The Material?

[Legion]

I'm not the resident Rosenite.

Hey! I represent that comment!

[Shyone]

... immediately after a subject is dead is there really a physical difference between life and death?

I've thought this kind of question points out some important things. Say that one moment an organism is alive and the next it is dead. What has changed? I think in many cases there has been little, if any, material change. But the organization associated with life has ceased to exist.

This is where organizational theories fail.

 

The organization is still there too - at least for a while, but there is something different - something missing.

 

It is the function of the system that is missing. Function is one step beyond organization and needs the dimension of time to describe it.

 

We see this in nonnatural systems all the time. A factory makes widgets. If the demand for widgets evaporates, you will still have everything you need to make widgets, but the lack of demand is like the absence of oxygen or hydrocarbon food for animal systems. The factory stops, no supplies are ordered, the machinery stops, there is no electricity (because no one pays for it), no incoming raw materials, etc.

 

But the order remains - for a while.

 

Actually, that's a pretty good analogy. The machinery stops dead. Can a factory be brought "back to life" if demand suddenly starts again? It would depend on how long the machinery has been stopped. If the machinery has rusted, the building crumbled, the people that worked there gone to other jobs or left town, then no, a factory can't always be brought back. Same with people who have aspirated a chunk of food. If the oxygen can be restored in time, before the decay that happens rather quickly after O2 is deprived, then a person can be "brought back to life."

 

Sorry if this seems simplistic, and I don't mean to use this for an extended analogy, but systems that are functioning are indeed different from systems that have lost essential elements necessary for the function of the system.

[Legion]

It is the function of the system that is missing. Function is one step beyond organization and needs the dimension of time to describe it.

Function and organization are intimately intwined concepts. In addition function and efficient cause are also intimately linked.

 

The machinery stops dead.

I think the organism/machine metaphor is probably misguided. We can look towards efficient cause again. When we inquire into the efficient causes of a machine's components we invariably are given answers which are outside the machine. We know that carburetors are made in a factory far away, not by the car itself.

[PaulQ]

Which is a huge limitation! Hardly an "only", as you put it! Exactly my point. But I hear the belief you think will overcome these limitations, and furthermore, implied in that, it seems to me, using the current paradigms we use in science. I do not share your faith in this regard. Just as we have grown from one system of approach to another, I believe we will continue that trend, replacing one paradigm for another. You believe, it seems, like each new level of viewing the world, that we hold the keys to understanding. Each level believes this, and each level moved beyond to some new opening in the sky, "so to speak".

 

My so-called "Faith" is actually based on a pretty reliable track record. Our knowledge has already grown by leaps and bounds well beyond human comprehension. Oh, sure, we all think we know what nuclear power means, we believe we understand what e=mc^2 means, then we think we understand atomic structure...then we turn around and talk about the double helix like it's common knowledge as we get our X-rays done at the dentist, MRI done at the doctors, and send immense amounts of data through the air over networks. We can now see and hear that which is normally invisible to us. We take it all for granted, but none of us walks around with that knowledge in our heads. We carry around a reductionist version of all these things, which is adequate for us to at least know what to look for when we need more information.

 

While I don't believe our species will exist long enough to discover and learn everything about the universe, we will certainly learn everything we need to know about the universe. Also, I'm certain that we will continue to use current reductionist methods because of the inherent limitations of the human mind. It's already gotten us this far, and continues to deliver amazing results. If anything changes at all, it will be with the inclusion of artificial intelligence. As we continue to reverse engineer nature, I wouldn't bet against this inevitability: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10017283-71.html

[PaulQ]

This may sound silly, but I think we'll understand life better if we could find life on another planet.

 

We're already doing just that; except there's a moon that looks more promising:

 

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Have_We_Discovered_Evidence_For_Life_On_Titan_999.html

 

I personally expect that life will exist there, and the nature of it will present more questions than answers.

 

I sometimes try to envision life elsewhere - another planet, interstellar space, in the center of a star - and I wonder how I would recognize that it is alive. It's pretty easy on this planet because we are familiar with the nature we see around us. I can say, for example, that a cloud is not a being, not alive, but the reason I know this has to do with a lot of understanding of the nature of the atmosphere, water vapor, "behavior" of clouds, etc. OTOH, in one sense, I'm being a bit arbitrary, but since we can't see anything that clouds do that suggests behavior that is not strictly determined by exterior forces, I think it's the correct decision.

 

Some have suggested that fire is a form of life. It breathes, moves, consumes, reproduces, etc. The production of energy in our bodies has been likened to fire - consumption of organic molecules, production of CO2, heat and energy. The major difference, aside from the predictability of fire, seems to be that there has been no continuous lineage of fire but instead short-lived and limited fires that occur independently of one another. OTOH, one could argue that the universe has a "tendency" to produce fire, and perhaps the organic material is only the means by which fires exist.

 

What we could recognize would be something with a similar basis in chemistry to our own chemistry. But that might severely limit our ability to tell if something is alive or not.

 

I think that, at this point, we need to acknowledge the different types of life; what I like to categorize as "Conscious" life, and "Unconscious" life. Part of our own life is unconscious; our limbs grow with no conscious thought from us, not unlike how the limbs on a tree grow. The yeast that turns the sugar in my grape juice into wine always does this without fail, given the right conditions; sure as oxygen and hydrogen molecules bond to create water. Does a house fly know, or does it simply react? I believe it's the latter. We can already create robots that react to stimuli, so I contend that we're already at the level where we could create a mechanical housefly with similar intelligence.

