Does consciousness = Awareness/Attention?
Definitions :
Consciousness : Quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself - merriam-webster.com
Awareness : Having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge - merriam-webster.com
Attention : Act or state of applying the mind to something - merriam-webster.com
The consciousness is a concept with no define definition, many philosophers have their different views/opinions about consciousness and since the consciousness isn't well known - or proven -, theories will always be and therefore definition can vary.
- https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/what-is-consciousness/
For this post i will stick with the definition of consciousness written above .. as a quality state - Qualia/awareness - of something, conscious of something.
My question can sound silly, awareness is in the definition of consciousness - at least the definition above. When someone sleep, we say he/she is not conscious, when he/she is awake we say "he/she is conscious", awareness and consciousness goes always together as one and same thing.
After thinking a long time on this question and on consciousness in general, i have to say that this equality - consciousness = awareness - doesn't sound that much evident, I have a doubt.
Let me present this simply ..
I can be conscious of something, having some qualitative experience and at the same time not being aware of my conscious experience, therefore i don't realize, know or show persception of my conscious activities ..
I am not aware but i experience - this being said, the "I" lose it's meaning.
It's like experiencing something without realization of experiencing and without realization of oneself identity.
Now imagine someone with a severe case of ADHD - i am not that familiar with ADHD, i use it bcs it's a well known focus disorder -, as his parents begun to realize the case of their son, they
sent him to a very special school for him to learn about human knowledge despite his difficulties. The kid has grown up and now he is 20yo, he learned in school his situation and so many stuff
that you can easily say he is fully aware of his identity and his experience. He is a smart guy and can think deeply but only if the subject is exciting enough so he can pay full attention on the subject. Despite his great knowledge - which offer him a great awareness - he struggle with attention and most of the time he can't control his focus.
My questions are simple :
- Does consciousness = Awareness ?
- Does consciousness = Attention ?
- Does consciousness = Both ? or Something else ?
I am fully aware that right now nobody know for certain what is consciousness so i don't expect a clear answers - or a proof -, i am just curious about your opinions on the subject :)
Consciousness : Quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself - merriam-webster.com
Awareness : Having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge - merriam-webster.com
Attention : Act or state of applying the mind to something - merriam-webster.com
The consciousness is a concept with no define definition, many philosophers have their different views/opinions about consciousness and since the consciousness isn't well known - or proven -, theories will always be and therefore definition can vary.
- https://informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/what-is-consciousness/
For this post i will stick with the definition of consciousness written above .. as a quality state - Qualia/awareness - of something, conscious of something.
My question can sound silly, awareness is in the definition of consciousness - at least the definition above. When someone sleep, we say he/she is not conscious, when he/she is awake we say "he/she is conscious", awareness and consciousness goes always together as one and same thing.
After thinking a long time on this question and on consciousness in general, i have to say that this equality - consciousness = awareness - doesn't sound that much evident, I have a doubt.
Let me present this simply ..
I can be conscious of something, having some qualitative experience and at the same time not being aware of my conscious experience, therefore i don't realize, know or show persception of my conscious activities ..
I am not aware but i experience - this being said, the "I" lose it's meaning.
It's like experiencing something without realization of experiencing and without realization of oneself identity.
Now imagine someone with a severe case of ADHD - i am not that familiar with ADHD, i use it bcs it's a well known focus disorder -, as his parents begun to realize the case of their son, they
sent him to a very special school for him to learn about human knowledge despite his difficulties. The kid has grown up and now he is 20yo, he learned in school his situation and so many stuff
that you can easily say he is fully aware of his identity and his experience. He is a smart guy and can think deeply but only if the subject is exciting enough so he can pay full attention on the subject. Despite his great knowledge - which offer him a great awareness - he struggle with attention and most of the time he can't control his focus.
My questions are simple :
- Does consciousness = Awareness ?
- Does consciousness = Attention ?
- Does consciousness = Both ? or Something else ?
I am fully aware that right now nobody know for certain what is consciousness so i don't expect a clear answers - or a proof -, i am just curious about your opinions on the subject :)
Comments (99)
Consciousness is a direct result of ones awareness of ones self, while awareness could not truly exist without ones consciousness. I still wouldn't say that consciousness = awareness, it seems like there just simply dependent on one another. Consciousness seems to be ones awareness of existence, while awareness seems to be more about learning or knowing what surrounds ones consciousness.
Quoting Basko
People saying that a sleeping person is not conscious seems to be more of a societal norm than anything. We don't truly understand what sleep is yet or why we do it, but it isn't a state that lacks consciousness. Being asleep is another form of consciousness, just like dreaming is another form of awareness.
If consciousness is a direct result of awareness, so awareness precede consciousness, how can awareness not exist without ones consciousness ? You said consciousness is needed for awareness, but at the same time, awareness precede consciousness, i do not understand how..
Quoting Enki B
So Consciousness is one type/form of awareness ? If so, how it is that the "awareness seems to be more about learning or knowing what surrounds ones consciousness." if the consciousness is just one form/type of awareness ?
Quoting Enki B
When i talk about sleeping i meant a Non-REM sleep. During that period i can't tell if i am aware, i can't tell if i am conscious too bcs the only way i can tell i am conscious right now is by being aware of the world, by experiencing it,by knowledge/memory - concept of consciousness, definition of awareness .. - and by the A priori knowledge of identity - I am experiencing the world -, otherwise i can't affirm i am conscious.
Thx for your reply :)
It’s common to restrict the definition of consciousness only to those who are self-conscious, but if this is really what consciousness is, then I wonder: why have the distinct term ‘self-consciousness’ In the first place?
The body’s systems are aware of and interact with each other to a certain extent below the level of waking consciousness, and continue much of this interaction regardless of whether we are awake, asleep, heavily drugged or knocked unconscious. But I (the self) am only aware of these interactions when I am awake-conscious AND also paying attention to them specifically. This is self-consciousness as an advanced level awareness, employing self-consciousness as a capacity.
Certain animals have a capacity for self-consciousness, which they employ only in certain situations, and typically at a low level of awareness. This capacity can be developed further in animals by associating or containing the value of self-aware attention within what this animal already values.
Quoting Basko
I’m not sure what you’re trying to describe here. I imagine it’s like being affected by an experience, without being aware of what it was within the experience that affected you...?
Quoting Basko
We pay attention to things and events that matter to us. When everything matters equally - when dopamine levels are unreliable as an indicator of value - it can be difficult to determine where our attention should be. I’ve heard that white noise stimulates dopamine production, enabling ADHD sufferers to focus for long periods.
