Do you understand that "materialist" is not a distinct category from "philosopher"? — 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.Do you understand that "materialist" is not a distinct category from "philosopher"?
Your writing frequently suggests that you don't understand this. — wonderer1
Yes. I quoted Christof Koch in my post above : "consciousness is the feeling of life". :smile:Nice. I rarily see people connecting consciousness with experience. (In the sense of human feeling, as you say.) — Alkis Piskas
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:I quoted Christof Koch in my post above : "consciousness is the feeling of life" — Gnomon
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.Well, the word "feeling" has millions of meanings, and such a definition of conciousness is quite vague. — Alkis Piskas
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: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 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: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
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: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
Good question! I don't know! :grin:Is there a word that combines the two aspects into a single central philosophical element of Consciousness? — Gnomon
Exactly."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
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.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
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.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
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?).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
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: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
Gnomon, I think you are giving me too much homework! :smile:Also, in the Vegetative State*2 a person processes sensory inputs (percepts ; data) but show no signs of conscious (concepts ; memory) awareness. — 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.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
No. Plants are conscious. They have the ability to perceive. How else could they turn their leaves towards the sun?Ironically, some people "like" to think that Jade plants, Aloe, and Peace Lilies conceptually "like" to be touched (anthropomorphism?). — Gnomon
Good remark. :up: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
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: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
Certainly. That's why I'm a Quora fan! :grin: (Well, not so much for reading but rather for writing. :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
Exactly.Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception. — Gnomon
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?[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
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 don't see how I could be considered aware of it at such times. — 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.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
Perhaps you have a broader definition of "Consciousness" and "Perception" than I do. The "C" word literally means "to know with/together", implying shared or shareable knowledge. For that reason, I tend to limit Consciousness to organisms that can share information verbally, symbolically, or by intentional physical interactions.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? — Alkis Piskas
Again, I'll quibble with your terminology. Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols. Admittedly, some plants can "communicate information". But, as far as I can tell, the plants don't "know" what they are doing, because the chemical processes are automatic & genetically controlled, with no need for "awareness" in the human sense of "cognition" (knowing that you know). :nerd:No. Plants are conscious. They have the ability to perceive. How else could they turn their leaves towards the sun? — Alkis Piskas
I believe you are referring to the etymology of C. Indeed, it's from Latin "con", which means "with", and scientia, which means "knowledge", i.e. "knowledge shared with others". However, this is far from what today we undestand as "consciousness". So, I don't think that is much of help.The "C" word literally means "to know with/together", implying shared or shareable knowledge. — Gnomon
OK.I typically reserve "perception" to data inputs, and "conception" to the processing of information into knowledge (personally relevant meaning), then use "consciousness" for the highest level of information processing into public packages of Communication (words), as evidenced in human culture. — Gnomon
Do you mean that "perception" and "conception" are actually --or even loosely considered as-- the same thing? That is, just seeing an object is the same with thinking about that object, what is its nature, what it means, etc.?For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. — Gnomon
Certainly.Materialist "don't like" to see Consciousness related to such immaterial things as Ideas & Imagination. — Gnomon
I think we have already agreed on this.I think "perception alone" does not "involve concepts and knowledge", but merely the reception of raw data. "Conception" accepts the data inputs, and converts them into concepts, ideas, images, symbols, beliefs, etc. that are inter-related with other ideas into self-related significance (symbols). — Gnomon
Certainly, conciousness is connected to the Self. When we observe things we can be aware that it is us who are observing things, but we usually don't. The "switch" to self awareness at any moment is instant, almost automatic.For my restrictive usage, Consciousness requires a sense of Self. — Gnomon
Yes, we can say that. :smile:From my post above: "Hence, Conception adds some personal meaning to the physical sensations of Perception". :smile: — Gnomon
Of course they are not "conscious" based on your meaning of conciousness, since you add to it "thinking". So, you can see that by adding elements to the meaning of pure consciousness, makes it fail in its application to all cases. By adding sugar to straight coffee, makes the it not usable for diabetics. :smile:Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols. — Gnomon
I have absolutely no problem with that. :smile:How Can We Distinguish Perception from Cognition? — Gnomon
Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. But they are not "Conscious" in my meaning, of converting the sensory data into meaningful symbols.
