Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well an encycolpedia of philosophy is meant to be a "know all's" book on philosophy, composed by experts. Thats what an encyclopedia is. At least it will - if it is authoritative- consider all of the main fields of enquiry in some detail. On the other hand a human medical dictionary is meat to cover medicine and is valid as a guide to terms as they are used in human medicine, but only in human medicine. Because we are discussing the philosophy of mind, and not human medicine, don't you think that an encyclopedia of philosophy would be more appropriate as a guide to the subject at hand?
Well the SEP is meant -one can reasonably expect - to comment on all the main sholarary theories of consciousness. That is what an encyclopedia is for. A human medical dictionary merely oputlines the term as it is applied in modern human medicine. That may be well and good for a doctor of medicine, but not as much use as the encyclopedia for a more general philosophical debate. Remember we are in the "philosophy" area of the forums, not "human medicine and health" if there is such a place, where a medical dictionary would be more appropriate.
See above. "Horses for courses" as they say in England. Any objections?
They (neurologists) can talk aout the mind, I do not dispute that at all. The philosophy of mind is another, broader issue - an partially overlapping but in other ways more extensive or divergent field of enquiry. They might contribute, but they are not fully trained in all the relevant questions. So as it stands plain old neurologists ought not be given the final say in philosophical issues, just as plain old philosophers ought not be given the final say on neurological (or medical) issues. There are such things as experts in the field and university departments dedicated to training people in specific fields of thought. See the concepts of appleas to authority and division of labour for related information. Get it?
Well if you accept that consicousness may arise in computers the apparntly universal definition "the mind is the brain" is not universally valid after all.
I think that the brain centred approach depends on the fact that the things we probably know to be conscious more certainly are brains, so they are the primary thing to be modelled.
I probably made a mistake, as outlined in my first response to your medical dictionary definition of mind. Wait on, scientists may accept that they make mistakes but relmain scientists, but if I do so then you are going to storm out proclaiming victory ignoring everything else I say? Or what is your point in going over this again?
Please give me a quote from a qualified philosophical authority substantiating this definition.
Yes - but it´s still your strawman but not what I said.
Sure, and as long as they don´t confuse their definition efforts with epistemological results that´s fine with me.
What is it with you and holding your far-fetched interpretations of what I said against me?
Yes, there are many of them being aware of this problem.
Well, maybe you would like to submit a paper explaining your idea of conscious quarks, chairs or whatever to this leading journal and enlighten those philosophers?
Exactly, and it will tell you that different philosophers work from different definitions when it comes to the keyterms of their ideas.
So where can your idea be found in the SEP? And - if it can be found (which I highly doubt) - is it the universally accepted scholarly theory based on the universally accepted definition of "consciousness"?
Sorry if I misunderstood you. I htought you arguesd that all terms in philosophy were meaningless. I think the only people doing that are the Logical Positivists, but theye all dead.
Please elaborate.
Please explain.
For example?
I think that most scolars will be aware of the idea of panpsychism. Also I do not have credentials to be published (I think they generally expect a batchelors degree).
Well there is no need for that because it is not the job of philosophers to define chocolate, so again it would be unqualified authority. Yu would probably get the best defintion from a chocolatier.. Now I accept a medic may define human mind in terms of the brain, but of course that's not meant to be a general philosophical defintion of necessary conditions if he is merely being a doctor and limiting himself to that professional role. On the other hand a chocolatier's definition is intended to be universal.
Yes all the consicousness we know, it is probably true, depends on a functioning brain. MAybe starfish or something have awareness without a brain, but to "know" that would be stretching the limits of epistemic fortune given the fairly limited knowlddge we have of consciounsess.
Thats begging the question as far as I am concerned. You are assuming what you are meant to be proving.
Thats a bad analogy because there are known observational tests which discredit such sock stealing which do not beg the question. Not moving when a camera focuses on them is good reason to suspect thay are not stealing socks. Thats not begging the question, is aform of proof.
Agreed.
I dont think the intento of philosophy is to confuse. HoweverI agree that there is a often a major difference between logical possibility and reality.
I think youre cherrypicking examples there.
It may be a strange kind of consciousness I agree. But it still may exist.
"Norlam" to who? Watch you don't egocentrize yout understanding of the world.
Well: some matter is conscious. Therefore all matter is conscious. Inductive generalisation, weak, but possibly true. As I say generalisation from a single instance is weak, but when we say "only brains are known to be conscious therefore only brains are conscious" that's a similar inductive genralisation too.
Why is it the job of philosophers to make up their own definitions of "consciousness" but not of "chocolate"?
No, it´s not intended to be a general philosophical definition of necessary conditions. It will be a definition as it´s needed and useful for his job - just like the consciousness-definition of neuro-scienctist.