In my view, awareness operates on a number of different dimensional levels. We can be aware of an unusual event that captures our attention on the side of the road as we drive. When we focus our attention back to the road ahead, we retain awareness of that event, and can recall that awareness as our attention shifts from driving to our knowledge of the event or any relevant realisation, perception or previously held knowledge, and back again. We can shift our attention to awareness of the car’s speed, the pressure of our foot on the accelerator, the direction and proximity of tyres screeching, the changing distance to the car ahead, etc. But our body can be aware of and interact with elements of our experience such as foot pressure, relative speed and the need to slow down, even when our attention is on knowledge of this past event or others - in the same way that we breath in and out and digest our food. Consciousness, in my opinion, consists of all these levels of awareness as well as our capacity to shift our attention between them.
Self-consciousness refers only to our awareness of internal events - it doesn’t include awareness of the event on the side of the road, but it does include awareness of how information from that event interacts with internal events, whether or not we are paying attention to them at the time.
No, because both of those can be defined functionally and performed by a machine. It leaves out the subjective experiences.
Quoting Basko
Subjectivity, qualia, what it's like, color, pain, imagination, etc.
I'm not so sure about this definition. What entails "oneself"? What is something that one can be aware of within oneself? What is the difference of being aware of something within oneself and being aware of something outside of oneself? In other words, what is the boundary of oneself?
Quoting BaskoIf "I" loses its meaning then what does the experiencing? I think what you are talking about is the difference between being self-aware, or self-conscious, and being aware of everything else. You turn your awareness back on itself and in doing so, you become self-aware.
Quoting Marchesk
The brain is a machine. If you can't explain the relationship between your brain and your subjective experiences, then how can you declare so confidently that machines don't have subjective experiences? What is a subjective experience - a soul? It seems a bit religious to keep declaring things like this - as if human's and their brains are special machines that have this extra quality about them that other machines don't have.
Quoting Marchesk
How does all of this not entail attention and awareness? How can one be aware and attending particular things without subjectivity?
Awareness, yes. Attention, no, since "attention" connotes directed awareness.
Re this:
Quoting Basko
You'd have to try to give an example of how you think that's possible.
If awareness and consciousness are the same then doesn't that make attention a type of consciousness?
Can we be aware of anything without attending to it? It seems to me that attention is more like a necessary feature of awareness/consciousness.
What would be the purpose of being aware of something, but not attending it?
... and helpful, I think. How about the following refinement?
- Does consciousness = conscious awareness ?
- Does consciousness = conscious attention ?
- Does consciousness = Both ? or Something else ?
To which we could add,
- Does unconscious processing = unconscious awareness ? (e.g. in a thermostat)
- Does unconscious processing = unconscious attention ? (e.g. in a CCTV camera)
- Does unconscious processing = Both ? or Something else ?
Answering (any or all of these) is taking a punt on picking the best way to discover and explain the difference between conscious and unconscious processing.
Yes, there's often a connotation to it that it's directed awareness, rather than not being directed.
You can be aware that the radio is on, for example, but not really be paying attention to it. You're awareness isn't directed, it's not focused on the radio. But you're aware that it's on.
Or, if someone is talking and you say, "Wait--could you repeat that? I wasn't really listening." You are/were aware that they were talking (otherwise you couldn't ask them to repeat what they said), but your attention wasn't on their talking, it wasn't on what they were saying. Your attention was elsewhere (like maybe on a bee flying near you, especially if you have a bee phobia).
Cognitive science can demonstrate experimentally that even phenomena like conscious choice can precede our awareness by several seconds. Also, novel phenomena can occur that are within perceptual thresholds, but not actually be perceived unless/until they become associated with already known phenomena.
I favour a very liberal definition of consciousness.
An organ, part of a an animal. It's for survival and reproduction. Also, wasting time on forums.
Quoting Harry Hindu
They would be life forms.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Depends on their behavior. But I admit we don't have a good way to know with any confidence.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That is one of the challenging questions. You're assuming the right functions result in consciousness. But I don't know what a functional definition of subjectivity looks like, so I can't say whether a machine or a silicon-based life form would be, or even which earth life forms are besides humans. I assume animals similar enough to us would be.
Quoting Possibility
The only way i know i am conscious is by being self-conscious, i can "see" myself therefore i know i am here, existing.
That being said and as you said it, it's common to restrict the definition of consciousness to self-consciousness. I remember when i was very young having qualitative experiences without being self-conscious of having that experiences. When something grab our attention so well - like a game, book, movie, sport .. - that we temporally lose our self-consciousness, does that mean we were not conscious all that time ? Ofcs not! Consciousness precede self-consciousnesses but by being self-conscious is the only way i know that i am conscious.
Quoting Possibility
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting Terrapin Station
I was trying to differentiate conscious activities - experience/qualia - and awareness of that activities. Awareness was defined above as "Having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge" so i was thinking that someone could have qualitative experiences and at the same time not realizing what is happening ,not knowing what is all about and not having perception .. not being aware.
* Perception = organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the presented information, or the environment. - Wiki.
Imagine we understand what consciousness really is and how it works, then we proceed to create a artificial life form with our understanding. As we build we realize we don't have enough money to build it like we wanted so we chose to decrease dramatically the cognitive abilities, the memory storage and the capacity of our AI to form a new structures.
Once we finished, we decide to study it, by various tests, to see how our AI work. As we test our AI we remark that it can't realize what is happening due to very low cognitive abilities, it cannot form enough knowledge too bcs of very low memory storage, and bcs of low capacity of forming new structures it perceive - organization of sensory inputs - very little about the world. Our AI experience - the rough sensory inputs - without realization of experiencing and without realization of oneself identity, our AI is not aware - at least by the definition above.
Ofcs is an imagined scenario, maybe what we call consciousness need some good level of cognitive abilities, memory, perception and maybe more ..
Quoting Harry Hindu
Well if there is experience - Qualia - there must be a subject who is experiencing but that doesn't mean the subject know itself, know it experience. The "I" lose it's meaning for the subject.
Quoting bongo fury
What your definition of Awareness and Attention ? And of unconscious processing too
Quoting Pantagruel
Definitely ! This the main problem of dealing with this type of questions, the definition of terms play a major role in thinking process. That's why i started my post by defining the 3 most important terms. I am fully aware the definitions i proposed are approximations of the "truth" but one must start somewhere (:
Quoting Pantagruel
What is your definition ?
So it's not something that you think actually happens with creatures that are conscious?
How would AI have a qualitative experience of something if it's not conscious?
Quoting Terrapin Station
I am not talking about consciousness but about awareness, trying to find when one ends and when the other continue. AI have qualitative experience but it's not aware.
A deer, for example, is aware of its surroundings, but not conscious of its awareness.