 

Then there's the notion I think you brought up in another post about thoughts existing within a mechanical computer-like framework. I agree with this, and see it as potentially the next step in human evolution. The one thing that concerns me is the fact that such a discovery might reveal that we're not really all that different from each other; that, for the most part, our minds are like different trees of the same species. Sure, the network of branches and roots may take slightly different paths, but overall doing the same thing.

 

Consider what it would be like to exist as a mechanical mind. Many of the things that form the very essence of our existence would be gone. Perhaps it might be a good thing, allowing the consciousness to exist at a higher level. Then again, perhaps it would be a bad thing; might the consciousness go mad? To exist disembodied as just consciousness isn't something I think would be desirable. I believe that's why, when we develop artificial intelligence, it won't be intelligence like our own, which is based on our biological needs. Instead, it would be an extension of our own consciousness.

[Shyone]

It is the function of the system that is missing. Function is one step beyond organization and needs the dimension of time to describe it.

Function and organization are intimately intwined concepts. In addition function and efficient cause are also intimately linked.

 

The machinery stops dead.

I think the organism/machine metaphor is probably misguided. We can look towards efficient cause again. When we inquire into the efficient causes of a machine's components we invariably are given answers which are outside the machine. We know that carburetors are made in a factory far away, not by the car itself.

Of course the two concepts are entertwined. Just as organization and material are. My claim that you are overlooking function is as silly as you claiming that I ignore organization.

 

I seriously think that if you look closely enough at a natural system, say a human, you will find a boatload of causes external to the organism.

 

1. DNA from parents

2. Food from whatever

3. Water

4. Education

5. Motivation (I work to make money from an external source to pay for #2 and #3, and I do stuff to impress my wife so she will reward me - externally).

6. Sunshine (for Vitamin D)

7. I'll leave 7-100 blank. Feel free to complete at your leisure.

 

We even have to consider that our very emotions may be driven by causes we have no control over - such as an evolutionary drive to breathe (add O2 to the list) and make love - reproduce. I consider instinct and evolutionary and hormonal influences to be external.

 

Nature AND nurture are both external.

 

Incidentally, consider the products of the factories contributing to the manufacture of something as similar to the food that we eat or the air that we breathe.

 

Why pretend that we are completely independent of everything when in fact we are not at all self-caused?

[PaulQ]

 

2. Food from whatever

 

 

The food itself is a very important aspect in this position, on a number of levels. Without it, we would not exist. We do not process raw minerals and energy, but rather require these to be processed to one extent or another. Even a raw fruit or vegetable has had to process energy, water, and mineral to produce a nutrition-filled snack, which often has to be imported from some other place to our table.

 

People often regard fuel as simply "Fuel," much like gasoline is for a car or electricity is for an appliance; however, the food we eat is much more than that. Food contains the basic building blocks that makes us who we are. We need a reasonably constant supply of very specific nutrients for us to grow into healthy adults, as well as to continue life throughout adulthood. It is the energy and the raw material for the factory of the body.

 

It's only natural that we would be much like a factory, because the things we build, including factories, are built in such a way as to mimic what we see in the natural world. Factories are extensions of ourselves, and so are a reflection of a part of ourselves. It's entirely possible that we did not intend to mimic anything; that factories evolved over time to work in this fashion because it happens to be a system that works.

[Legion]

Shyone it sounds like you have it all figured out. I am no longer interested in this "discussion" with you. Your every word seems to drip with contempt. You are normally a fairly amiable guy, but you seem very closed minded about this subject.

[Shyone]

Shyone it sounds like you have it all figured out. I am no longer interested in this "discussion" with you. Your every word seems to drip with contempt. You are normally a fairly amiable guy, but you seem very closed minded about this subject.

Maybe I misunderstood how you wanted to debate. Is it like Jeopardy? I should maybe present my answers in the form of a question?

 

Can you explain why external inputs are not considered when speaking of "closed loop causation"?

 

I gave examples of why I think that humans, in particular, are subject to many external influences that affect thought processes, and I only touched on this briefly. What am I missing?

[Rev R]

If I may interrupt for a moment with a question.

 

Legion,

 

Exactly what is it you think is missing here?

[Shyone]

This may sound silly, but I think we'll understand life better if we could find life on another planet.

 

We're already doing just that; except there's a moon that looks more promising:

 

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Have_We_Discovered_Evidence_For_Life_On_Titan_999.html

 

I personally expect that life will exist there, and the nature of it will present more questions than answers.

 

I sometimes try to envision life elsewhere - another planet, interstellar space, in the center of a star - and I wonder how I would recognize that it is alive. It's pretty easy on this planet because we are familiar with the nature we see around us. I can say, for example, that a cloud is not a being, not alive, but the reason I know this has to do with a lot of understanding of the nature of the atmosphere, water vapor, "behavior" of clouds, etc. OTOH, in one sense, I'm being a bit arbitrary, but since we can't see anything that clouds do that suggests behavior that is not strictly determined by exterior forces, I think it's the correct decision.

 

Some have suggested that fire is a form of life. It breathes, moves, consumes, reproduces, etc. The production of energy in our bodies has been likened to fire - consumption of organic molecules, production of CO2, heat and energy. The major difference, aside from the predictability of fire, seems to be that there has been no continuous lineage of fire but instead short-lived and limited fires that occur independently of one another. OTOH, one could argue that the universe has a "tendency" to produce fire, and perhaps the organic material is only the means by which fires exist.

 

What we could recognize would be something with a similar basis in chemistry to our own chemistry. But that might severely limit our ability to tell if something is alive or not.

