Interaction ("mind body") problem

[GrowingSmaller]

I will return to my very first point in this thread: define "consciousness" for purposes of this thread.
The OP rejects scientific definitions because he feels philosophy needs a different definition. Ok.
However, the definitions he provides are pretty loose. He also concedes that "consciousness of quarks" would be "very different" from consciousness as we know it.

I think that consciousness can be defines in terms of experience or awareness. Just as we have complex awareness due to complex activity of the brain, maybe there is simpler awareness in less comples systems. Another "argument from analogy". Like I said to Eudaimonist that does not constitute science, but I personally am not sure that there is an "E=MC^2" type understanding of the mind as things stand.

So the issue is not agnosticism concerning the consciousness of quarks, but rather agnosticism whether some people at some point in time manage to come up with a definition of "consciousness" that will necessitate us to include quarks.

Right.

 

[quatona]

I think that consciousness can be defines in terms of experience or awareness. Just as we have complex awareness due to complex activity of the brain, maybe there is simpler awareness in less comples systems.

Sure, but the question is: How simple and how different would something have to be in order to not call it the same name?
It´s merely a semantics issue.

I think it´s stupid to work from a word. Let´s see what quarks are capable of. What we will call these so far hypothetical capabilities once we may have detected them is a minor issue.

It´s not much different than with the question "Does God exist?".

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Sure, but the question is: How simple and how different would something have to be in order to not call it the same name?
It´s merely a semantics issue.

Well until the science is established then you are right, that is another possible position amongst many that can be argued. But we are all lacking "proofs" here.

I think it´s stupid to work from a word. Let´s see what quarks are capable of. What we will call these so far hypothetical capabilities once we may have detected them is a minor issue.

Unless ther fit into a advanced theory of consciousness, which possibility we cannot theoretically exclude.

It´s not much different than with the question "Does God exist?".

How?

 

[quatona]

Well until the science is established then you are right, that is another possible position amongst many that can be argued. But we are all lacking "proofs" here.

Proof for what?

Unless ther fit into a advanced theory of consciousness, which possibility we cannot theoretically exclude.

What you call an "advanced theory" would be nothing but a redefinition. Of course we cannot exclude that the meaning of words will change.

How?

In that the answer depends entirely on the definition of the keyword.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The way I see it either something is aware or it is not. If you think there ought to be a new term (something meaning neither aware not unaware, which might be applied to quarks), or something else, then go ahead an state your case.

Proof for what?

Proof that the term "awareness" would not be appropriate in certain circumstances. I am thinking along the lines of "if it is not non-conscious (or unconsious) then it is conscious". So even if there is an awareness very unlike ours, if it is not non-conscious, the term logically applies.

 

[quatona]

The way I see it either something is aware or it is not.

The way I see it something is called aware or it isn´t. Whether something is called aware or not depends on the definition applied to the term.

If you think there ought to be a new term (something meaning neither aware not unaware, which might be applied to quarks), or something else, then go ahead an state your case.

That´s not what I am thinking.
At this point, by every proper and useable definition of awareness can not be called "aware".
It is possible that at some point we find out something about quarks that will prompt us to conclude that they have abilities we haven´t known (but in any case will be very different from what we mean by "awareness" right now). Whether we will expand our current definition of "awareness" so that this ability can be included in it or whether we don´t will be a mere semantics question.
Maybe at some point we´ll find out something about chairs that will prompt us to expland our definition of "loving" so that chairs are included in the group of "loving" entities. Maybe at some point people decide that apples must be called "selfish" because they cannot be called "unselfish", or that aeroplanes should be called "religious".

Proof that the term "awareness" would not be appropriate in certain circumstances.

What a stupid thing to even ask for. Definitions and semantics aren´t a matter of proof, they are a matter of agreement.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

The way I see it you may as well say that a slug or a maggot can't be "aware" because the awareness they may have is probably so unlike ours that the use of the term is not warranted.

That leads to the question, if such things are not "asleep" or totally "unaware" (or terms we might ordinarily use to describe a "lack of consicousness") the what term do we use if not "aware" or "conscious" etc?

