Statement about consciousness I saw in another forum

[Thomas Eshuis]

So, let's have this discussion UE.
What's your definition of concious and/or conciousness?

[Animavore]

Did UE just repost an earlier post or what's going on?

[Thomas Eshuis]

Don't see that he did?

[Animavore]

Yep, he did.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/philo ... l#p2222439

That's fine. At least I know there isn't some neurological damage affecting my brain activity.

[UndercoverElephant]

So, let's have this discussion UE.
What's your definition of concious and/or conciousness?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."

That will do nicely.

[Thomas Eshuis]

So, let's have this discussion UE.
What's your definition of concious and/or conciousness?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."

That will do nicely.

And it is your contention that this is an independent, immaterial thing?

[UndercoverElephant]

So, let's have this discussion UE.
What's your definition of concious and/or conciousness?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."

That will do nicely.

And it is your contention that this is an independent, immaterial thing?

Does it say anywhere in that definition that it is a material thing or an immaterial thing? No.

We have a definition of consciousness. You asked for one, and I supplied it (by going straight to wikipedia).

In order to answer any questions about how this thing is related to material things (including whether or not it is "immaterial") we also need a definition of "material" or "material thing" or "material world", etc...

Without that definition of "material", we don't even know what those questions mean. We don't know what we are asking, or being asked.

So when you say "material" or "material thing" or "material world" (or "physical"), what, exactly, do you mean? What is the definition?

[Thomas Eshuis]

So, let's have this discussion UE.
What's your definition of concious and/or conciousness?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness

Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is.[As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives."

That will do nicely.

And it is your contention that this is an independent, immaterial thing?

Does it say anywhere in that definition that it is a material thing or an immaterial thing? No.

That's why I'm asking, because you're arguments earlier in the thread gave the impression you were leaning that way.

We have a definition of consciousness. You asked for one, and I supplied it (by going straight to wikipedia).

In order to answer any questions about how this thing is related to material things (including whether or not it is "immaterial") we also need a definition of "material" or "material thing" or "material world", etc...

Without that definition of "material", we don't even know what those questions mean. We don't know what we are asking, or being asked.

So when you say "material" or "material thing" or "material world" (or "physical"), what, exactly, do you mean? What is the definition?

Where have I mentioned any of these things?
I've already said earlier in this thread (and others) that I'm not a materialist.

[pl0bs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness



That will do nicely.

And it is your contention that this is an independent, immaterial thing?

Does it say anywhere in that definition that it is a material thing or an immaterial thing? No.

That's why I'm asking, because you're arguments earlier in the thread gave the impression you were leaning that way.

We have a definition of consciousness. You asked for one, and I supplied it (by going straight to wikipedia).

In order to answer any questions about how this thing is related to material things (including whether or not it is "immaterial") we also need a definition of "material" or "material thing" or "material world", etc...

Without that definition of "material", we don't even know what those questions mean. We don't know what we are asking, or being asked.

So when you say "material" or "material thing" or "material world" (or "physical"), what, exactly, do you mean? What is the definition?

Where have I mentioned any of these things?

See the enlarged bit.

[UndercoverElephant]

Pl0bs is correct.

You asked for a definition of consciousness, I took the first paragraph from the wikipedia entry on that word, which did not include in the definition any mention of material or immaterial. This is important, because it means we are NOT begging the question. We are NOT including "it's material" or "it's immaterial" in the definition of consciousness.

You then asked me whether my contention was that consciousness is immaterial. "Immaterial" means "not material", we know what "not" means, so in order to know what your question means, we need to know what "material" means.

That's where you mentioned it.

[Thomas Eshuis]

And it is your contention that this is an independent, immaterial thing?

Does it say anywhere in that definition that it is a material thing or an immaterial thing? No.

That's why I'm asking, because you're arguments earlier in the thread gave the impression you were leaning that way.

We have a definition of consciousness. You asked for one, and I supplied it (by going straight to wikipedia).

In order to answer any questions about how this thing is related to material things (including whether or not it is "immaterial") we also need a definition of "material" or "material thing" or "material world", etc...

Without that definition of "material", we don't even know what those questions mean. We don't know what we are asking, or being asked.

So when you say "material" or "material thing" or "material world" (or "physical"), what, exactly, do you mean? What is the definition?

Where have I mentioned any of these things?

See the enlarged bit.

I know what I wrote, what's you point?