— Gnomon
Of course they are not "conscious" based on your meaning of conciousness, since you add to it "thinking". So, you can see that by adding elements to the meaning of pure consciousness, makes it fail in its application to all cases. By adding sugar to straight coffee, makes the it not usable for diabetics. :smile: — Alkis Piskas
Plants are "Sentient", in that they can sense the environment. — Alkis Piskas
The etymology was merely intended to indicate the primitive origins of the concept of "Consciousness", in the evolved or learned ability to distinguish Self from Other*1. "C" then evolved from un-knowing disorder into more inclusive & discriminating forms of organized interactions. FWIW, here's a quick tabulation of how I imagine the evolution of un-Consciousness into the modern sophisticated human sense of "Knowing"*2. :smile:I believe you are referring to the etymology of C. Indeed, it's from Latin "con", which means "with", and scientia, which means "knowledge", i.e. "knowledge shared with others". However, this is far from what today we undestand as "consciousness". So, I don't think that is much of help. — Alkis Piskas
Yes, but. That loose interpretation is not my meaning, for philosophical purposes. It's just common popular usage for general purposes. Philosophers have to make much finer discriminations of meaning. The simple Perception of an object --- forming an image on the retina, then storing in brain --- provides little knowledge of its nature or meaning. Such comprehension requires complex processing of raw data, in more comprehensive multi-channel brains.For general informal purposes, these terms are often loosely used interchangeably. — Gnomon
Do you mean that "perception" and "conception" are actually --or even loosely considered as-- the same thing? That is, just seeing an object is the same with thinking about that object, what is its nature, what it means, etc.? — Alkis Piskas
*2. Evolution of Consciousness : based on the Enformationism thesis — Gnomon
Enformationism : Mass-Energy-Information equivalence is the subject of this thesis. — Gnomon
It's the "difference that makes a difference" to an inquiring mind. — Gnomon
I can't even know what it is like to be another person! :smile:Do you think there is something it's like to be a Venus Fly Trap? — RogueAI
It was my reply to @Gnome, who wondered whether plants can perceive or not. And it was not based on my comment on Nagel's "what it is like", which was quite unimportant, but rather on the definition of consciousness.I do not believe this to be a very widely view of what sentience consists in. My understanding is there must be feeling in the sense of "what it is like to be.." involved for sentience to be observed. — AmadeusD
Certainly. I just took it up and expanded it, because of my linguistic tendencies (I'm overplaying sometimes! :smile:)The etymology was merely intended to indicate the primitive origins of the concept of "Consciousness" — Gnomon
Well, the very common expression "I'm aware of", carrying the meaning of "I know", is an unfortunate case, a bad selection of the word "aware". And because it is so common in our everyday language, it is responsible for the misconception or even no conception people have about "awareness" and "being aware".here's a quick tabulation of how I imagine the evolution of un-Consciousness into the modern sophisticated human sense of "Knowing"* — Gnomon
Of course.Note --- Don't take this table literally or as authoritative . . . . just suggestive of possibilities — Gnomon
Sure. I know well that "common" often means "misconcetion" or "ignorance", as I mentioned earlier on.(Re: "perception" and "conception") That loose interpretation is not my meaning, for philosophical purposes. It's just common popular usage for general purposes. — Gnomon
Well, not my cup of tea. Too many concepts involved.3. Concepts of Consciousness — Gnomon
I will chack this, in time.
Glad to hear that! :smile:Note --- I don't think of "Consciousness" as an entity (soul or ghost) — Gnomon
Just a question: When you are sitting confortably, with your thoughts reduced to minimum --ideally, totally absent-- can you just be aware of yourself, without thinking about it? If so, then you will have a proof for yourself that consciouness/awareness is indepenpent of thinking and thoughts, i.e. the creation of mental images.but as a State or Process or Function of forming mental images in an imaginary Cartesian Theatre, not located in space or time, but in Erewhon. — Gnomon
I'm not sure which quote you are referring to. But if it's the "patterns that connect", I use the notion of Information as Pattern frequently in my exploration of Information in the world. Did you have something specific in mind?leads me to ask you: have you examined Bateson's quote as taken up by Terrence W. Deacon?
If so, what do you think of Deacon's hierarchy of higher-order theromdynamic processes as the environment housing both information and consciousness? — ucarr
You might get a better answer from , since he practices meditation. I tried it years ago, but my introverted mind is too ADhD for me to completely stop the flow of thought. When I'm on the verge of unconsciousness (e.g. sleep), and not focused on something external or specific internal ideas, I suppose I'm aware of Self, without thinking, in the sense of Proprioception. Does that qualify as "awareness independent of thinking" for you? How is it different from aVegetative State? :smile:Just a question: When you are sitting confortably, with your thoughts reduced to minimum --ideally, totally absent-- can you just be aware of yourself, without thinking about it? If so, then you will have a proof for yourself that consciouness/awareness is indepenpent of thinking and thoughts, i.e. the creation of mental images.
This might take some time. I don't know you in person or enough from our exchanges in TPF. But I'm sure you can have this experience! — Alkis Piskas
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.