physically contracting the leaf, but presumably without forming any verbalizable concept, such as "something touched me". — Gnomon

Mimosa, leaf, ... these are concepts. "Perceived touch" on the other hand can be assigned to consciousness, since touch is one of our senses and it is one of the means we gat aware of objects.

BTW, since we are talking about "senses", it is very interesting to know that we almost always think of just our 5 common senses, although there are many more of them: senses of movement, balance, orientation, gravity, pain, and so on. All these are perceivable.

Ironically, some people "like" to think that Jade plants, Aloe, and Peace Lilies conceptually "like" to be touched (anthropomorphism?). — Gnomon

No. Plants are conscious. They have the ability to perceive. How else could they turn their leaves towards the sun?
(Check "Plant Consciousness: The Fascinating Evidence Showing Plants Have Human Level Intelligence, Feelings, Pain and More ( http://www.esalq.usp.br/lepse/imgs/conteudo_thumb/Plant-Consciousness---The-Fascinating-Evidence-Showing-Plants-Have-Human-Level-Intelligence--Feelings--Pain-and-More.pdf).)

The vocabulary problem here is that our functionally materialistic language --- based on sensory impressions --- typically uses Perception & Conception interchangeably, without making the philosophical distinction that is important to distinguish Mind from Brain, as different concepts. — Gnomon

Good remark. :up:

in my dialogs with Physicalist/Materialists, who deny the metaphysical ideality of an immaterial Mind, I often make the distinction between personal Concepts and abstract Percepts. But it usually falls on deaf ears : that perceive, but do not conceive. :grin: — Gnomon

I'm afraid you are among the unfortunate, like myself, who belong to the minority and have to deal with that. Or are we fortunate? :smile:

PS___ I found this definition on Quora, that seems pertinent to this discussion: Conceive “ to form a mental representation of” involves an internal process of thinking that produces a new result. — Gnomon

Certainly. That's why I'm a Quora fan! :grin: (Well, not so much for reading but rather for writing. :smile:)

Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception. — Gnomon

Exactly.

***

Thanks for the references (re: Blindsight and Vegetative State). They will help me in my homework. :smile:

[Re "I can be aware that I am alive"] I don't know how you mean this. I am not usually "aware" that I'm alive. I am when I think about it, as I am now. And if anyone ever asked, I'd suddenly be thinking about it. — Patterner

Certainly, you are not usually "aware" that you are alive. It would be quite annoying and useless, wouldn't it? But you can be id you want, right?

To paraphrase our friend Descartes, "I am aware, therefore I exist."
(Which could be what he actually meant, since thinking is not part of consiousness/awareness. It follows it. But this is all he could think and use as a concept, since at that time, the terms and concepts of "consciousness" and "awareness" had not been developed yet.)

I don't see how I could be considered aware of it at such times. — Patterner

I don't think you can even if you want to. And fortunately enough, it's not of any use. But it is of great use when you are in a highly emotional state, feeling lost, etc. If you are able to get aware of yourself and the situation you are involved in, you can get rid of that state faster and get your marbles back. Don't you?

I think our thoughts and emotions are created within us. Even if prompted by something external, such as you reading "4+2=", which you perceive, you create the thought "6" on your own. You didn't turn your head and perceive "6" written somewhere. — Patterner

Well, if you start interpreting the object --shape or form-- of a number that you observe --i.e. as a symbol-- you start thinking about it, and this is beyond perception. Imagine how much involved in thinking --even if you are not aware of it-- if you start interpeting a whole arithmetic operation.
Consciousness/awareness stops at the perception level. The perceived, observed object.

Perception does not involve thinking.

In fact, one of the things you can do to get rid of your (useless) thoughts, is just to observe your surroundings.