[Thomas Eshuis]

Pl0bs is correct.

Of course, that's what I wrote.
I asked you whether you were claiming that conciousness is an immaterial thing, because your posts seem to indicate that.
At no point did I make any claim about materialism myself or expressed support for either materialism or immaterialism.

You asked for a definition of consciousness, I took the first paragraph from the wikipedia entry on that word, which did not include in the definition any mention of material or immaterial. This is important, because it means we are NOT begging the question. We are NOT including "it's material" or "it's immaterial" in the definition of consciousness.

Okidoki.

You then asked me whether my contention was that consciousness is immaterial. "Immaterial" means "not material", we know what "not" means, so in order to know what your question means, we need to know what "material" means.

That's where you mentioned it.

I was asking whether that was your contention. It should be a simple question, do you or do you not claim it's immaterial.
We could always discuss what you understand/mean by immaterial, but that's not my question at that point.
But if I undertand your this post correctly, you do not define it as either?

[UndercoverElephant]

Pl0bs is correct.

Of course, that's what I wrote.
I asked you whether you were claiming that conciousness is an immaterial thing, because your posts seem to indicate that.

Do you think the word "immaterial" has got some sort of meaning other than "not material"? If you are asking questions using the word "immaterial", but can't/won't offer a definition of "material" then you do not even understand your own questions.

At no point did I make any claim about materialism myself or expressed support for either materialism or immaterialism.

You asked me for a definition of consciousness, which I provided. You then asked me whether I was also saying it was immaterial, at which point I asked you to define "material". You can define "immaterial" instead if you like, but if you can't or won't define either of them, then I have no idea what question you are asking, and you don't have any idea either.

I was asking whether that was your contention. It should be a simple question, do you or do you not claim it's immaterial.

Well, it might be a simple question if you were willing to tell us what you mean by "immaterial" (or "material" - either will do). But apparently you are not willing to tell us this, in which case the question is meaningless. Literally meaningless, because nobody knows what the most important word in the question actually means.

We could always discuss what you understand/mean by immaterial, but that's not my question at that point.

But it was you who used the word "immaterial" and asked a question about it, not me!

In which case it is what you mean by that word which matters. Or do you not know what it means?

But if I undertand your this post correctly, you do not define it as either?

You asked me for a definition of consciousness, and I quoted you the first paragraph of the wikipedia entry on that word. That paragraph did not involve the words "material" or "immaterial". Therefore the definition we are working with does not include any information about materiality or immateriality.

[Thomas Eshuis]

Pl0bs is correct.

Of course, that's what I wrote.
I asked you whether you were claiming that conciousness is an immaterial thing, because your posts seem to indicate that.

Do you think the word "immaterial" has got some sort of meaning other than "not material"? If you are asking questions using the word "immaterial", but can't/won't offer a definition of "material" then you do not even understand your own questions.

I'm trying to ascertain your position on the issue.
Given your statements like these:

Really?

A car alarm has "sensory data", yes? And it also "cognitively processes" that data, yes?

Do you think that means a car alarm is conscious? Can you really not tell the difference between conscious experiences - what it is like to be you - and the physical processes going on in your eyes, ears, nerves and brain?

Again, if that's the best answer the materialists can muster, then materialism is doomed. It's just an attempt to dismiss a very real problem as imaginary, and its on the level of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you."

Which seems to suggest you think materialism cannot account for conciousness. The only other two options are immaterial 'things' or I don't know. Hence why I asked if you hold the position that conciousness is an immaterial thing.
After which we could've discussed, if necesarry, what you mean by (im)material.

At no point did I make any claim about materialism myself or expressed support for either materialism or immaterialism.

You asked me for a definition of consciousness, which I provided. You then asked me whether I was also saying it was immaterial, at which point I asked you to define "material". You can define "immaterial" instead if you like, but if you can't or won't define either of them, then I have no idea what question you are asking, and you don't have any idea either.

Then you're saying you were talking nonsense when you made the above statement?
Again, I was under the impression that, given statements like the above, you might be claiming that concsiousness is immaterial.
Whatever you might mean by that.
If you're not, that's fine. If you are I would like to know what you mean by that, exactly.

I was asking whether that was your contention. It should be a simple question, do you or do you not claim it's immaterial.

Well, it might be a simple question if you were willing to tell us what you mean by "immaterial" (or "material" - either will do).