If we turned off our critical part of the brain, the neo cortex, such as when we are in fight / flight mode, doing simple tasks such as cleaning, in ‘the zone’ , we are perfectly aware, but not conscious of that awareness.
How would it have qualitative experiences if it's not aware?
What my examples suggest is that, by any definitions plausibly grounded in common usage, Awareness and Attention fail, by themselves, to distinguish conscious from unconscious processing, because they pervade both.
But that shouldn't discourage the defining and the modelling. We (or they) will get there in the end!
My hobby horse is, we need to improve our descriptions of consciousness by questioning the folk-psychology of inner words and pictures. AI (still a few years at least from creating consciousness) appears to have moved on from the time when it assumed a basis in image files and other internal symbols, located in and retrievable from memory stores. And so ought psychology. And philosophy.
But I agree that defining and recognising consciousness - what kinds of processing are to qualify - is key. My hunch (if you asked me? perhaps not!) is that the difference coincides very roughly with the gap between us and chimps... or human new-borns... or (so far, as yet) robots. What we can do that they largely can't. Which is play the social game of pointing actual symbols (words and pictures) at things in the world.
Imagine you watch a great movie, you are so in it that you lose your sens of self, you lose your awareness of yourself. Same principle, imagine an AI having some qualitative experiences but doesn't have any mental capacity to be aware of it .. can't have realization, perception, or knowledge.
Why would you think that awareness has to be of self/has to include a sense of self?
As a nominalist, a relativist, and what I call a "perspectivalist," it's impossible for them to be the same.
But do you think they are different in the way two things of the same type are different, i.e. two oranges, or are they different in the way things of different kinds are different, i.e. an apple and an orange?
Probably more like two oranges, although that can be quite different.
All too vague to be of much use.
Funny thing is, that none of the above require our attention, awareness, and/or consciousness thereof. All three exist in their entirety prior to language.
Funny because it certainly seems that no one has gotten that right in some solid irrefutable explanatorily adequate way.
Don't fall for that crap. If one cannot step into the same river twice then s/he cannot step into it even once.
That strict criterion for what counts as being the "same" is untenable nonsense.
Some people (i.e. Searle) associate consciousness, in particular, with a linguistic capability having an irreducibly semantic component. Or at least, they associate lack of (or failure to demonstrate) consciousness with a reduction of semantics to syntax. (As in the Chinese Room.)
This particular association (i.e. consciousness <---> genuine semantics) seems a useful one, to me. What about you?
How would that follow, exactly?
Put forth a duration.
That would depend upon the notion/definition/delineation/explanation of each term. Some may by definition alone. Some definitions may take account of that which exists in it's entirety prior to common language acquisition. Others may take account of that which is existentially dependent upon common language.
Which notion, idea, and/or conception points us towards and/or properly takes account of that which existed in it's entirety prior to our awareness, attention, and/or consciousness of it?
Some frameworks quite simply cannot take account of that which existed prior to language and other frameworks have kept that in mind. The former are inherently and utterly inadequate for successfully performing that task. Some language use impedes. Some does not.
Which report/account/notion/definition/explanation of "attention", "awareness", and/or "consciousness" is amenable to evolution over time? Which can set out in sensible coherent terms what attention is, what awareness is, what consciousness is while also setting out how each develops through time?
Which one is based upon an understanding of human thought/belief regarding how it evolves/morphs over time? Which can offer a sensible, reasonable, and coherent explanation of all thought/belief?
The changes/motion that are happening, versus the changes/motion that happened already or the changes/motion that have yet to happen, from the reference frame in question.
Remember that time is simply changes/motion. Time measurements are simply an issue of comparing one (set of) changes/motion to another. The present is the changes/motion that are happening, versus those that happened or those that have yet to happen.
What's changing?
Relations
This deserves more attention.
You asked "Put forth a duration."
I explained what time is: The changes/motion that are happening. A duration would a measurement of the changes that are happening from some frame of reference--for example, our phenomenal now.
You asked "what changes"--presumably, what changes was I referring to re "the changes/motion that are happening."
Well, time is the relations of everything that's changing/moving. That includes the river relative to other things, it includes the water and fish and rocks and particles, etc. in the river. Everything.
Presumably, at some point you'll get to why one would "not be able to step in the same river once."
The same river is changing.
I could be misunderstanding your position. I've always thought that you had argued along Heraclitus' lines(one cannot step into the same river twice).
That's the notion I'm warning against. It is said that because the river is always changing(everything is always in a state of flux) that one cannot step into the same river twice. If the reason for saying that is the constant state of flux, then one cannot step into the same river once either because it is always changing. Thus, to make any sense of talking about the same thing despite the flux, there must be some amount of acceptable change(some duration of time and/or specified amount/kind of change in which we can still call it by name).
So, with Heraclitus' river if we accept saying that we can step into the same river once, there must be some acceptable amount of change allowed in order for us to be able to say that and remain coherent with our standard regarding what counts as being the same thing over time(regardless of the constant state of flux).
On it's face it's untenable, incoherent, and nonsensical language use that - if strictly applied - would make talking about anything and everything literally impossible because in order to talk about something we have to name it/identify it and by the time we've done that - if any and all change makes our referent(the river) no longer the same thing - then by our own insistence, we've already lost all coherent ability to call it by it's namesake, and thus we would not be able to successfully refer to anything by namesake.
And yet we do it all the time without issue until some philosopher becomes bewitched by otherwise incoherent use of "same".
Perhaps. Semantics, by my lights, is the study/theory of meaning. It's all about meaning. This endeavor also requires thinking about thought/belief. Things were meaningful to us long before we became aware of it. So, I'm unsure what "genuine semantics" is supposed to be referring to.
While I do have a couple of Searle's books they are as of yet unread, and I'm not familiar enough with Searle to get into any great detailed account of his work(including the Chinese Room). However, unless I'm mistaken he is a speech act theorist, or was. They work from thought/belief having propositional content, so it would seem that Searle would also hold - on pains of coherency alone - that meaning must also be somehow tied to propositions - hence... common language. Unless one wants to bear the burden of explaining how propositions and meaning are not existentially dependent upon common language use.
Personally, while talk of syntax pervades current convention, I think it's incapable of taking proper account of obvious prima facie meaningful and attentive thought/belief of language-less creatures.
Earlier, you mentioned what we can do that chimps and babies and robots cannot. Point to both an actual symbol and it's referent. That's thinking about thought/belief, and it most certainly requires language. Thought/belief itself does not, at least not all thought/belief.
Being conscious/aware that one has thought/belief requires directing one's attention towards it. We do that with terms like "thought" and "belief", and any number of other terms all of which refer to our own mental ongoings - in part at least.
That's nonsense. How do you account for the difference between past and future with a definition of time like that?
