It's not as if a baby knows what consciousness is, and learns to use the word to refer to what they already have in mind. Rather, they learn what consciousness is as they learn to use the word. — Banno

Consciousness is reflexive.

The content of your own experience, too, is constructed from inference, as is the ‘you’ who experiences. What we can be certain of is the faculty of consciousness - awareness with. Anything else is inference. — Possibility

I'd like to believe that. It would make my philosophical and psychological position on this question easier to defend. The problem is that I do recognize my own personal experience. There's a movie playing in my head with sound and a script. I'm also here talking to myself about what is going on and what I think about what is going on and what I think about my experience of what is going on.

I think one of the problems we tend to have when trying to understand experience, is that our intuition tells us that most things are non-experiential. We see rocks, rivers, land, the sky, tables and so forth and even (some) planets to be solid objects.

It's a powerful intuition.

Then we have this thing, this simultaneously abstract and concrete aspect to us, experience, which appears to be completely different from "solid" rocks and rivers. But... — Manuel

... we must be mistaken... so, how?

To put it in rather non-philosophical language: that there seems to be someone here who is experiencing the world and at the same time thinking and pondering about that act of experiencing - along with a strong presumption that this is true of other people too, that there are someones there. It appears that the world is populated by conscious or aware minds who inhabit human bodies and who have space, distance to question and doubt all things, including their own reality.

Sure.

It's also intentional.

These tables and chairs and river, what makes them up, deep down is not solid concrete stuff.

Sure. And these particles, waves and fields, what they are, in sum, is tables, chairs and river, about which you have the powerful intuition of non-subjectivity, which seems to want to generalise to apply to fleshy animals, even against the opposing intuition. There is a choice of basis, then, for further investigation. Generalise, or not. Mono or duo.

I find myself being confused about which word to use when I try to describe it. — T Clark

Terms like “consciousness” aren’t normally a problem because the meaning is understood from the context.

But if we insist on having a definition it can be deduced from the sources.

It looks like the original meaning was “knowledge with” and by extension “self-knowledge” ("knowledge with/of oneself"), “self-awareness”, “consciousness”.

Greek: συνείδησις suneidesis < sun + eidesis
Latin: conscius < con + scio
Sanskrit: संविद् samvid < sam + vid

So, the simplest definition in modern language would be something like “self-aware intelligence” or, more precisely, "that which is aware of itself as itself".

Having said that, you may be able to agree on a definition for the purposes of this thread or forum but you won't be able to enforce it worldwide, so that part of the problem will be very hard if not impossible to solve.

It bothers me when people who start discussions don’t define their terms at the beginning of the thread. — T Clark

I understand what you mean but it is an inherent limit of language. We all use the same terms but due to “personality” and “individual identity and experience” the terms will always vary in what we each associate them with and understand.

A simple example is the term “colour” means something different to a professional artist than it does to ophthalmologist because they are both exposed to different training and education surrounding the word.

I think if we try to define every term unanimously we end the fluid nature of language. Think of an infinite regress of qualifying: if I qualify a term in my own words then I must qualify the words I used to qualify the initial one, then I have to qualify the ones that qualify the ones that I used to qualify the first ad infinitum.

To give you my true interpretation of the word there would be no difference between your awareness and level of knowledge and experience and mine we would be psychological twins. Identical in perspective.

The irony of such a case is language between us would become pointless. We would not be able to learn anything new from each other because in essence it would be like “talking to oneself”.

The functionality of language depends on us partially/imperfectly communicating exactly what we mean and thereby becoming aware of discrepancies which are informative.

As for the term “consciousness” I think it’s one of those hyper-vagueries - words that are so broad and ill defined that it would take an endless dimension of information to understand them sufficiently. Other hyper-vagueries would be to define words like “imagination” “you” “I” “abstraction” “everything” “energy” “information”.

We can give them brief and accurate surface level descriptions but of limited informative value. You can’t define “everything” without inadvertently referring to the term “everything” or common synonyms: totality, universal, entire, absolute etc.

Similarly I cannot refer to the term “consciousness” with anything but the content of consciousness. It’s self- referential and therefore can never be objective.

Yes, those are the options we have.

I still think that monism and property dualism are essentially the most often pursued views. I don't know many people who believe in substance dualism, aside from theologists.

And maybe a few people here and there. But it's a difficult view to articulate, it seems to me.

property dualism [...] substance dualism — Manuel

It's moot.

No.

It means there is only one kind of thing to study: different instantiations of physical stuff.

We don't study ghosts, Gods or angels...

We don't study ghosts, Gods or angels... — Manuel

Except by any other name...

I have a degree in Linguistics, and my teacher in the area of definitions was Professor Noel Ossleton, who was at that time President of the International Association of Lexicographers. He told me once that I am good at definitions, and should seek to work in that field. And I became a translator, which is of course all about what things mean.

I don't however claim to be a great authority. Nevertheless I have something to say about definitions, and it's this: in order to know whether you have come up with a correct definition, you must already know what the term means.

in order to know whether you have come up with a correct definition, you must already know what the term means. — Daemon

Correct. And it must be consistent with how the word has been used for centuries. That's why I said:

" It looks like the original meaning was “knowledge with” and by extension “self-knowledge” ("knowledge with/of oneself"), “self-awareness”, “consciousness”.

Greek: συνείδησις suneidesis < sun + eidesis
Latin: conscius < con + scio
Sanskrit: संविद् samvid < sam + vid

So, the simplest definition in modern language would be something like “self-aware intelligence” or, more precisely, "that which is aware of itself as itself". "

I don't agree with you there Apollodorus. In the present context the way the word has been used for centuries is irrelevant. OP wants to know how we are using the term now, in philosophical discussion.