I'm not the one making the claim, if one of us is, that is.

But apparently you are not willing to tell us this,

Because I'm not making a claim.
If I were to make a claim, on any issue, I would define my terms, especially when asked to. Thing is, I'm not.

in which case the question is meaningless. Literally meaningless, because nobody knows what the most important word in the question actually means.

Nonsense. If you claim that X is not linear, it's perfectly meaningful to ask whether you claim it's non-linear. It matters fuck all, what my definition of linear or non-linear is.
What you mean by that, is relevant and we can always discuss that.
Again, if you're not claiming conciousness is immaterial, that's fine and I apologise for mistaking your position.

We could always discuss what you understand/mean by immaterial, but that's not my question at that point.

But it was you who used the word "immaterial" and asked a question about it, not me!

I asked a question about your position, not mine.
I asked whether you think it's immaterial, whatever you mean by that, or not.

In which case it is what you mean by that word which matters. Or do you not know what it means?

Nope, it's your definition that's important.
You are possibly making the claim, not me.
If I made a claim either way, then yes, my definition would be important, but I haven't.

But if I undertand your this post correctly, you do not define it as either?

You asked me for a definition of consciousness, and I quoted you the first paragraph of the wikipedia entry on that word.

Yes, you've repeatedly said that.

That paragraph did not involve the words "material" or "immaterial".

However, your other posts in this thread did, like the one I quote above.
Hence my question.

Therefore the definition we are working with does not include any information about materiality or immateriality.

I asked a question based on the context of your earlier posts in this thread.
If I've mistaken that context, fine, my apologies. But if not could you please adress that?

[pl0bs]

Why not just give your definition of "material"?
You asked him if consciousness is not material.
He cannot answer your question if you dont provide a definition.
It makes no difference if you are a materialist or not, you asked a question that cant be answered without a definition.
I can define what islam is (an evil ideology), and i sure dont have to be a muslim to so.

[UndercoverElephant]

Pl0bs is correct.

Of course, that's what I wrote.
I asked you whether you were claiming that conciousness is an immaterial thing, because your posts seem to indicate that.

Do you think the word "immaterial" has got some sort of meaning other than "not material"? If you are asking questions using the word "immaterial", but can't/won't offer a definition of "material" then you do not even understand your own questions.

I'm trying to ascertain your position on the issue.

My position on "this issue" (the one being addressed in the opening post of this thread) is that a lot of people who call themselves "materialists" or "skeptics" have an incoherent, logically inconsistent position on consciousness/materialism. That is what is being claimed in the opening post, and I tend to agree with this claim.

At no point during this thread (as far as I can remember) have I discussed my own beliefs about the ontological nature of reality. That is not what we are supposed to be discussing.

Given your statements like these:

Really?

A car alarm has "sensory data", yes? And it also "cognitively processes" that data, yes?

Do you think that means a car alarm is conscious? Can you really not tell the difference between conscious experiences - what it is like to be you - and the physical processes going on in your eyes, ears, nerves and brain?

Again, if that's the best answer the materialists can muster, then materialism is doomed. It's just an attempt to dismiss a very real problem as imaginary, and its on the level of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la, I can't hear you."

Which seems to suggest you think materialism cannot account for conciousness.

It suggests that I think that most materialists have an internally inconsistent belief system. I have stated my position on materialism and consciousness countless times:

Eliminative materialism is internally consistent, but bonkers. It's bonkers because it denies the existence of the one thing whose existence we can all be certain of, because we are directly aware of it. All other forms of materialism (those that acknowledge that consciousness exists) are internally inconsistent.

Again, I was under the impression that, given statements like the above, you might be claiming that concsiousness is immaterial.

I generally don't go around using words like "immaterial", and, as I keep explaining to you, my goal in this thread, right from the start, was to support the claim in the opening post, which contents that science/materialism can't account for consciousness.

YOU are setting up a dichotomy between material and immaterial. You just assume everybody knows what "material" means and that the material world exists. Given the nature of the topic being discussed, we can't just make assumptions like that. We need to make clear exactly what is meant by "material", and in the opening post this means "external", as in "external to my mind". By that, it is implying that the material world you are directly aware of - the one that exists "inside your consciousness", is not the real material world. That "inside" world - the "internal" world" - is an indirect representation of the real, external material world. The material world is external, and we are never directly aware of it. We might come up with arguments as to why it must exist, but we don't know it directly.