That's exactly right. There must something which remains the same, through the temporal duration, in order that our calling it "the same river" is a valid identity. Aristotle resolved this discrepancy between being/not being (Parmenides), and becoming (Heraclitus) with his duality of matter/form. Identity, under the law of identity, as "the same thing", does not require that the identified thing does not change, it requires that the thing is the same as itself, therefore not other than itself, and this does not exclude the possibility that the thing is changing.
Other concepts like this include "line" or "number". You can't define them to someone who doesn't already know them. All you're doing when defining them is assigning an already present meaning to a word. I think there are a few of these "hunks of meaning" you start with like "line", "number", "shape", "space", "consciousness" which defining is redundant and which arisse evolutionarily. Something like "triange" for example doesn't have a redundant definition, it has to be 3 sided and its internal angles have to have a sum of 180. You don't understand what triangles are the moment you're born and you might mistake what counts as a triangle the first time even after hearing the definition but you can't mistake what counts as a number or line.
These ideas come from "philosophy in the flesh" it's an interesting book.
Since i am conscious right now i should know what consciousness is .. but i don't and nobody really knows. Also, If one is conscious that doesn't mean he will know necessarily that he is conscious, it requires self-consciousness for one to "see" himself.
Quoting khaled
Then, does consciousness = awareness ? That's the whole point of this discussion, trying to find to find when one ends - awareness - and when the other continues - consciousness. I never said awareness without consciousness, i said consciousness with extremely limited awareness - "without awareness".
Quoting khaled
Line = A geometrical object that is straight, relative to 2D plan, infinitely long and infinitely thin.
Number = Numbers are strings of digits used to indicate magnitude. Abstract values given to quantities.
I see your point, since the basis of our languages is the "real world", we must see something to grasp it fully, but that doesn't mean one can't comprehend something only by definitions. A blind person cannot see but can still comprehend what colors are - EM waves. If you understand what a quantity is, then you can create abstract symbols to represent - abstractly - those quantities, there you go ! You have what we can call numbers.
I don't think this is an issue of knowledge but rather one of definition. I think that is a good synonym. That's how I would want to define it. That or 'experiencing.' IOW I don't think one can dissect and analyze consciousness and decide that it is constituted by awareness, but rather that it's a possible definition.
The past is changes/motion that happened but that are no longer happening per some frame of reference. The future will be changes/motion that haven't happened yet per some frame of reference. Pretty simple, really.
Quoting creativesoul
Me too!
Quoting creativesoul
... Or does it? Maybe those issues will sort themselves out if we deal with meaning first?
Quoting creativesoul
I guess that nicely expresses denial of the association I proposed? (Maybe so. Not looking for a fight here. Just clarification.)
Quoting creativesoul
One that doesn't amount, on closer inspection, to just another layer of syntax. Suppose we endow a thermostat with a sub-circuit containing a coloured light-bulb. This is genuine semantics for us, as users, but for the device itself, only more syntax.
Quoting creativesoul
Well, my fascination is primarily with plain old "assertoric" speech acts, which may or may not coincide with production of declarative sentence tokens (utterances or inscriptions) but more generally amount to (as I see it) pointing of words (or pictures) at objects. As though we drew an arrow from one to the other. Which we generally don't, so we are talking here about a social skill which is in the practice of a mutually agreed pretence, and is of the highest order of complexity.
Quoting creativesoul
Thanks for looking, and forgive the correction: it's vital to see that I am talking about our ability (e.g. the infant St. Augustine's ability) to understand that someone is pointing (directing, as it were) a word at an object. It's been fashionable for well over half a century now to dismiss such an ability as too easy a matter, and anyway unrepresentative of language as a whole. So I'm aware that I need to argue its complexity and relevance. (BTW though, our having to deal with people's constant Heraclitan equivocations between instance and kind does kind of hint at the level of complexity.)
Quoting creativesoul
Consciousness of language-less creatures, though? I would guess not. Certainly a relatively weak consciousness in creatures showing a relatively reduced form of the kind of semantical understanding just outlined. But in our closest competitors (chimps, robots) that looks very reduced indeed.
Quoting Coben
Definition require some sort of knowledge don't you think ? You can't define something if you know nothing about it but you can define it approximately if your knowledge isn't sufficient enough for more complete definition.
Yes, but it's not the same kind of knowledge. It's an agreement with others on how we will use a word. Like if we are discussing 'what is consciousness`?' and we decide to use it for experiencing, this is a knowledge of at least that facett of 'things' that there is experiencing, and our justificaiton might include knowledge about why this is a good choice. But to answer the question of what consciousness is ty something like 'a side effect of having a soul' or 'a byproduct of a complex neural net' is a whole other kind of knowledge. The first is about how best to separate out terms, the latter is actual knowledge of the make up of something. The first is phenomenogical, the second is scientific or ontological. I would almost call the former the sign of a skill, more than the sign of knowledge. Now that's also a bit artificial, but it involves,I think vastly less claims to knowledge. I am assuming that you too have noticed that you experience things, and I 'point' at that and say 'let's agree to call that consciousness'. The second goes beyond agreement, a formality and beyond phenomenology. With the latter we are saying what things are really like and made of.
It follows from some basic common sense assertions. Meaning is not equivalent to semantics. Semantics involves thinking about (pre-existing)meaning. That includes all cases of thinking about pre-existing language use(all language use is meaningful in some way or other). Prior to thinking about X, X must first somehow exist. Some meaning is prior to semantics, as is some language use.
So...
Yes. I'm denying the characterization of consciousness as 'genuine semantics'.
Consciousness is not existentially dependent upon such high order social skills.
Perhaps it be best put like this...
I would readily agree that consciousness is itself existentially dependent meaning, as compared/contrasted to semantics. Pre and/or non-liguistic meaningful thought/belief is not existentially dependent upon language, whereas both syntax and semantics are. To split our focus upon meaning into an inadequate dichotomy is a mistake. Neither syntax nor semantics are prior to language. Some meaning is. Some thought/belief is. Those prelinguistic thought/belief cannot be properly accounted for.
Consciousness. Consists - in large part at least - of thought/belief about the world and/or oneself. Seems pretty important to get thought/belief right, lest the mistakes will be transmitted
into our notions of consciousness. We'll get it wrong as well. The inevitable result is not knowing what one is looking for.
That's been going on for too long.
What exactly is the criterion for consciousness to emerge onto the world stage? What is it existentially dependent upon? What does it consist of?
I put it to you that thought, belief, and meaning are part and parcel of all conscious experience. By no means am I saying that those are sufficient for all instances/cases of consciousness(conscious experience). They are necessary(required) none-the-less. Consciousness grows in it's complexity level. It must, lest it is an incommensurate notion with evolution. Highly complex thought/belief(consciousness) such as our ability to take account of prior language use is to be aware and/or attentive of how language is used.
