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.
Pretty much, although thare might be grounds for an attribution of consciousness (awareness. sentience) to basic lifeforms without a brain, although arguments would probably not be that robust.
I agree entirely, unless you want to interpret "the consciousness is dependent on the brain" as "all possibile consciousness must depend on a brain".
Afaict that is a definition was form a human medicine dictionary, and is meant for doctors practicing that discipline. Doctors are not specialists in the philosophy of mind, and I suppose I was wrong to ask for a science dictionary definition of mind because a medical one could be produced and wind up being misrepresented as considered scientific reflection on deep philosophical issues. The problem is that a medical doctor, or a medical dictionary, are not authorititive sources for arguments in the general philosophy of consciousness or awareness. Medical doctors are not meant to be experts on what are for them in professional practice irrelevant philosophical issues.
Likewise, your chemical chocolate definition is not one made by philosophical experts. So, I guess, unlike in real life, philosophically there could be chocolate without those ingredients.
Not sure that this is all that philosophy comes down to but it certainly is a very common phenomenon. Some philosophies downright feed on merely this.
You seem to be flogging the same old dead horse. Anyway even if you can fins a non cacao chocolate out there (like carob chocolate), maybe that undermines the analogy you wished to establish because the idea variable chocolate you wished to ridicule seems possible after all.
Well there is IIRC "carob chocolate" bars available on the market. But they are not regarded as true chocolate, but a substitute.
It does arise thre yes, but not (as far as people seem to know) of necessity. It may arise elsewhere, for example in computers.
Why should I? All you're going to do if this challenge is met is move the goalposts again. You asked for a definition of consciousness as a part of brain function. I provided it. You objected to a particular word and said you wouldn't accept it unless I found a scientific dictionary which defined mind as brain. I did - with multiple examples. Now you're complainig because I provided a definition from a scientific dictionary, even thought that exactly what you asked for in the first place.
Sound familiar?
What? Are you saying that there is no such thing as a valid defintion of "ethics" or "epistemology"? That's laughable, but more of a tragedy.
There are more in depth discussions of consciousness available in the likes of the SEP, Wikipedia and Scholarpedia, not to mention the likes of the Oxford Companion to Consciousness etc. Please don't say you don't trust them because philosophers language is just made up as they go along (or whatever you meant). I am sure, with philosophy being studied at the worlds leading universities, one genius or other would have noticed that one by now. Or perhaps you would like to submit a paper to a leading journal and enlighten us all?