 

I think that, at this point, we need to acknowledge the different types of life; what I like to categorize as "Conscious" life, and "Unconscious" life. Part of our own life is unconscious; our limbs grow with no conscious thought from us, not unlike how the limbs on a tree grow. The yeast that turns the sugar in my grape juice into wine always does this without fail, given the right conditions; sure as oxygen and hydrogen molecules bond to create water. Does a house fly know, or does it simply react? I believe it's the latter. We can already create robots that react to stimuli, so I contend that we're already at the level where we could create a mechanical housefly with similar intelligence.

 

Then there's the notion I think you brought up in another post about thoughts existing within a mechanical computer-like framework. I agree with this, and see it as potentially the next step in human evolution. The one thing that concerns me is the fact that such a discovery might reveal that we're not really all that different from each other; that, for the most part, our minds are like different trees of the same species. Sure, the network of branches and roots may take slightly different paths, but overall doing the same thing.

 

Consider what it would be like to exist as a mechanical mind. Many of the things that form the very essence of our existence would be gone. Perhaps it might be a good thing, allowing the consciousness to exist at a higher level. Then again, perhaps it would be a bad thing; might the consciousness go mad? To exist disembodied as just consciousness isn't something I think would be desirable. I believe that's why, when we develop artificial intelligence, it won't be intelligence like our own, which is based on our biological needs. Instead, it would be an extension of our own consciousness.

+1

 

I like the way you think. erm, compute.

 

But, then, I'm just reacting to your post.

[Legion]

Legion,

 

Exactly what is it you think is missing here?

Missing from what? Missing from philosophical materialism?

[Rev R]

Missing from what? Missing from philosophical materialism?

 

If you care to answer that specific question, sure.

 

But what I meant could probably be better phrased as "what is it that you are looking for (or have possibly found in the ideas of Rosen) that causes so much resistance to the idea of philosophical materialism?"

 

(which reminds me that Shy gave a very practical and succinct explanation of the idea of anatman so I will have to come back and steal it)

[Legion]

Missing from what? Missing from philosophical materialism?

 

If you care to answer that specific question, sure.

 

But what I meant could probably be better phrased as "what is it that you are looking for (or have possibly found in the ideas of Rosen) that causes so much resistance to the idea of philosophical materialism?"

Roughly 20 years ago I set out to understand life and mind. For many years I operated under the unacknowledged assumption that reductionism or materialism would be sufficient languages within which to understand these things. But now I have grave and serious doubts that life or mind will be explicitly comprehendable within these frameworks. I would very much like to save those who seek to understand life and mind the time of pursuing dead ends. However my doubts are mostly based on intuition and intuitions are often difficult to express rigorously.

[PaulQ]

Just over a decade ago, I had to go for surgery. As they were going to cut my face open, I was put out for the procedure. They put the mask over my nose and mouth, and encouraged me to breath deeply while I counted backwards. I can't remember what number I managed to get to, but I didn't get to 1.

 

The next thing I remember was waking up with a swollen face with stitches. I was apparently out for over two hours. I had no recollection of that time; as far as I was concerned, I closed my eyes momentarily, then opened them again. This troubled me, because up until that moment, I was convinced of a consciousness existing beyond the physical; that the brain was indeed like a "Radio" tuning in a signal. If that were so, I should have known something of the time that passed during that surgery. Instead, it was as though I was switched "Off," and then turned back "On" again.

 

I had come to realize that, with the use of drugs, my brain activity was shut down; at least the higher brain activity was. The reason why I had no recollection of that time was because my consciousness did not exist during those two hours. My brain was like a generator that had been shut down and then started back up again; my mind being the product of that generator. Anyone could have done anything they wanted to me, and I would not have cared. The concept of the non-existence of my consciousness became very real. It was then that I realized that death would probably be exactly like that: Simply not existing. The experience really wasn't that bad. It wasn't that good, either. In fact, it was nothing; it was exactly like the time before I was born.

[Legion]

... I was convinced of a consciousness existing beyond the physical...

I've never held this position, nor do I now. That's the most frustrating part about these kinds of discussions. People often assume that if I do not embrace mechanistic or reductionistic or materialistic stances about the nature of life and mind that I must be espousing some form of vitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think that life and mind are just as natural as anything else.

[Antlerman]

I was convinced of a consciousness existing beyond the physical; that the brain was indeed like a "Radio" tuning in a signal. If that were so, I should have known something of the time that passed during that surgery. Instead, it was as though I was switched "Off," and then turned back "On" again.

And rather than assuming your understanding was insufficient, you made a binary decision: It exists (as I understand it), or it doesn't exist at all, period. Not very scientific of you.

 

Like LR, I find these sorts of discussions frustrating because as I said at the outset, always and ever it comes to the materialist saying consciousness=human thought, human cognition. "If I'm not thinking, I am not a conscious being." Oh but you were!

 

Your body was still working. Your cells still "knew" what to do. All your parts were functioning, active, etc. Only your cognitive thought processes were in sleep-mode. They were shut off, suppressed, but not dead. Human thought, reasoning, pondering, frameworks of language, etc, are not the definition of consciousness, but manifestations of depth, or 'consciousness'. A dog is conscious, but doesn't reason like a human. A plant is aware, but not a thinker like a person. You can say, "A plant is not conscious!", but you are equating all consciousness with your reasoning, your thinking, your congnitions. "If it's not this as I define it, then it doesn't exist, and any talk of it is nonsense!" That is the source of the problem with all these discussions.