Is language part and parcel of all cases of consciousness? I don't think so. I'm also quite certain that some language less creatures are aware of things around them to such an extant that their attention can be fully captured by those things. They are more than capable of drawing mental correlations between different things. They can develop expectation(of what's about to happen) as a direct result of witnessing consist and/or repetitive events happening in relatively quick succession and in the same general order. They are aware and/or attentive to what's going on around them. This is demonstrable, falsifiable, and verifiable.
If this doesn't count as consciousness at a rudimentary basic level, then the notion of consciousness isn't much use. Ours is much more complex. A chimps is as well. A robot has none and cannot ever although it can be programmed to fool nearly everyone into thinking/believing otherwise. Robots are utterly incapable of drawing mental correlations between different things. That is at the root of all consciousness, humans' notwithstanding.
:smile:
Reply however you see fit. I am willing to hear an argument for consciousness being existentially dependent upon language use, and would agree as long as that claim/argument was properly quantified. Some consciousness is... Not all.
You would think it uncontroversial, unfortunately it's not. If the current running documentaries on animal thought/belief/reasoning skills are any indication, academia has gotten lost somewhere along the line(the unwarranted leaps and bounds into anthropomorphism astound me). The syntax/semantics focus is undoubtedly one culprit. Semiotics is not the only approach to meaning. Academia has yet to have gotten thought/belief right, so...
Complexity in language use does not equal better language use. What we're taking account of cannot be so complex. If a theory of meaning has it right, it will become obvious to those capable of following along.
Seems that you and I are largely in agreement in the end(humans are not the only creature's capable of thought/belief). Consciousness evolves in it's complexity. Common language use is existentially dependent upon shared meaning. Shared meaning, some sort of rudimentary consciousness.
:up:
Quoting creativesoul
Cool. We know where we stand.
Quoting creativesoul
You've heard of the "theory of mind theory of mind"? I give you, here, a "theory of meaning theory of meaning".
Quoting creativesoul
Prior to the chicken, the egg?
Quoting creativesoul
It's a hypothesis, though.
Quoting creativesoul
But pre and/or non-verbal-linguistic meaningful thought/belief is of a piece with pre and/or non-verbal-linguistic language, i.e. symbolic functioning in general, with its syntactic and semantic aspects.
Quoting creativesoul
Sure.
Quoting creativesoul
Ok. I say that language in the very broad sense of symbolic functioning is part and parcel of all awareness, attention and now also (entering stage left) experiencing, thought, belief and reasoning. To distinguish the specifically conscious awareness, conscious attention, conscious experiencing, conscious thought, conscious belief and conscious reasoning, I hypothesise the need for genuinely semantical understanding, as outlined previously.
Quoting creativesoul
Some dependent on verbal language, all dependent on a genuinely semantical competence in some kind of language in the obvious wider sense (of symbolic functioning).
But he cannot know what the subjective experience of perceiving color is. In the same way that a rock cannot know what the subjective experience of being conscious is like (it can't know at all)
Quoting Basko
Ok, maybe numbers and lines were derived. How would you explain what "Quantity" or "Shape" is to someone? I don't think you can. I think there are concepts that us humans just "start off" with like shapes, quantities, space, time that cannot be represented by anything more basic. Just think about it. If you define A using concepts B, C and D and proceed to define those using their own different concepts etc etc you'd never be done defining things. Nothing would make sense, because everything just has an infinitely long definition. There has to be a set of concepts you just "know" that you use to define others. I think consciousness is one of those along with "space", "quantity", "shape" etc
:brow:
You'll have to do better than this.
:sigh:
You don't see the chicken and egg, here?
Clue:
Quoting bongo fury
Consciousness is an intangible system of potential posessing the essential quality that there is something - anything - it is like to be this system in and of itself. This system can manifest in different configurations of agents, and also “figments” for consciousness to apprehend that aren’t necessarily agents themselves.
Is there anything it’s like to be a table? Is there anything it’s like to be a computer? If you answer “no” to these questions then this means they are not conscious (yet they may still reside “in” consciousness like a table in a dream).
Is there something it’s like to be you, me, a chimp, or a dolphin? If you answered “yes” then that means we are conscious.
So I think that’s an intuitive definition.
“You only consider yourself conscious right now because there is something it is like to be you.” - Philisopher of mind/ ontology Bernardo Kastrup
I'm not interested in rhetoric. There's already more than enough of that on this forum. If you're interested... I've offered an argument. If you want me to spend any more of my time here discussing this with you, clearly state which part you're disagreeing with and particularly what that disagreement is based upon.
Semantics is not equivalent to meaning.
Semantics is the study of meaning.
Meaning exists prior to semantics(the study of it).
Syntax is the way in which linguistic elements (such as words) are put together to form constituents (such as phrases or clauses) b : the part of grammar dealing with this.
All syntax is existentially dependent upon common language use.
All common language use is meaningful.
Meaning exists prior to syntax.
Semiotics is a general philosophical theory of signs and symbols that deals especially with their function in both artificially constructed and natural languages and comprises syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics.
All semiotics is existentially dependent upon pre-existing common language use.
All language use is meaningful.
Meaning exists prior to semiotics.
That which exists prior to something else cannot be existentially dependent upon that something else. Meaning cannot be existentially dependent upon semantics, syntax, or semiotics. Rather, all three of those consist of pre-existing meaning. That which consists of something else is existentially dependent upon that something else. Semantics, syntax, and semiotics are all three existentially dependent upon pre-existing meaning.
So...
The thread is about consciousness. The contentious matter between us is whether or not it makes sense to draw an association between consciousness and 'genuine meaning', whereas the latter is language use replete with both semantic and syntactic content. The problem, of course, is that that notion of 'genuine meaning' cannot provide a basic enough - read *prelinguistic* - account of meaning. Some meaning exists prior to language. That is genuine meaning.
Is it enough for consciousness?
Who knows? I mean what counts as consciousness - according to current conventional standards - is akin to how many grains it takes to make a pile. The criterion for what counts as consciousness has yet to have been clearly set forth in this thread. I'm claiming that some cases of consciousness do not require common language use, whereas others most certainly do.
Is meaningful language use proof of consciousness? Certainly. I'm guessing that that is what Searle's Chinese Room is all about(what exactly counts as meaningful language use). Is it required for consciousness in it's most simplistic manifestation(s)? I think not.
Can a plurality of different creatures draw mental correlations between the same things without realizing that they are doing it?
Of course. We even do that all the time.
Doesn't drawing a mental correlation between different things require being aware that one is doing so?
