It gets its data from numerous sensory organs, yes, but is "presented" as a single part like a movie. — JupiterJess

Again, I don't see it as presented as a single part. There are many different parts, or distinctions, I can make out. I know these are different parts as I can experience each one by themselves without the other parts. I can close my eyes and focus on a sound only and make that the only part, or close my eyes in a quiet room and think of only one color. The different sensory experiences are themselves the fundamental parts of consciousness. Consciousness itself isn't fundamental. I can imagine different consciousnesses filled with different data and that data represented in different ways based on the kinds of sensory organs an organism has. We can even communicate the different parts of our experience - communicating only parts and leaving other parts out. If consciousness were fundamental and presented as a single part, we wouldn't be able to communicate those different parts to others and they know what we mean.

I'd said:

But I’m not mixing separate things. I’m just not unnecessarily separating, dissecting, the animal (including us humans) into artificially separate body and Consciousness. — Michael Ossipoff

You replied:

That was the point (sort of). :)

What choice do we have but the usual local 1st person perspective? There's no self-escape, no becoming whatever else. We're already, always bound by identity

Of course. We're the animal.

, which sets the stage for "dualistic" (or "partitioned") thinking, like this one:

self: mind, consciousness, self-awareness, feelings, map-making, ...
other: the perceived, the modeled, the encountered, the territories,"

As I was saying before, you're using Dualism with a different meaning. You're using it to mean the absence of one-ness with our surroundings.

...whereas the academic Western Dualists use "Dualism" to mean a dissection of the person (the animal) into body and Mind, two distinct substances or entities. ...a belief in Mind as something separate from the body.

I don't say that we're one with our surroundings (though we're central and primary to, and the essential component of, our life-experience story, which can only be because of us.). I do say that the person, the animal, is unitary, and that it's meaningless, pointless, artificial and unnecessary to want to dissect the animal into body and Mind, Soul, Spirit, etc.

As for Searle, from what of his that I've read, he seems, to me, a Dualist, no matter what he calls himself.

But he's also a quasi- or semi- Materialist, because he said that the physical is still the ultimate origin and cause.

Michael Ossipoff

As I understand it thus far, being consists of form (the genetically predisposed capacity for species-specific functions) and matter (a physical body); together, one substance (that of a type of being).

Also, mind does not exist; it is a convenient expression for a set of active and passive functions of intellect and will exercised by a being. Therefore, attributing psychological predicates to a mind is nonsense, and attributing them to a brain is mereological confusion.

Also, mind does not exist; it is a convenient expression for a set of active and passive functions of intellect and will exercised by a being. Therefore, attributing psychological predicates to a mind is nonsense, and attributing them to a brain is mereological confusion. — Galuchat

Yes. The being, the animal, has feelings and does actions based on his/her predispositions and surroundings.

Michael Ossipoff

As I was saying before, you're using Dualism with a different meaning. You're using it to mean the absence of one-ness with our surroundings.

...whereas the academic Western Dualists use "Dualism" to mean a dissection of the person (the animal) into body and Mind, two distinct substances or entities. ...a belief in Mind as something separate from the body. — Michael Ossipoff

Sorry, my bad for being unclear, I didn't mean to describe old-school substance dualism à la Descartes — supposedly independent, real "substances" — res cogitans (thinking substance, mental) versus res extensa (extended substance, material).

Rather, I meant to account for the apparent dualism monistically, e.g. self versus other, as simply being due to (self)identity, while still taking Levine's explanatory gap serious.

All the self stuff together already is what our cognition is — our self-awareness, 1^st person experiences, thinking, etc (when occurring) — and is ontologically bound by (self)identity, which sets out mentioned partitioning. We're still integral parts of the world like whatever else, interacting, changing, albeit also individuated.

So, cutting more or less everything up into fluffy mental stuff and other material stuff is misleading from the get-go; monism of some sort is just fine, and perhaps a better categorization is that mind is something body can do, and body is moved by mind, alike, which (in synthesis) is what we are as individuals. Whatever it all is.