 

[quatona]

The way I see it you may as well say that a slug or a maggot can't be "aware"

No, you are misunderstanding me. I am not talking about "what it is" but "what it can be called".

because the awareness they may have is probably so unlike ours that the use of the term is not warranted.

That leads to the question, if such things are not "asleep" or totally "unaware" (or terms we might ordinarily use to describe a "lack of consicousness") the what term do we use if not "aware" or "conscious" etc?

Glad to see that you´ve finally understood what the actual question is:
"What will we call it, and why?" (as opposed to "What is it?").
Of course, one could call (by means of an "advanced" understanding of awareness) an apple "aware", e.g. because it obviously "knows" what the season is and behaves accordingly.

The problem with your quarks is that you don´t even know what you´d expect from them in order to even raise the question what to call them.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, you are misunderstanding me. I am not talking about "what it is" but "what it can be called".

Glad to see that you´ve finally understood what the actual question is:
"What will we call it, and why?" (as opposed to "What is it?").

YOu seem to me to be over confusing the issue. If it has a property (possesses consciousness) then we can ascribe a name that indicates it has that property.

Of course, one could call (by means of an "advanced" understanding of awareness) an apple "aware", e.g. because it obviously "knows" what the season is and behaves accordingly.

Now youre saying potential advanced knowwledge which we dont have, and in the same breath making out its "obvious" to everyone. Which is it to be?

The problem with your quarks is that you don´t even know what you´d expect from them in order to even raise the question what to call them.

That seems true enough. Which is the reason why I don't call them "non-consicous", or "consicous".

 

[quatona]

YOu seem to me to be over confusing the issue. If it has a property (possesses consciousness) then we can ascribe a name that indicates it has that property.

No, to me the issue is quite simple: I am working from a definition of "consciousness" that doesn´t leave space for quarks to be called "conscious" (i.e. a complex process that is produced by a complex system, typically a brain and neuronal systems).

You, however, are over-confusing the issue by rejecting scientific definitions and postulating some "philosophical" definition which on top you can´t provide.
Unless you can tell us what we would have to expect a quark to be capable of in order for us to call it "conscious" (i.e. provide criteria for consciousness in your definition) you are merely obsfucating the issue.

Now youre saying potential advanced knowwledge which we dont have, and in the same breath making out its "obvious" to everyone. Which is it to be?

No, I didn´t say "potential advanced knowledge which we don´t have". I said "advanced understanding".

As far as "obvious" is concerned: Do you deny that apples react to the seasons?

That seems true enough. Which is the reason why I don't call them "non-consicous", or "consicous".

You are free to call them what you want to, and you are entitled to apply whatever definition to the term "conscious" you want to. Unless you can share your definition, however, the problem is not an issue of what quarks are or are not, but a communication issue induced by your obsfucation efforts.

 

[KCfromNC]

Again^^

Already answered, both in direct response to your question and earlier in the thread. Are you not seeing all the posts in this forum? It would explain a lot of your confusion on this subject.

Now how about you answer my questions?

 

[KCfromNC]

I am still looking for arguments form the other suide to extablish waht consciousness is etc.

Also already answered in this thread. Granted, you didn't like them because they disagreed with what you thought they should be, but don't blame the messenger. I'd think you missed those posts as well if it weren't for the fact that you responded to them.

 

[KCfromNC]

The way I see it you may as well say that a slug or a maggot can't be "aware" because the awareness they may have is probably so unlike ours that the use of the term is not warranted.

That leads to the question, if such things are not "asleep" or totally "unaware" (or terms we might ordinarily use to describe a "lack of consicousness") the what term do we use if not "aware" or "conscious" etc?

I guess areas which have lots of shades of gray will require more than a single word to describe the nuances between them. You'll need to elaborate and explain what you mean when you say that, for example, a quark might be conscious.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

No, to me the issue is quite simple: I am working from a definition of "consciousness" that doesn´t leave space for quarks to be called "conscious" (i.e. a complex process that is produced by a complex system, typically a brain and neuronal systems).

Ok thats your "working definition" now why ought I accept it?

You, however, are over-confusing the issue by rejecting scientific definitions and postulating some "philosophical" definition which on top you can´t provide.

Like I said I don't believe that a quote from a medical dictionary is meant top be a comment on the philosophy of consciousness. Its a specific definition meant for medical students, within the parameters of their practice.