Of course not. We do that(draw mental correlations between different things) unbeknownst to ourselves at the time it is happening. We've all been on autopilot when suddenly we realize we've been doing all sorts of stuff without paying much attention at all to any of it.
Our being able to even realize that much is existentially dependent upon being able to talk about it. Autopilot happens autonomously. We need not turn on our physiological sensory perception. We must be already having experiences prior to being able to report on and/or talk about them. Being conscious of oneself, and/or one's own worldview requires complex common language replete with the ability to talk about one's own pre-existing thought/belief(mental ongoings).
Does consciousness require being aware and/or attentive to oneself(self-awareness) and one's own worldview? Isn't there an actual distinction to be drawn between the kinds of things a creature is even capable of becoming and/or being conscious of? Certainly these groups of things we can become aware and/or conscious of vary according to both, the capability of the creature(humans notwithstanding) under consideration, and the complexity of the thing that we are becoming aware of. What does that thing consist of? What is it existentially dependent upon?
What is the creature under current consideration conscious and/or aware of?
Are they becoming aware of that which directly perceptible? Certainly whatever one is becoming aware of existed in it's entirety prior to any creature being able to become aware of it. That's true regarding all discovery regardless of whether or not the discovery is directly and/or indirectly perceptible. Invention is another matter altogether. All invention consists of some novel correlation somewhere along the line. But I digress...
Being/becoming aware of directly perceptible things does not require common language. Feelings of contentment and familiarity subdue instinctual fear of unfamiliar things. These states of mind help produce expectation. Certainly there is some degree/level/amount of consciousness in these basic cases despite the obvious lack of common language?
There's shared meaning pervading the flock, despite none of the individuals knowing that much. The group is well nourished, content, and resting. The creatures and their senses are on always on autopilot. Without language not only can they not talk about it, they also cannot have the experience(consciousness) of doing so. The same things are familiar to different individuals nonetheless. Things are familiar nonetheless.
Unexpected things such as sudden events disrupt such circumstances. A mongoose snatches up a young duckling and runs off as suddenly as s/he appeared. Fear of the unfamiliar/unexpected retakes the wheel from the autopilot of familiarity, contentment, and rest. Not really. Ducks, including the mothers, do not seem at all fearful, and/or otherwise altered in their directed behaviours by such commonly occurring events. Familiarity.
An unfamiliar stray dog is another matter altogether.
Do such situations require consciousness? Certainly. Common language? Certainly not.
There are very simple, repeatable experiments that can be performed in a closely controlled environment which would create the circumstances necessary in order for us to watch it happen. We can provide what it takes for a list of individual creatures make the same connections between different things(between some things of our own choosing). We can monitor these events carefully and watch the creatures' further develop their own 'self-contained' expectations based upon regular and consistent series of events.
Is that not a real life example... a demonstration... of *some* amount/degree/level of consciousness hard at work?
Quoting creativesoul
Quoting bongo fury
(I seem to have read 'aware' as 'conscious', but no harm done.)
Quoting creativesoul
Quoting bongo fury
But hey, kudos to us for exploring and questioning a bit further, despite the inevitable misunderstandings. I think our concerns are very similar, and there is plenty we could soon agree on, or disagree more clearly on. And in the end...
Quoting creativesoul
So an association after all (if only one-way not two-way).
And maybe worth bringing up after all.
Meaningful language use is adequate enough evidence to warrant thinking/believing that that user/individual is conscious. With that I agree. However, language use is not necessary for being and/or becoming aware/conscious of everything.
All consciousness requires a creature capable of attributing meaning. All meaning is attributed solely by virtue of drawing mental correlations, associations, and/or connections between different things.
So, in short...
Consciousness is existentially dependent upon meaning.
Meaning is not existentially dependent upon natural/common language.
Consciousness is not existentially dependent upon natural/common language.
This - of course - is too vague. Meaning, like thought, belief, and knowledge begins simply and grows/evolves in complexity.
Meaning predates natural/common language solely by virtue of rudimentary level thought/belief.
Quoting bongo fury
Interesting to me. You writing all this down?
:wink:
I've written more than enough...
I want to read. Your concerns have yet to have been expressed here. Care to?
Can you doubt it?
Quoting creativesoul
Agreed. But then, the same old problem. Conscious (mental correlations), or unconscious?
I'm suggesting, conscious where the meaning is genuine, in the sense of not reducing, like the light-heat connection for the thermostat, or the salivation-bell connection for Pavlov's dog, to syntax. (You don't like widening linguistic terminology to symbolic functioning in general, I do. That difference between us is negotiable, I expect.)
Genuine, though, in what more positive sense? (You might ask.)
Here I have to contradict your cherished separation of meaning from its study - from "semantics". Genuine meaning, worthy of associating (roughly at least) with consciousness, is for me a semantical understanding, exercise of the high level social skill of agreeing which words or pictures or other symbols we are to suppose are pointed at (directed at, thrown at, landed on, applied to, attached to) which things.
The dog plays fetch with sticks. We play fetch with words.
The dog understands where the stick was thrown towards, and where it landed, out of a range of possibilities. But it doesn't, as we do, understand what a word was pointed at, or even that anything got pointed, at all; even though it might be trained or innately disposed to respond a certain way (which we of course may interpret semantically). Understanding and recognising the semantic relation is a much harder game, which, by contrast, the human infant very soon delights in.
The dog is conscious, I conjecture, roughly to the (rather limited) extent that it can join in the harder game.
Thank you for looking.
Of course ! I never said that someone could comprehend everything just by the definitions, but definitions can at least give some ideas of something. I would not say that Humans are born with some "prior concepts" but rather with some prior intuitions - E.Kant -, concepts are more practical and are formed by induction of different phenomenons - or knowledge -, intuitions are not clear, abstract and fuzzy, it's more like a feeling.
Thx for sharing, i didn't knew this theory. I will check it out
So, the brain-outside-of-the-consciousness-facility is where most of our thinking is done. It's altogether ours, we do it, but we can't observe it. The activities of the brain-outside-of-the-consciousness-facility pass things along to the conscious facility. So, if I ask you, "What is Mary's telephone number", the answer appears and you tell me what it is. HOW the brain found the number, and WHERE exactly it was stored, and by WHAT MEANS it delivered it to your tongue to speak, isn't open to the conscious facility's observation. fMRI machines can capture some of the processing that delivers up Mary's number.
Your conscious mind did not do much of the work composing your OP, just as my conscious mind is mostly an observer watching the words come off my fingertips. I have no idea how the brain-outside-of-the-consciousness-facility assembles ideas, sentences, paragraphs, etc. and sends them off to the fingers or tongue for transmission.