I've expanded my reply a bit to:

Yes. The being, the animal, has feelings and does actions based on his/her predispositions and surroundings. — Michael Ossipoff

...to clarify that I don't say that there's free-will.

Michael Ossipoff

Rather, I meant to account for the apparent dualism monistically, e.g. self versus other — jorndoe

Ok, the Dualism that you're referring to is the absence of oneness with our surroundings.

I guess Advaita is the perfect and pure Monism, because it says that there's really only one Existent.

I'm not an Advaitist (though I'm a Vedantist), because I insist on avoiding assumptions, and I consider the avoidance of assumptions to be more important than ultra-perfect Monism.

, as simply being due to (self)identity, while still taking Levine's explanatory gap serious.

Forgive the delay in this reply. I had to look up Levine's explanatory gap. According to Wikipedia, it's the gap that must be be bridged to solve the Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness.

No, don't take that explanatory-gap, or that "Hard Problem Of Consciousness seriously.

It's a made-up makework "problem" invented by Western academic philosophers who evidently need a problem, so that they'll have something to publish about. You know, "Publish or Perish"..

I've answered it many times in these forums.

How could mere physical material, in a physical purposefully-responsive device like us, result in Consciousness?

Let me say it again:

Animals, such as humans, are purposefully-responsive devices, resulting from natural-selection, and designed by natural-selection so as to best achieve survival and reproduction (which includes care for and protection of offspring).

As such, they must respond to their surroundings in a manner that best achieves those purposes.

Our feelings, likes, disllkes, wants, fears, and efforts are exactly what would be expected for such a purposefully-responsive device. So where's the problem???

I repeat:

Where's the problem???

You continued:

All the self stuff...

The self-stuff consists of the animal (that's us).

together already is what our cognition is — our self-awareness, 1st person experiences

1st-person experience is exactly what one would expect for a purposefully-responsive device such as an animal.

, thinking, etc (when occurring) — and is ontologically bound by (self)identity

Of course the animal has self-identity.

, which sets out mentioned partitioning. We're still integral parts of the world like whatever else, interacting, changing, albeit also individuated.

Of course we're part of our life-experience possibility-world, though we're central and primary to it, because we're what it's for and about.

We're a distinct and special part of it. The essential part of it.

So, cutting more or less everything up into fluffy mental stuff and other material stuff is misleading from the get-go; monism of some sort is just fine, and perhaps a better categorization is that mind is something body can do

Ok, but even that needn't be said, because it's an unnecessary separation of us into Mind and body, as if they were two separate metaphysical substances.

, and body is moved by mind

No, that's Dualism.

Instead of separate body and Mind, there's just the animal.

The fact that the word "Animal" is derived from a Latin word for "Spirit" is a reminder that the animal embodies "spirit" and body as one integral unit. No need to even mention Spirit or Mind. There's just the animal, the purposefully-responsive device.

, alike, which (in synthesis) is what we are as individuals.

But there's no need to synthesize the supposed parts of what's already one thing, never separated in the first place.

Michael Ossipoff

Chomsky says of the Meditations: "That's not Descartes." He says the Meditations was just propaganda directed at the Jesuits to persuade them to support his physics.

No, that's Dualism. — Michael Ossipoff

Not substance dualism, though. Unless you think of space/objects and time/processes as substances? I just think of them as different aspects of the same world, perhaps like memories, inertia, gravity, what-have-you, are aspects of the world that we can differentiate, but not in an incommensurate fashion. The rock in the driveway isn't conscious. My neighbor is (for the most part, at least when I run into them).

@Mongrel, sorry, Michael Ossipoff and I may have gone off topic here. :)

Yes, but you were still speaking of Mind and body as separate and different, whereas i claim that that is an artificial dissection of the animal.

So I'd say that the more accurate way to say it is: The animal has feelings and does actions determined by its predispositions and surroundings.

The body runs itself. You are the body.