And to be clear: the above is derived from the opening post, not my own beliefs about anything.

in which case the question is meaningless. Literally meaningless, because nobody knows what the most important word in the question actually means.

Nonsense. If you claim that X is not linear, it's perfectly meaningful to ask whether you claim it's non-linear.

Yes, but I didn't claim anything about X being non-linear, did I?

Again, if you're not claiming conciousness is immaterial, that's fine and I apologise for mistaking your position.

Apology accepted. However, I suspect you are now going to assume I believe the opposite, and I didn't say that either.

Perhaps to make this easier for you, here are three things I am NOT: I am NOT a materialist, I am NOT a dualist and I am NOT an idealist. I think that all three of these positions are derived from Cartesian Dualism, which was a mistake. I think Cartesian Dualism (invented by Descartes) was wrong, and that most (if not all) forms of materialsm and idealism are just one half of Descartes' system with the other half crudely chopped off. They're all wrong. What is right is either the claim that all metaphysical/ontological systems are flawed (i.e. we are incapable of coming up with an accurate representation of the way reality is in itself) or some system not derived from Cartesian dualism is the correct one (and we haven't even discussed any of those). The question "Do you think consciousness is immaterial?" already implies we're somewhere on that Cartesian-influenced thing. I don't go around making statements like "Consciousness is immaterial" precisely because I don't want to get mixed up in somebody-else's mistaken assumptions.

In which case it is what you mean by that word which matters. Or do you not know what it means?

Nope, it's your definition that's important.

Nope. It's the way the words are used in the opening post that are important.

[GrahamH]

Pl0bs is correct.

Of course, that's what I wrote.
I asked you whether you were claiming that conciousness is an immaterial thing, because your posts seem to indicate that.

Do you think the word "immaterial" has got some sort of meaning other than "not material"? If you are asking questions using the word "immaterial", but can't/won't offer a definition of "material" then you do not even understand your own questions.

There is no need for a definition of what material really is. For this discussion it will suffice to say that brains are material objects and consider if the functions of brains might account for consciousness. Could things that evoke phenomena / self experience constitute the means of phenomena / self?
I take your position to be an emphatic 'NO'.

[GrahamH]

Eliminative materialism is internally consistent, but bonkers. It's bonkers because it denies the existence of the one thing whose existence we can all be certain of, because we are directly aware of it.

But we are not directly aware of it, it is awareness of experiences, not consciousness itself,nor any clue as to what it is or how it works. As for 'directly aware', how do you know it is direct?

[UndercoverElephant]

Pl0bs is correct.

Of course, that's what I wrote.
I asked you whether you were claiming that conciousness is an immaterial thing, because your posts seem to indicate that.

Do you think the word "immaterial" has got some sort of meaning other than "not material"? If you are asking questions using the word "immaterial", but can't/won't offer a definition of "material" then you do not even understand your own questions.

There is no need for a definition of what material really is. For this discussion it will suffice to say that brains are material objects and consider if the functions of brains might account for consciousness. Could things that evoke phenomena / self experience constitute the means of phenomena / self?
I take your position to be an emphatic 'NO'.

Yes, my position on that would be that I can't see how that is possible. In fact, I don't think I even understand the precise meaning of your question, so my answer is either "no", or "the question doesn't make sense." It certainly isn't "yes."

[Animavore]

Eliminative materialism is internally consistent, but bonkers. It's bonkers because it denies the existence of the one thing whose existence we can all be certain of, because we are directly aware of it. All other forms of materialism (those that acknowledge that consciousness exists) are internally inconsistent.

According to Wiki...

Eliminative materialism (also called eliminativism) is a materialist position in the philosophy of mind. Its primary claim is that people's common-sense understanding of the mind (or folk psychology) is false and that certain classes of mental states that most people believe in do not exist. Some eliminativists argue that no coherent neural basis will be found for many everyday psychological concepts such as belief or desire, since they are poorly defined. Rather, they argue that psychological concepts of behaviour and experience should be judged by how well they reduce to the biological level.Other versions entail the non-existence of conscious mental states such as pain and visual perceptions.

Nothing here denies that consciousness exists. It only states that people's common-sense (intuitive) understaning of the mind is wrong.

I don't find anything bonkers about this. Our intuitive sense about loads of things has proven to be wrong. In fact, you can practically say the whole endevour of science so far has been knocking down one common-sense intuition at a time.