 

Yes, if consciousness equals human thought, then of course, humans would be the only conscious organism (or matter) that there is. But that is highly anthrocentric and limiting in understanding. Furthermore, any criteria that cognitive thought will continue after death is not valid criteria for judging the validity of consciousness itself. Yes, when you were under anesthesia you were unaware of your own thoughts or your own environment. But this does not mean that you did not exist. Mind, offers a deeper level of consciousness, and when the brain functions are impaired, that depth is decreased, but not eradicated.

 

So long as you are anything at all, there is depth to one level or another. And that depth is consciousness. Whether that is a human, an ape, a monkey, a dog, a rat, a worm, a cell, a molecule, or an atom itself. In no way would I argue that an atom has thought that is in anyway comparable to a human, just as I wouldn't that a rat does, or even our closest relatives in the primate world. But I would argue and do argue that each has increasing level of interior depth. And that interior depth, is how I define what consciousness, or what we call that, is. Our thoughts, our congnitions are manifestations of that interior depth. Just as the machines or our bodies are more complex manifestations of the material world.

 

That depth exists all the way up that ladder of evolution, with increasing depth with increasing complexity, and all the way down to the simplest and most fundamental form with the shallowest and least defined interior depth. And furthermore, that depth is not a product of the machine, but evolves with it as part of it. It is not the caboose following the engine of the machine, but the product of evolution itself as integral aspects of the whole. This is why I say that, for one of many examples, our interior world of thought as humans will and does profoundly impact our biological, our exterior machine's evolution. The are two-halves of the whole.

 

You can equate consciousness with human cognition if you wish, then shoot down any notion of consciousness behind the human brain, and any discussions surrounding that aspect of our being (of all being), but to be sure it is a strawman argument of convenience. And it constantly comes back to that strawman definition in discussions like these. It is my argument that our definitions of how the world looks, will profoundly limit or liberate our understanding and profoundly impact the experience of that depth of life we can enjoy and evolve towards, as much as breaking free from the limits placed on the mind through systems of myth. Systems of Materialism (not as a tool of science, but as a life philosophy) are just a limiting, slicing off one-half of understanding being. The only truth is material truth, not existential truth beyond rationality - not irrational, but "transrational". There is an interior to the machine, and it is there where the thought emerges, that views, and that we in our systems of thought define as "you" or "me". The world of 'thought' beyond that, sees no you nor me. But it not in some mythical heaven beyond the universe, but as an apprehension of interior depth integral in the universe. But of course, that's just so much nonsense. There is only the material.

 

Slice off hunks of my brain, take away my personality, make me a vegetable doing nothing better than drooling in a hospital bed and staring blindly off at the curtains. It is still a manifestation of consciousness. Remove the brain altogether and make it nothing more than a living nervous system. It is still a manifestation of what we at some point recognize as consciousness. It is still the same essence, just with less depth, lacking the evolution of a brain and conscious mind. Mind is a level of consciousness. Take away mind and you do not destroy consciousness, anymore than taking away the body destroys matter. Consciousness can be understood to be the interior of all matter, its interior. Interior, not in the sense of matter floating about inside the cell, but its being-ness. And it does not at all mean it "thinks", and reasons, or has any such cognitive awareness. But all those are expressions of manifestations of that.

 

I agree very much with LR about the intuitive. This interior world is not something that using the tools of reductionist science can talk about. It is a largely hermeneutic space, a world of experience and interpretation. However, it still can follow rules of validation. It is not just a world of unbridled emotionalism which some may level at it (another strawman argument). It has confirmations, it has truths. But it no more can be approached with a scalpel to be examined in a lab to understand or fathom it, than using intuition alone grants you access to knowledge of the material world. Both are needed. Both are necessary.

[PaulQ]

And rather than assuming your understanding was insufficient, you made a binary decision: It exists (as I understand it), or it doesn't exist at all, period. Not very scientific of you.

 

On the contrary; rather than assuming that consciousness existed beyond the physical (as many people do), I accepted the evidence of my experience.

 

Like LR, I find these sorts of discussions frustrating because as I said at the outset, always and ever it comes to the materialist saying consciousness=human thought, human cognition. "If I'm not thinking, I am not a conscious being." Oh but you were!

 

Prior to the surgery, I was a conscious being. During the surgery, I was merely the potential for consciousness. After the surgery, the potential was realized. Potential isn't consciousness; otherwise, I would have had some recollection of the event.

 

Your body was still working. Your cells still "knew" what to do. All your parts were functioning, active, etc. Only your cognitive thought processes were in sleep-mode. They were shut off, suppressed, but not dead.

 

I do not dispute that my body was still alive; however, my consciousness, for that moment in time, did not exist - only the potential for consciousness existed.

 

Human thought, reasoning, pondering, frameworks of language, etc, are not the definition of consciousness, but manifestations of depth, or 'consciousness'. A dog is conscious, but doesn't reason like a human. A plant is aware, but not a thinker like a person. You can say, "A plant is not conscious!", but you are equating all consciousness with your reasoning, your thinking, your congnitions. "If it's not this as I define it, then it doesn't exist, and any talk of it is nonsense!" That is the source of the problem with all these discussions.

 

Actually, the term consciousness is pretty well defined:

 

con·scious·ness   [kon-shuhs-nis] Show IPA

–noun

1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.

3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.

4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.

5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.

6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.

7. Philosophy . the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.

 

I think that pretty much nails it.

 

Yes, if consciousness equals human thought, then of course, humans would be the only conscious organism (or matter) that there is. But that is highly anthrocentric and limiting in understanding. Furthermore, any criteria that cognitive thought will continue after death is not valid criteria for judging the validity of consciousness itself. Yes, when you were under anesthesia you were unaware of your own thoughts or your own environment. But this does not mean that you did not exist. Mind, offers a deeper level of consciousness, and when the brain functions are impaired, that depth is decreased, but not eradicated.

 

Your lack of clarity of definition does not invalidate the definition of consciousness.

 

So long as you are anything at all, there is depth to one level or another. And that depth is consciousness. Whether that is a human, an ape, a monkey, a dog, a rat, a worm, a cell, a molecule, or an atom itself. In no way would I argue that an atom has thought that is in anyway comparable to a human, just as I wouldn't that a rat does, or even our closest relatives in the primate world. But I would argue and do argue that each has increasing level of interior depth. And that interior depth, is how I define what consciousness, or what we call that, is. Our thoughts, our congnitions are manifestations of that interior depth. Just as the machines or our bodies are more complex manifestations of the material world.

 

It sounds as though you're attempting to blur the definition of consciousness with life. While I agree there likely exists varying levels of consciousness, I think it's pretty clear at which point I can define where my own consciousness starts and ends.

 

That depth exists all the way up that ladder of evolution, with increasing depth with increasing complexity, and all the way down to the simplest and most fundamental form with the shallowest and least defined interior depth. And furthermore, that depth is not a product of the machine, but evolves with it as part of it. It is not the caboose following the engine of the machine, but the product of evolution itself as integral aspects of the whole. This is why I say that, for one of many examples, our interior world of thought as humans will and does profoundly impact our biological, our exterior machine's evolution. The are two-halves of the whole.

 

Your assertions have no basis on which to establish your claim. Mine are based on observable experience.

 

Consider the Donald Duck picture hanging in my bedroom as a child. At night, I used to stare at it until Donald appeared to walk. Clearly, my mind was tricking me; but my contention that the Donald Duck in the picture had as much basis in truth as the argument you present.

[Antlerman]

And rather than assuming your understanding was insufficient, you made a binary decision: It exists (as I understand it), or it doesn't exist at all, period. Not very scientific of you.

 

On the contrary; rather than assuming that consciousness existed beyond the physical (as many people do), I accepted the evidence of my experience.

But that's not what you said. You started with a preconception, and when it didn't meet that preconception, you pendulum swung.

 

Here's what you said:

 

"I was convinced of a consciousness existing beyond the physical; that the brain was indeed like a "Radio" tuning in a signal. If that were so, I should have known something of the time that passed during that surgery. Instead, it was as though I was switched "Off," and then turned back "On" again."

 

That sort of stands in contrast to your claim above that you weren't assuming anything at all, but just let the evidence speak to you. Painting a self-portrait on the fly? I see this as a reactionary response, not a rational one.

 

Like LR, I find these sorts of discussions frustrating because as I said at the outset, always and ever it comes to the materialist saying consciousness=human thought, human cognition. "If I'm not thinking, I am not a conscious being." Oh but you were!

 

Prior to the surgery, I was a conscious being. During the surgery, I was merely the potential for consciousness. After the surgery, the potential was realized. Potential isn't consciousness; otherwise, I would have had some recollection of the event.

This is just restating your beliefs. You believe consciousness equals your cognitive thoughts. I already addressed this in my response.

 

Your body was still working. Your cells still "knew" what to do. All your parts were functioning, active, etc. Only your cognitive thought processes were in sleep-mode. They were shut off, suppressed, but not dead.

 

I do not dispute that my body was still alive; however, my consciousness, for that moment in time, did not exist - only the potential for consciousness existed.

Potential for it? Or limited realization of it? There is a difference. You believe it can pop in and out of existence. I do not. I believe it to be an integral part of all that is. However we experience it, that is what will vary. It would be like saying while you were unaware of your body, your cells ceased to exist, but once your mind woke up they came back into being.

 

Human thought, reasoning, pondering, frameworks of language, etc, are not the definition of consciousness, but manifestations of depth, or 'consciousness'. A dog is conscious, but doesn't reason like a human. A plant is aware, but not a thinker like a person. You can say, "A plant is not conscious!", but you are equating all consciousness with your reasoning, your thinking, your congnitions. "If it's not this as I define it, then it doesn't exist, and any talk of it is nonsense!" That is the source of the problem with all these discussions.

 

Actually, the term consciousness is pretty well defined:

 

con·scious·ness   [kon-shuhs-nis] Show IPA

–noun

1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2. the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people: the moral consciousness of a nation.

3. full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life: to regain consciousness after fainting.

4. awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge: consciousness of wrongdoing.

5. concern, interest, or acute awareness: class consciousness.

6. the mental activity of which a person is aware as contrasted with unconscious mental processes.

7. Philosophy . the mind or the mental faculties as characterized by thought, feelings, and volition.

 

I think that pretty much nails it.

I'm happy that works for you. It doesn't for me, or a host of other thinkers. Just to show it's not so conveniently simple, I'll be lazy and quote a brief summary from Wiki on Consciousness:

 

 

Consciousness in medicine (e.g., anesthesiology) is assessed by observing a patient's alertness and responsiveness, and can be seen as a continuum of states ranging from alert, oriented to time and place, and communicative, through disorientation, then delirium, then loss of any meaningful communication, and ending with loss of movement in response to painful stimulation.[5]

 

Consciousness in psychology and philosophy has four characteristics: subjectivity, change, continuity and selectivity.[1][6] Philosopher Franz Brentano has suggested intentionality or aboutness (that consciousness is about something). However, within the philosophy of mind there is no consensus on whether intentionality is a requirement for consciousness.[7]

 

Consciousness is the subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Issues of practical concern include how the presence of consciousness can be assessed in severely ill or comatose people;[8] whether non-human consciousness exists and if so how it can be measured; at what point in fetal development consciousness begins; and whether computers can achieve a conscious state.