Michael Ossipoff

Yes, but you were still speaking of Mind and body as separate and different, whereas i claim that that is an artificial dissection of the animal. — Michael Ossipoff

A person has a consciousness and a brain. That is a reasonable division of a person into 2 seperate parts. Your position I take it is that those two parts are both composed of the same matter, the same substance. A reasonable response to that is "who cares"? If there are 2 parts composed of the same substance, the question still remains of how do you account for such divergent behaviors from the same substance, so much so that we can't even accurately observe or measure the consciousness phenomena but we can the brain phenomena.

That is, these 2 things are significantly different, and simply making a reductionist claim (i.e. at some level they are reducible into quarks or whatever) answers nothing (especially since we really don't know what a quark is).

I’d said:
.

Yes, but you were still speaking of Mind and body as separate and different, whereas i claim that that is an artificial dissection of the animal. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

A person has a consciousness and a brain. That is a reasonable division of a person into 2 seperate parts.

.
“Division”, yes. “Reasonable”, no.
.
The separate “consciousness” is Spiritualist fiction.
.
We aren’t a consciousness and a brain. We’re an animal.
.
You’re making it unnecessarily Dualist-complicated. Dualist-elaborate.
.

Your position I take it is that those two parts are both composed of the same matter, the same substance.

.
No. There aren’t two parts.
.
“Two parts” is Dualism. I disagree with Dualism.
.
What you’re calling “two parts” is one thing: The animal.
.
You insist on artificially, unnecessarily, dissecting the animal into two parts, one of which is Spiritualist fiction.
.

A reasonable response to that is "who cares"?

.
Dualists.
.
Evidently they care to make up that 2nd fictitious part.
.

If there are 2 parts composed of the same substance…

.
There aren’t.
.
There aren’t 2 parts.
.
One of those supposed parts is fiction.
.

, the question still remains of how do you account for such divergent behaviors from the same substance, so much so that we can't even accurately observe or measure the consciousness phenomena but we can the brain phenomena.

.
Your Scientists (capitalized because they’re an object of Science-Worship) can indeed observe a brain, because it’s a physical object. They can observe all sorts of things about it. Maybe in principle someday they could observe and measure everything about it.
.
But now you want them to also be able to measure a fictitious “consciousness”?
.
You want to know why they can’t observe or measure it?
.
They can’t observe or measure it because it’s fictitious.
.
You’re expressing the Hard-Problem-Of-Consciousness. You want the Scientist to be able to observe and measure another animal’s 1st-person experience.
.
Why would you expect one animal to be able to experience, observe or measure another animal’s 1st-person experience???
.
…no matter how much Scientific instrumentation the Scientist has.
.
Scientificists want everything to be the province of Science. And so they’re bothered by the fact that Scientists can’t observe and measure another animal’s 1st-person experience.
.

That is, these 2 things are significantly different…

.
…or would be, if there were 2 things.
.

, and simply making a reductionist claim (i.e. at some level they are reducible into quarks or whatever) answers nothing (especially since we really don't know what a quark is).

.
I didn’t speak of quarks.
.
We’re the animal. Period. Full-Stop.
.
You’re the one who insists on trying to dissect the animal into body and fictitious consciousness.
.
You’re the one who wants to make it complicated and elaborate.
.
Michael Ossipoff

The body runs itself. — Michael Ossipoff

Sure. Consciousness occurring is a kind of "running", to use your terminology. If you're out, unconscious, have been put under by anesthetic or whatever, then that kind of "running" isn't occurring. You may come to, though, as long as the body has retained sufficient (structural) integrity.

The separate “consciousness” is Spiritualist fiction. — Michael Ossipoff

I don't think my take presumed or implied anything supernatural or spiritual in particular. At least I don't think there's any requirement to invoke such things, even though we don't self-comprehend exhaustively.

"The separate “consciousness” is Spiritualist fiction." — Michael Ossipoff

I don't think my take presumed or implied anything supernatural or spiritual in particular.

...or made-up?

Then that's where we can agree to disagree.

At least I don't think there's any requirement to invoke such things

Exactly my point.

Michael Ossipoff