And, pace 180 Degrees, I don't think "awareness of self-awareness = consciousness" is right: I think that is a higher level of consciousness. I think "consciousness = feeling" would be better.

If an entity can feel something, it's conscious.

I have been very struck by this recent video lecture by Mark Solms, who is both a neuroscientist and a psychiatrist: https://youtu.be/CmuYrnOVmfk

He draws on his experience with patients who lacked any cerebral cortex, observing that they are nevertheless able to experience emotions. He notes that while the absence of cerebral cortex allows "feeling" to exist, the removal of only a few cc's of the brain stem causes irrevocable unconsciousness.

His take is that "emotion" is primary, and is located in the brain stem, a more "primitive" part of the brain. We've been looking in the wrong place.

I have been very struck by this recent video lecture by Mark Solms, who is both a neuroscientist and a psychiatrist: https://youtu.be/CmuYrnOVmfk — Daemon

That sounds most interesting, thanks.
I will listen later. In the meantime, I discovered that he offers a free online course:
https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/what-is-a-mind

'Professor Mark Solms, Chair of Neuropsychology at the University of Cape Town, will adopt a multidisciplinary approach.

He will bring in perspectives from a range of disciplines, to explore four specific aspects of the mind- subjectivity, intentionality, consciousness and agency. Together, these will help us think about the fundamental questions: what it is to be a mind, why we have a mind and what it feels like to have a mind.'

-------

A bit off track...but interesting to consider I think...
Apparently, Solms has been criticised as to his dream theory.

'Neuropsychologist and psychoanalyst Mark Solms (1997) made a major contribution to dream research through his clinico-anatomical studies, which reveal the outlines of the neural network that underlies dreaming. However, in more recent work he misunderstands the history of the rapid eye movement (REM)/non-REM (NREM) controversy in a Freudian-serving way and ignores the considerable systematic empirical evidence that contradicts the key claims of the Freudian dream theory he is trying to revive.'

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/533602

Thank you, I have enrolled.

in order to know whether you have come up with a correct definition, you must already know what the term means. — Daemon

I don't know about there being a single correct definition but yes, I think it clear that you must have an idea of what it is you want to pin down...
Does that mean that some kind of background research or thinking should be done first.
That being the case, it is not always possible to define terms before you start an exploratory thread ?
So, people should not be unduly concerned or constrained.

Dialogue can lead to a better understanding...hopefully.

:cool:

No, there isn't a single correct definition, so it's a waste of time looking for that. I think you have to state your own working definition, in the specific context.

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

I think you have to state your own working definition, in the specific context. — Daemon

That makes complete sense to me.

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

Again, thanks for that. Exactly the way I was thinking - so it must be right :wink:

I'd like to believe that. It would make my philosophical and psychological position on this question easier to defend. The problem is that I do recognize my own personal experience. There's a movie playing in my head with sound and a script. I'm also here talking to myself about what is going on and what I think about what is going on and what I think about my experience of what is going on. — T Clark

Interesting that you ‘recognise’ experience as a movie playing in your head. You do realise that this is a construction and not a recognition as such. So is talking to yourself about what is going on - it’s a probabilistic construction using the logic and qualities of language as an approximation.

Terms like “consciousness” aren’t normally a problem because the meaning is understood from the context. — Apollodorus

It is clear to me from discussions on the thread that this isn't true. Actually, it's a broader topic than just this particular word. Discussions on the forum and elsewhere suffer from the fact that definitions are not agreed on at the beginning. If you read the rest of the thread I think you'll see this is true for "consciousness."

To put it in rather non-philosophical language: that there seems to be someone here who is experiencing the world and at the same time thinking and pondering about that act of experiencing - along with a strong presumption that this is true of other people too, that there are someones there. It appears that the world is populated by conscious or aware minds who inhabit human bodies and who have space, distance to question and doubt all things, including their own reality. — hwyl

I don't think anyone posting on this thread disagrees with this. If they do, I hope they'll speak up.

In the present context the way the word has been used for centuries is irrelevant. OP wants to know how we are using the term now, in philosophical discussion. — Daemon

The term still implies "awareness" and above all "self-awareness". What has changed?

I understand what you mean but it is an inherent limit of language. We all use the same terms but due to “personality” and “individual identity and experience” the terms will always vary in what we each associate them with and understand. — Benj96

Agreed, ambiguity is an inherent characteristic of language. That just means we have to try harder to agree in advance what words mean. Failure to do that is bad philosophy or, in a broader context, bad communications.

I think if we try to define every term unanimously we end the fluid nature of language. — Benj96

This thread isn't about word definitions in general, it's about word definitions for use in philosophical discussions here on the thread. If an artist and an ophthalmologist want to have a discussion about color (note correct Amurcan spelling), they should make sure they're talking about the same thing.

Similarly I cannot refer to the term “consciousness” with anything but the content of consciousness. It’s self- referential and therefore can never be objective. — Benj96

Ok, so it's impossible to discuss consciousness. And yet we discuss it here on the forum endlessly. Part of the reason the discussions are endless is that people don't agree on the definition they're using at the beginning.

I still think that monism and property dualism are essentially the most often pursued views. I don't know many people who believe in substance dualism, aside from theologists. — Manuel

By "substance dualism" do you mean that matter and consciousness are fundamentally different substances? If so, that is a common belief. Chalmers in the paper on the hard problem is explicit about that.

in order to know whether you have come up with a correct definition, you must already know what the term means. — Daemon

Agreed, but for the purposes of a philosophical discussion, or any specific discussion, it is more important that we agree on a definition than that the definition is precisely correct.