 

<snip>

 

Phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness) is simply experience; it is moving, colored forms, sounds, sensations, emotions and feelings with our bodies and responses at the center. These experiences, considered independently of any impact on behavior, are called qualia. The hard problem of consciousness, formulated by David Chalmers in 1996, deals with the issue of "how to explain a state of phenomenal consciousness in terms of its neurological basis".[14]

 

Access consciousness (A-consciousness) is the phenomenon whereby information in our minds is accessible for verbal report, reasoning, and the control of behavior. So, when we perceive, information about what we perceive is often access conscious; when we introspect, information about our thoughts is access conscious; when we remember, information about the past (e.g., something that we learned) is often access conscious, and so on. Chalmers thinks that access consciousness is less mysterious than phenomenal consciousness, so that it is held to pose one of the easy problems of consciousness. Daniel Dennett denies that there is a "hard problem", asserting that the totality of consciousness can be understood in terms of impact on behavior, as studied through heterophenomenology. There have been numerous approaches to the processes that act on conscious experience from instant to instant. Dennett suggests that what people think of as phenomenal consciousness, such as qualia, are judgments and consequent behavior.[15] He extends this analysis by arguing that phenomenal consciousness can be explained in terms of access consciousness, denying the existence of qualia, hence denying the existence of a "hard problem."[15] Chalmers, on the other hand, argues that Dennett's explanatory processes merely address aspects of the easy problem. Eccles and others have pointed out the difficulty of explaining the evolution of qualia, or of 'minds', which experience them, given that all the processes governing evolution are physical and so have no direct access to them. There is no guarantee that all people have minds, nor any way to verify whether one does or does not possess one.

 

Events that occur in the mind or brain that are not within phenomenal or access consciousness are known as subconscious events.

 

And on, and on, and on the definitions and search for understanding go... way, way beyond your simple dictionary definition! In the above, you narrowly define it as the medical definition. But again the point, is you say, "I think that pretty much nails it." I don't think so. That seems a wishful thought on your part.

[Antlerman]

Yes, if consciousness equals human thought, then of course, humans would be the only conscious organism (or matter) that there is. But that is highly anthrocentric and limiting in understanding. Furthermore, any criteria that cognitive thought will continue after death is not valid criteria for judging the validity of consciousness itself. Yes, when you were under anesthesia you were unaware of your own thoughts or your own environment. But this does not mean that you did not exist. Mind, offers a deeper level of consciousness, and when the brain functions are impaired, that depth is decreased, but not eradicated.

 

Your lack of clarity of definition does not invalidate the definition of consciousness.

I'm sorry it's not as clear as you'd like it to be. But it's not my definitions alone, but those of many others seeking to understanding something that not so simplistic as to reduce everything to the material alone. And to those who understand these concepts I'm touching on, it's not unclear at all, but makes good sense. It's just not the Reductionist philosophy. It's doesn't fit well into that mode of perception.

 

 

So long as you are anything at all, there is depth to one level or another. And that depth is consciousness. Whether that is a human, an ape, a monkey, a dog, a rat, a worm, a cell, a molecule, or an atom itself. In no way would I argue that an atom has thought that is in anyway comparable to a human, just as I wouldn't that a rat does, or even our closest relatives in the primate world. But I would argue and do argue that each has increasing level of interior depth. And that interior depth, is how I define what consciousness, or what we call that, is. Our thoughts, our congnitions are manifestations of that interior depth. Just as the machines or our bodies are more complex manifestations of the material world.

 

It sounds as though you're attempting to blur the definition of consciousness with life. While I agree there likely exists varying levels of consciousness, I think it's pretty clear at which point I can define where my own consciousness starts and ends.

Not blur, but to offer a way to understand that consciousness is an extension of something innate to the universe itself, not something that magically appears out of nothing. That sort of view of evolution is like the Creationist. And in what you say, that it suddenly and abruptly appears without foundation in nature, is Magical science. It's tantamount to Goddidit.

 

In my view, what you call consciousness, even using your dictionary as god's word on the subject, it is a deeper form of something present all the way down in nature - just like your body doesn't suddenly appear out of nothing, but is built up from atoms to molecules, to cells, to organs, to limbs, to brain, etc. Even using your narrow definition of consciousness, it is the interior space of 'being', evolved alongside with the material, part of you.

 

Does consciousness (or the fundamentals that our consciousness as humans is built upon) exist outside the body? Does matter exist without the body? But your form of matter does not, just as your form of consciousness does not. If you can't follow anything else, at least try to understand that.

 

That depth exists all the way up that ladder of evolution, with increasing depth with increasing complexity, and all the way down to the simplest and most fundamental form with the shallowest and least defined interior depth. And furthermore, that depth is not a product of the machine, but evolves with it as part of it. It is not the caboose following the engine of the machine, but the product of evolution itself as integral aspects of the whole. This is why I say that, for one of many examples, our interior world of thought as humans will and does profoundly impact our biological, our exterior machine's evolution. The are two-halves of the whole.

 

Your assertions have no basis on which to establish your claim. Mine are based on observable experience.

They don't? What do you think this entire discussion is about? What do you think systems theory begins to look at? Have you ever heard of Bio-cultural feedback? What about culture, sociology, psychology, consciousness studies, et al? All of this is based in all of that. There is plenty of basis for this.