Sorry, that's just a hasty generalization from a few observations into universal definitional certainty. I'll need a dictionary definition from a dryer repair man stating with absolute certitude that gnomes don't steal socks. That's the standard of proof we're working with in this thread, right?
So then how does a simple logical possibility serve to do anything to discount actual scientific research in the area? I can claim that flying elephants are possible in some hypothetical world - that doesn't say anything about Newtonian mechanics. Likewise, saying that in some possible world office furniture is conscious doesn't have any effect on the scientific explanations of consciousness back here in reality.
How do you know it is possible? You still haven't provided a universal all-encompassing philosophical dictionary definition which allows that office furniture might be conscious, so I have no reason to accept your fabrication that they might be.
Normal in the sense of "any consciousness which is currently known to exist, as contrasted by ones which exist purely in your imagination".
Really? Some birds are ducks therefore all birds are ducks. Makes perfect sense.
Who says this, exactly? I think you're the only one.
No because we have a much better understanding of necessary and sufficient conditions when it comes to elephants. For consciousness, we (or I) are not sure what it takes. So the analogy is not that good. A for a consciousness to be present in the first place. So the mind-elephant analogy is not that strong for me.
I think it may not be the job of a philosopher to define consciousness, although then again if you leave the job to scientists a philosopher may analyse that definition in a "clinical" manner using tools of logic etc. For instance, he might point out tissues like the problem of other minds, or the difference between first and second and third person experience, the concept of privelaged access or verifiability or falsifiability as they impinge on scientific endevour.
Its not intended to be a philosophical defintion at all. So you're right, but perhaps in the wrong way.
But I am not sure whether a neuroscientist actually defines all consciousness in terms of brain states. Thats the isse at stake, and you seem to want to prevent critical examinaiton.
Well if you want to argue that then go ahead, but please don't try and put words ointo my mouth which I have been battling against half of this thread.
I am inclined to give up. But: There is an agreed universal ontology of chocolate, and necessary conditions are accepted as known, whereas there is not a consensus on the ontology of consciousness and necessary conditions are not accepted as known. Scientific approaches may study instances of conciousness, like human consciousness as affected by the brain, but if they want to generalise that any instance of mental life (as understood in a first person sense) must be of that (brain related) nature they are to be exposed to logical analysis. They would seem to be generalising, but that argument can have it's weaknesses. An analogy would be "well humans we look at are alive so all living things must be human" which is not necessarily true we all know.
This seems to be an analogy to your argument for brains: Doctors look at living humans, therefore all living things are human. Doctors look at conscious brains, therefore all conscious things are brains.
You were taking it for grainted that quarks are non consicous. You said "So basically science is a failure because it can't explain the workings of something which doesn't exist except in some philosopher's imagination" and then presumptively act as if science has explained the issue at hand. So at worst you are not being consistent.
There is a genreally accepted test for whether a gnome is responsible for stealing socks. There is no generally accepted theory of consiousness. Dysanalogy between my views and your hostile straw man attacks again.
The science indicated thatbrains are consicous, the science indicates that people are alive. It may be the case that non-brains are consicous just as it may be the case that non-humans are alive. The thing ifs that our biological knowledge is more extensive than cognitive science of consciousness. We have had little in the way of consciousness studies and I doubt that anyone says it is a completed field. So generalisations from a nascent science are bound to be weak.
But where are these so called "laws of consciousess" equivalent to Newtons, or Einstein's (etc) laws. Physics is comparatively well developed, consciousness studies it still infantile. So there's a dysanalogy between the two, and hence your illustration lacks substance.
You chose to convey philosophy asan attempt at "counting angels on the head of a pin" which is often regarded by modern philosophers (who believe there has been progress) as an example of where Medievalists went wrong.
Something is physically possible if it does not break laws of physics. As there are (afaik) no known laws of physics stating necessary and sufficient conditions of consciousness, quark conscious remains (as far as we know) a physical possibility.
Again an argument from ignorance: It's not known to exist therefore it's imaginary.
OK< what about some brains are consicous therefore all consciousness is brain dependent?
You sound like an atheist on a crusade against God.
YOu seem to be saying "we know brains are conscious, therefore quarks can't be". It does not follow.
KCformNC said:
Not that far. Lack of complete science does not entalail total ignorance. But if there are areas where science is ignorant, or that research is inconclusive, for instance it does not know of necessary and sufficient conditions of consciousness or universal laws of consciousness, because the science is not that well developed (less that 100years old with shortcomings mentioned?), then people ought to accept ignorance (and therefore assume agnosticism as the rational stance) in some areas.KCfrom the link above said:
