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.
No I accpet that.
No the syllogicm was an inductive generalisaiton. Like:
Well that is the meaning people usually have. When asked "are you awake" they do not need a brain scap before answering....
Ok if you want to stipulate a new meaning for "conscious" then go ahead. But in studying the denotation of that don't expect you've explained anything about the initial term. That would be equivocation. Only if you can demonstrate a link between the two are we going somewhere. But then you are implicitally accepting the legitimacy of the original meaning.
Like I said I can accept yuo can translate talk of consciousnes into talk of brains. That would be a reductive definition. But I am not sure that that implies we have understood all possible consciousness, only the one we are accustomed to.
Consciousness = "awareness" "experience". Where did I go wrong?
That would be an appeal to the people, and its different.
Thats how equivocation works (redefining a term to mean what you want, and then saying the original meaning is covered by that). I can "define infinity" as a red apple if I like, and then view and eat infinity. Just by definition according to you. Great? - actually not. Because that would be equivocating on the term "infinity".
Ok answer the question. If "awareness" as understood subjectively is to be thrown out, what actually are you explaining when you explain "awareness"?
And when you criticized certain definitions for not being consistent with the "ordinary subjective understood usage", you were not appealing to the meaning people usually have, but appealing to what?
No, I am not the guy who wants "consciousness" to be redefined to possibly include apples, chairs or quarks.
No, I just meant to comply with your request to accept already existing traditional and broadly accepted definitions.
How often do I have to explain that I don´t mean to say you did "go wrong" with that definition. I even agree that this definition is commonly accepted.
Different from what? The appeal to the "ordinary subjective understood usage" that you yourself invoked? Please explain the difference.
No, had I meant to say that I would have said it.
Sorry, I don´t understand the question. If it´s of any importance, please reword it for me.
Except I didn´t claim nor imply anything about it matching the "original meaning". I simply gave a practically useable definition.
Yes, great. You have defined the term as you use it, and this definition helps me understand what you mean when you say "infinity". You have provided a clear criterion by which I can answer the question "Am I (is this object) conscious (in GS´definition)?" Which is not the case with your awareness/consciousness/qualia mutual definition. So yes, I think this definition is a significant progress (even though it comes as a surprise).
No. All I would expect the term to cover - when you use it - is "a red apple". There´s an (unexpected but welcome) clarity in your definition.
Since I don´t do it, nobody here does it and you have been reminded what? 20 times that this is but a lame strawman I am beginning to think you don´t pay attention to what your conversation partners contribute to the discussion.
Terms aren´t "known to be" anything. Terms mean what the person using them wants them to mean. That´s why I insist on getting a definition that matches the purpose.
In many threads here I ended up with the impression that you and I have a very different understanding of the relationship between language and reality. I think this is at the core of our problem here, as well.
Ay, ay, Sir!
I´m not sure what makes you think I want to throw out anything, lest "awareness as understood subjectively".
Well I am not convinced the problem of an unobservable ("awareness") is solved by defining it as something observable ("brain process"). If something is essentially unobservable, you can't just change it's status to something essentially observable by redefining it.
No if I use the word "no" it does not mean what it does because of my personal wishes or whims. Rather it has a meaning determined by standard English usage. Of course there are stipluative definitions, but in ordinary conversaion like ours we generally use standard English.
You are conscious. I use argument from analogy, which IIRC is that standard argument for other minds.
No the term "awareness" derived from the fact that we can name our capacity to observe and see, hear, touch, feel etc.
Do you mean, if you look at a apple, and see an apple, and seeing logically implies awareness (in you), you still don't know you are aware unless you have a "material definition" besides this? You are not clear that you are aware if you see something, but you need alternative confirmation of some sort? Maybe paeople never knew they dreampt until the theory of REM sleep emerged - but that is just plain wrong. If this is not your argument, then help me make sense of the above please.