Speaking of fMRIs, the dogs below are displaying a lot of attention. They are subjects in a canine cognition research program, and just right now a human is explaining what they will all be doing in the next phase--while holding up a tennis ball. Once trained to put up with the MRI, they hop right up and are given various stimuli--sounds, odors, pictures, words, etc. to see what happens in their heads. Brains all work pretty much alike, so it s quite relevant to our brains.
I suspect the "you can't even step into the same river once" quip was somebody's attempt to top Heraclitus.
Right, and it's fun as something like a Woody Allen joke . . .
:blush:
Pardon my lack of social etiquette Basko. I haven't even addressed the OP directly, although if anything I've said is worth anything at all, hopefully there have been some purely accidental connections/relevance to it.
I'll read it and at least address it.
You're more than welcome. I find most of the talk about consciousness to be... well... errr.... um.... misguided, to say the least.
And yet that's not a problem on my view. That's part of the point I've been painstakingly making here. When we're discussing consciousness, the discourse needs to include not only the candidate(creature), but also what *exactly* the candidate is conscious/aware of, and/or attentive towards?
That approach/framework dissolves the purported problem.
To ask whether or not mental correlations are conscious or unconscious is to ask whether or not the thinking/believing creature is aware of their own thought/belief(mental correlations). Being aware that one is thinking, being aware that one has beliefs, being aware that one is in the grip of expectation/fear, being aware that one has mental ongoings, being aware that one is drawing correlations, associations, and/or connections between different things requires complex natural/common language that is replete with names for mental ongoings.
So... not the same old problem!
Hence, in the very beginning of our exchange I clearly expressed the need to take proper account of thought/belief, paying particularly close attention to the actual differences between thought/belief and thinking about thought/belief. One result of employing such a method is that realize that people are not even conscious of the fact that they are thinking/believing creatures until long after language use has begun in earnest. As it stands, you've neglected this.
Genuine meaningful language use does not guarantee that that user is capable of thinking about it's own thought/belief.
On my view, being aware of one's own consciousness is being aware of one's thought/belief. That kind of self-awareness(self-consciousness) can only come after/with complex natural/common language use replete with names for mental ongoings. That level of consciousness - being aware of one's own mental ongoings - is existentially dependent upon quite a bit more than mere meaningful language use.
I'm not going to agree that consciousness requires meaningful language use, because everyday facts show otherwise.
I've offered more than adequate argument/ground against this notion of 'genuine meaning' that you're working from. It's inherently inadequate for taking proper account of prelinguistic and/or nonlinguistic thought/belief, and hence meaningful attribution(as well as some amount/degree/level of consciousness) that first happens/emerges and/or persists prior to either the structure of language(syntax/grammar) or the study of meaningful language use(semantics). As heretofore argued, it's also inherently incapable of taking proper account of self-consciousness.
I want to say a bit here regarding the characterization/terminological choices displayed in the above quote.
The salivation-bell 'connection' for Pavlov's dog?
That correlation was drawn by Pavlov, not the dog. The dog's correlation was between the bell and being fed. Hence, the salivation is evidence that the dog has/holds expectation. He believes he's about to eat(expects to be fed) when he hears the bell. That is - in part - because of the consistency of past events. Expectation(thought/belief about what's about to happen) ensues as a result of the dog's successive repeated mental correlations drawn between those things.
The light-heat connection for the thermostat?
Because all meaning is attributed and the attribution of meaning requires a creature capable of drawing mental correlations between different things, and thermostats are not, it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about any meaningful connection/association/correlation for a thermostat.
Consciousness = the ability to form, have, and/or hold thought/belief and all that that entails. The complexity level of the consciousness is proportional to the complexity level of the creatures' thought/belief.
Thought/belief consists of mental correlations, associations, and/or connections drawn between different things.
Indeed.
With regards to attention: it may not imply attention in *every* sense but there is a very good sense in which you are attending to something simply by being conscious. There is a sense in which by simply being conscious you are attending to what you're conscious of ... since the being aware or conscious orf X equates to attending to X.
Well, exactly. That's why I'm calling it mere syntax. We agree on much, as I keep saying.
Does consciousness equal:
Does any of these do the trick? Or can all of them be unconscious?
I suspect they all can, on any definitions plausibly grounded in common usage. (Fear, maybe not yet, but soon, when we start attributing it to some gratuitously cute robot.)
So, taking the bull by the horns, what distinguishes, for example, conscious meaning from unconscious meaning: genuine from fake? That was my reason to invoke Searle and his Chinese Room, and you got that, totally. As here:
Quoting creativesoul
That would be Searle's message, too, I think.
It leads, of course, to the question how or roughly when a creature achieves consciousness of the (external or internal) objects of its awareness, attention, thought, belief, correlation, expectation, etc.
Thanks for sketching your approach to that question, and thanks for looking at mine!
I think "observer" isn't the right word to use to describe consciousness. Observer means that the one is "looking at" something - in this case some brains activities -, i would rather say that the conscious mind is experiencing within some brain activities. Then, the question is, those experiencing within some brain activities impact the outcome or the structure of those brain activities ? or it's just a passive experience.
If experiencing something doesn't change the outcome or the structure then the hard problem kicks in .. Why we experience ?
My conscious mind definitely does not like the idea that it is just a figurehead of the "real" brain, mind, that operates out of sight of the public, and the conscious facility. But it is possible, that what I identify as the "conscious me" isn't much more than a shadow puppet manipulated by the "real me".
The "real me", out of sight, busy doing god knows what behind the screen, experiences what it gets from the sensory data feeds, what it imagines, what it wishes for, what it fears, etc. The "invisible real me" projects the shadow puppet because it is just very useful to have a business rep out front which can deal with other business reps, which are also 'out front'.
This probably doesn't help much.
The invocation of "unconscious" is unhelpful.
Being conscious of the trees involves drawing correlations between the trees and other things. That takes place long before the creature can become aware of that. The tree is significant to the dog as a result of the dog drawing mental correlations, associations, and/or connections between the tree and other things. The dog is conscious of the tree. It is aware of the tree. It is attentive towards the tree.
The dog does not know this.
I've set out my own view. You've invoked the "conscious/unconscious" dichotomy(problem). I've already explained how to dissolve it(how it's not a problem on my view). That's been left sorely neglected while you continue to fly around in the bottle that you popped the cork to.
All meaning is attributed by conscious creatures. Not all of those creatures realize what's going on.
:smile:
Thanks for the nicety.
So,
- Does consciousness = shadow-business-rep-puppetry?
- Does consciousness = any combination of this with any of the many other suggestions?
But then, do you mean any shadow-business-rep-puppetry, including the clearly unconscious kind which I presume is implemented in my PC as operating system "shells" and the like?