 

Consider the Donald Duck picture hanging in my bedroom as a child. At night, I used to stare at it until Donald appeared to walk. Clearly, my mind was tricking me; but my contention that the Donald Duck in the picture had as much basis in truth as the argument you present.

That could be because you only can see Donald Duck in limited fashion. The difference is now you're seeing the Universe in probably the same way as you did as a child viewing your beloved duck-man. It appears as reality to you, just as your duck did to you then with a peculiar set of limited eyes.

 

 

A good friend of mine who graduated Bible school with me and likewise left Christianity said, "I'm so glad I have the truth now." I chided him saying "You said the same thing when we were back in Bible School." He responded, "But the difference is not I really DO have the truth!"

 

Perception. Now you really DO have the truth. You have evidence! (You did then too, recall?)

[PaulQ]

 

But that's not what you said. You started with a preconception, and when it didn't meet that preconception, you pendulum swung.

 

Here's what you said:

 

...

 

That sort of stands in contrast to your claim above that you weren't assuming anything at all, but just let the evidence speak to you. Painting a self-portrait on the fly? I see this as a reactionary response, not a rational one.

 

I was convinced of many things, including the existence of a god, that Jesus Christ was my savior, that homosexuality was a choice, that we were all descendants of Adam and Eve...well, you get my point. When presented with evidence that challenges that which I am convinced of, I evaluate the claim and see if it stands up to scrutiny. Clearly, things like the existence of a god didn't stand up to scrutiny, and the people who taught me this were wrong. If I were presented with evidence of the existence of a god, I would have to re-evaluate what I believed to be true.

 

I was convinced of a consciousness existing beyond the physical because that is what I was taught as a young child, and my own wishful thinking fueled that belief. When I saw first hand evidence that this wasn't true, and no evidence to the contrary, I was forced to reconsider my position. At present, I have yet to see any evidence to contradict that which I witnessed first-hand; only misunderstandings of definitions.

 

Potential for it? Or limited realization of it? There is a difference. You believe it can pop in and out of existence. I do not. I believe it to be an integral part of all that is. However we experience it, that is what will vary.

 

Your belief that it does not doesn't change the fact that I am aware of the temporary non-existence of my conscious mind.

 

It would be like saying while you were unaware of your body, your cells ceased to exist, but once your mind woke up they came back into being.

 

That's actually quite absurd, and not at all the same. It's like turning around the phrase, "I drank a glass of water" into "A glass of water drank me."

 

I'm happy that works for you. It doesn't for me, or a host of other thinkers.

 

Does it not work for you because you have evidence that proves otherwise, or does it not work for you because you just don't like it?

 

Just to show it's not so conveniently simple, I'll be lazy and quote a brief summary from Wiki on Consciousness:

 

Consciousness in medicine (e.g., anesthesiology) is assessed by observing a patient's alertness and responsiveness, and can be seen as a continuum of states ranging from alert, oriented to time and place, and communicative, through disorientation, then delirium, then loss of any meaningful communication, and ending with loss of movement in response to painful stimulation.[5]

 

Ah, yes...ending with loss of movement in response to painful stimulation. That seems to agree with my own findings.

 

Consciousness in psychology and philosophy has four characteristics: subjectivity, change, continuity and selectivity.[1][6] Philosopher Franz Brentano has suggested intentionality or aboutness (that consciousness is about something). However, within the philosophy of mind there is no consensus on whether intentionality is a requirement for consciousness.[7]

 

Really says nothing about where consciousness starts or ends, continuing on...

 

Consciousness is the subject of much research in philosophy of mind, psychology, neuroscience, cognitive science, cognitive neuroscience and artificial intelligence. Issues of practical concern include how the presence of consciousness can be assessed in severely ill or comatose people;[8] whether non-human consciousness exists and if so how it can be measured; at what point in fetal development consciousness begins; and whether computers can achieve a conscious state.

 

Some questions about recognizing the existence of consciousness outside of ourselves, yawn...

 

<snip>

 

Phenomenal consciousness (P-consciousness) is simply experience; it is moving, colored forms, sounds, sensations, emotions and feelings with our bodies and responses at the center. These experiences, considered independently of any impact on behavior, are called qualia. The hard problem of consciousness, formulated by David Chalmers in 1996, deals with the issue of "how to explain a state of phenomenal consciousness in terms of its neurological basis".[14]

 

Access consciousness (A-consciousness) is the phenomenon whereby information in our minds is accessible for verbal report, reasoning, and the control of behavior. So, when we perceive, information about what we perceive is often access conscious; when we introspect, information about our thoughts is access conscious; when we remember, information about the past (e.g., something that we learned) is often access conscious, and so on. Chalmers thinks that access consciousness is less mysterious than phenomenal consciousness, so that it is held to pose one of the easy problems of consciousness. Daniel Dennett denies that there is a "hard problem", asserting that the totality of consciousness can be understood in terms of impact on behavior, as studied through heterophenomenology. There have been numerous approaches to the processes that act on conscious experience from instant to instant. Dennett suggests that what people think of as phenomenal consciousness, such as qualia, are judgments and consequent behavior.[15] He extends this analysis by arguing that phenomenal consciousness can be explained in terms of access consciousness, denying the existence of qualia, hence denying the existence of a "hard problem."[15] Chalmers, on the other hand, argues that Dennett's explanatory processes merely address aspects of the easy problem. Eccles and others have pointed out the difficulty of explaining the evolution of qualia, or of 'minds', which experience them, given that all the processes governing evolution are physical and so have no direct access to them. There is no guarantee that all people have minds, nor any way to verify whether one does or does not possess one.