Unless you can tell us what we would have to expect a quark to be capable of in order for us to call it "conscious" (i.e. provide criteria for consciousness in your definition) you are merely obsfucating the issue.

Why? Lets see that argued in logical form please.

No, I didn´t say "potential advanced knowledge which we don´t have". I said "advanced understanding".

As far as "obvious" is concerned: Do you deny that apples react to the seasons?

Apples react to the seacons yes. I am denying that that is adequate reason to regard them consicous.

You are free to call them what you want to, and you are entitled to apply whatever definition to the term "conscious" you want to. Unless you can share your definition, however, the problem is not an issue of what quarks are or are not, but a communication issue induced by your obsfucation efforts.

consiocus: experiencing qualia, or having phenomenal awareness of some kind.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Already answered, both in direct response to your question and earlier in the thread. Are you not seeing all the posts in this forum? It would explain a lot of your confusion on this subject.

Probably my "confusion" comes from inadequate answers on your part.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Also already answered in this thread. Granted, you didn't like them because they disagreed with what you thought they should be, but don't blame the messenger.

So youre happy to scrutinize my perspective for pages on end, but want to cut short discussion of your view.

 

[KCfromNC]

So youre happy to scrutinize my perspective for pages on end, but want to cut short discussion of your view.

I was happy to discuss the definitions you asked for. You at first ignored them, then pretended I didn't post them, then pretended that they were irrelevant, then asked for additional definitions and then when those were given to you you dismissed the whole thing as meaningless using one excuse after another. And now you're asking for them again, as if they were never posted in the first place. I see where this is going, and I'm sure I'm not the only one - this approach is pretty transparent.

If you're so acutely interested in figuring out my views, go back a few pages where I answer your question. I know you saw them - you responded to them. If you're really interested, dig in and do the work. Let's see if this new-found interest in everyone's opnions is anything more than a convenient way to dodge answering uncomfortable questions.

Probably my "confusion" comes from inadequate answers on your part.

Please be specific, if you can.

 

[KCfromNC]

Like I said I don't believe that a quote from a medical dictionary is meant top be a comment on the philosophy of consciousness

Why? Lets see that argued in logical form please.

Your own question works well here.

Apples react to the seacons yes. I am denying that that is adequate reason to regard them consicous.

And here : Why? Lets see that argued in logical form please.

consiocus: experiencing qualia, or having phenomenal awareness of some kind.

And here : Ok thats your "working definition" now why ought I accept it?

 

[sandwiches]

I am still looking for arguments form the other suide to extablish waht consciousness is etc. I have defended my prespective for pages now but why not discuss the alternatives with equal rigor?

Side of what? Of the "problem" you posted in your OP? If, as you said, we do not have a good enough definition of "consciousness," then how can you say there is a problem. You seem to keep pushing the fact that we can't discount quarks and chairs as being conscious because we lack the proper understanding of consciousness, but yet you claim there is some sort of disconnect between the brain and consciousness.

 

[quatona]

Ok thats your "working definition" now why ought I accept it?

You needn´t accept it.
Point being: I do have a working definition and you don´t.
Your definition lacks any intelligible criteria for what "consciousness" is. It remains completely vague.

Like I said I don't believe that a quote from a medical dictionary is meant top be a comment on the philosophy of consciousness. Its a specific definition meant for medical students, within the parameters of their practice.

I don´t care what it´s meant to be. It´s a workable definition (it provides clear criteria).
If you have a different workable definition, you are welcome to provide it. That would be the requirement for even starting to engage in contemplating whether X is conscious.

Apples react to the seacons yes. I am denying that that is adequate reason to regard them consicous.

Ah, you are simply denying it. Now, that makes a great argument.

However, it demonstrates your problem: Your definition doesn´t allow for a meaningful discussion whether apples are conscious or not. It´s too vague, and basically defines vague undefined terms by other vague and equally undefined terms.

Thus, if your definition doesn´t even allow you to refute the claim that apples are conscious, why am I not surprised that it leads to agnosticism concerning the question whether at some point quarks may exhibit characteristics that are reconcilable with your definition of consciousness?

consiocus: experiencing qualia, or having phenomenal awareness of some kind.