 

The first sounds like woo-woo, while the second sounds like splitting straws and contradicting the previous paragraphs; neither really tell us anything about where consciousness starts and ends, continuing...

 

Events that occur in the mind or brain that are not within phenomenal or access consciousness are known as subconscious events.

 

 

Subconscious is a different term than consciousness.

 

And on, and on, and on the definitions and search for understanding go... way, way beyond your simple dictionary definition! In the above, you narrowly define it as the medical definition. But again the point, is you say, "I think that pretty much nails it." I don't think so. That seems a wishful thought on your part.

 

Aside from some woo-woo, I see much of that as simply expansions on the points of the dictionary definition.

[PaulQ]

I'm sorry it's not as clear as you'd like it to be. But it's not my definitions alone, but those of many others seeking to understanding something that not so simplistic as to reduce everything to the material alone. And to those who understand these concepts I'm touching on, it's not unclear at all, but makes good sense. It's just not the Reductionist philosophy. It's doesn't fit well into that mode of perception.

 

The reason why it's unclear is because you've made it unnecessarily complicated, which leads to errors in understanding and judgement. Again, my perception of Donald Duck coming to life in the picture could be explained by any number of given possibilities, or just one. What purpose is there in making something unnecessarily complicated, except to impede progress in our understanding?

 

Not blur, but to offer a way to understand that consciousness is an extension of something innate to the universe itself, not something that magically appears out of nothing. That sort of view of evolution is like the Creationist. And in what you say, that it suddenly and abruptly appears without foundation in nature, is Magical science. It's tantamount to Goddidit.

 

Except for the fact that it's blatantly obvious that consciousness does not suddenly and abruptly appear without foundation. It is generated by the brain, which uses nutrients and oxygen to operate, along with stimuli from five senses to provide material for the consciousness to develop. Clearly, the structure of the brain, along with the stimuli from the sense organs, are the foundation of the consciousness.

 

In my view, what you call consciousness, even using your dictionary as god's word on the subject, it is a deeper form of something present all the way down in nature - just like your body doesn't suddenly appear out of nothing, but is built up from atoms to molecules, to cells, to organs, to limbs, to brain, etc. Even using your narrow definition of consciousness, it is the interior space of 'being', evolved alongside with the material, part of you.

 

Why do you consider it deeper? On what basis do you arrive at this conclusion? Is it deeper simply because you deem it so?

 

Does consciousness (or the fundamentals that our consciousness as humans is built upon) exist outside the body? Does matter exist without the body? But your form of matter does not, just as your form of consciousness does not. If you can't follow anything else, at least try to understand that.

 

In answer to the first question, no. Consciousness is clearly dependent on the brain. In answer to your second question, yes. Matter can exist as energy, and be changed into energy (and back into matter), and so does not need to exist as a "Body." So, what is it I'm supposed to try to understand?

 

They don't? What do you think this entire discussion is about? What do you think systems theory begins to look at? Have you ever heard of Bio-cultural feedback? What about culture, sociology, psychology, consciousness studies, et al? All of this is based in all of that. There is plenty of basis for this.

 

Sure, we can go on and on with your "Six degrees of Kevin Bacon" game; but in all honesty, it lacks substance.

 

That could be because you only can see Donald Duck in limited fashion. The difference is now you're seeing the Universe in probably the same way as you did as a child viewing your beloved duck-man. It appears as reality to you, just as your duck did to you then with a peculiar set of limited eyes.

 

Therein lies the problem to human understanding; we are limited to the inherent limitations and flaws of our senses and brain. That's why, to contradict something I believed to be true, I need to see evidence of it. A thorough examination of the Donald picture demonstrated that it could not have possibly come to life, and so seeing him start to walk and move in the picture had to be a trick of the mind combined with the fact that human eyes work very poorly in the dark. You have not presented evidence contrary to my own observations.

 

A good friend of mine who graduated Bible school with me and likewise left Christianity said, "I'm so glad I have the truth now." I chided him saying "You said the same thing when we were back in Bible School." He responded, "But the difference is not I really DO have the truth!"

 

Perception. Now you really DO have the truth. You have evidence! (You did then too, recall?)

 

Perception is one thing; perception with evidence to support the perception is quite another.

[Legion]

I'm going to take a slightly different tack in this thread.

 

Why does a house exist? According to Aristotle there are four categories of legitimate answers to this question and they are called the material, efficient, formal and final causes. If Aristotle was correct and if we focus on the the material causes alone then we are only seeing part of the picture.

 

Refute that materialists.

[PaulQ]

I'm going to take a slightly different tack in this thread.

 

Why does a house exist? According to Aristotle there are four categories of legitimate answers to this question and they are called the material, efficient, formal and final causes. If Aristotle was correct and if we focus on the the material causes alone then we are only seeing part of the picture.

 

Refute that materialists.

 

What exactly are we to refute? That a house exists, or that there are four legitimate answers to the question?

[Legion]

I'm going to take a slightly different tack in this thread.

 

Why does a house exist? According to Aristotle there are four categories of legitimate answers to this question and they are called the material, efficient, formal and final causes. If Aristotle was correct and if we focus on the the material causes alone then we are only seeing part of the picture.

 

Refute that materialists.

 

What exactly are we to refute? That a house exists, or that there are four legitimate answers to the question?

Now, you know that houses exist. And I am beginning to suspect that I cannot take you seriously.

 

I am near certain that there are more than four correct answers. There may be 10,000 legitimate answers. But what do you think of the notion that these 10,000 answers will fall within the 4 categories that Aristotle described?