And if not, how do you narrow it down?
Sorry to butt in.
Within oneself sounds geographical, are we talking about a location in space? Or does the word "within" have an archaic sense related to the association of a self with a biological enclosed system (body), the primal idea of space? Internality is a concept that needs some explanation.
Again the concept of "inside/outside" where "/" = skin (or screen). Somehow the real thing is enclosed and hidden. And it sure is. When I think (intellect), I am outside my real self and cannot reach it; but paradoxically by self-alienation that's how I know I am real. But "what am I" surges up (another spatio-geographical concept); is it necessary that I am something that can be referred to as "what"?
We agree upon less, I think, than you seem to think/believe.
There is no syntax for the thermostat either.
Syntax is existentially dependent upon pre-existing meaning. Syntax is the structure of common language. Semantics is the study of meaning. The term "syntax" was invented as a means to separate meaning from structure. The problem is that that is prima facie evidence of an utterly inadequate *metacognitive* notion/conception/idea of meaning hard at work. The structure/grammar/syntax of common language is one part of the meaning. That move, that separation, is a mistake in thought/belief about meaning. It is a mistake in the study of meaning.
By the way, I'm not making up the idea that semantics is not equivalent to meaning. I'm just pointing it out. So, you can reject and/or dismiss that if you so choose. However, in doing so you'd be showing unshakable certainty in false belief.
All undeniable examples of consciousness, all undeniable candidates/creatures who we say, without pause, are conscious creatures are thinking/believing creatures. They are conscious of something or other. No conscious creature is conscious of everything, including all of their own thought/belief(including the very thing that happens that makes them conscious creatures to begin with).
All thought/belief consists of mental correlations drawn between different things. All meaning involves precisely the same process(thought/belief formation).
Everything ever spoken, written, and/or otherwise uttered directly involves the aforementioned mental correlations. Some thought/belief is prior to language acquisition. All thought/belief is meaningful to the thinking/believing creature. All thought/belief has efficacy regardless of the complexity thereof.
When we become - sometimes quite painfully - aware of the fact that we've been mistaken about something or other, and we have the means to account for it, we can avoid cognitive dissonance. When we cannot believe what we're experiencing, we're doubting our physiological sensory perception and/or our own thought/belief about what has just happened and/or is still happening.
It's all about thought/belief people!
When we report upon consciousness, we had better base that report upon knowledge of that which existed in it's entirety prior to our report. Thought/belief is one such thing - and must be if it has evolved over time. Consciousness is as well.
Kant's Noumena unfortunately fails us here. That is a self-inflicted wound. A limitation of sheer will fed by language use itself. Kant attempts to delimit our thought about ding an sich or things in themselves. This would include everything prior to language. Kant - for some reason unbeknownst to me - stipulates that we cannot know anything about that which existed prior to our awareness/consciousness of it. Based upon that false premiss, he continues to drive a wedge between mind and world. Noumena is a Kantian child posing as a rule of all thought regarding what and/or how we ought proceed with our metacognitive endeavors(reasoning).
I put it to everyone out there that we need not know everything about something to know some things about something. This holds good regarding that which existed prior to language itself. Creatures are very attentive, quite conscious, of certain things. These things are part of bigger events, and the totality of these events captures the creatures' entire attention. We can watch this happen over and over again. The simplest correlations we can verify involve a creature with a multifaceted biological system replete with several different kinds of physiological sensory perception(a sensory organ system).
The creature does not know that this is happening, but it most certainly is. So...
When talking about consciousness, it would behoove us all to keep in mind that we ought be focusing upon both, the candidate and what the candidate is purportedly conscious of.
Being aware, conscious, and/or otherwise attentive towards something(consciousness) has a minimalist criterion at it's heart - and it must in order to be amenable to evolution without invoking unnecessary entities. This minimalist criterion must consist of that which is necessary and sufficient for all known examples of consciousness. It must be able to somehow progress/increase in complexity over time, perhaps over lifespans, and throughout the history of that particular species' time on earth(humans in mind).
An adequate outline.
It need not fill in all the blanks so much as it need to provide the framework which is capable of being used to do so. That is explanatory power. Given my own strict adherence to certain rules and/or guiding principles along with a fondness for Ockham's Razor, that power is inherent in the notion of thought/belief that I work from because that notion is based upon the strongest possible justificatory ground(universal quantification regarding verifiable/falsifiable statements).
It's all about thought/belief. Get thought/belief wrong, and you've most certainly gotten consciousness wrong - somewhere along the line - as an inevitable logical consequence.
Mental correlations happen autonomously. We need not 'turn it on'. We cannot turn it off. All conscious creatures - and thus all consciousness - involve(s) exactly that(mental correlations). It does not involve the creature being conscious that they are conscious(that they form, have, and/or hold thought/belief). It does not involve the creature knowing that their own behaviour is informed, directly effected/affected, and/or otherwise influenced by the never-ending process of mental correlations being drawn between different things.
As best we can tell, the only conscious creatures aware of the fact that they are conscious creatures are humans. We become conscious of our own thought/belief(worldview) solely by virtue of complex common natural language replete with names for our own mental ongoings. The common sense as well as logical(on pains of coherence) point here - of course - is that prior to becoming aware that one is conscious... one is already conscious.
Becoming aware that one is conscious requires complex natural/common language. Being conscious does not.
Not all conceptions/notions/ideas/frameworks of consciousness are on equal footing. As far as I'm aware, no conventional school of thought has ever gotten it right(well-grounded and amenable to evolutionary progression without anthropomorphism, the obliteration of meaningful language, and/or the personification of animals).
To ask whether or not some thought/belief is a conscious or unconscious one is to neglect the fact that all thought/belief is formed by a creature capable of drawing mental correlations between different things, and that that is *precisely* how anything and/or anyone becomes conscious.
Not all creatures are aware of their own thought/belief. They are conscious nonetheless... of a plethora, a smorgasbord, a panopoly of other things.
Put forth a creature and something for it to become conscious of. Then, figure out exactly what that takes. Re-read what I've offered here.
Toodles.
:smile:
I'd say that we're definitely talking about something "geographical" as you put it. Yes, it's a spatio-temporal location. Namely, the spatio-temporal location of your brain. Not that everything your brain does is mentality, but all mentality is something that your brain does. Your brain has a location.
Thought/belief is not the sort of thing that has a precise spatiotemporal location. All consciousness is thought/belief, so...
Quoting creativesoul
Quoting creativesoul
If Consciousness = the ability to form - have and/or hold - Thought/belief, does that mean that the unconscious processes cannot form Thought/belief ?
Thinking is by definition a conscious activity, is "the action of using one's mind to produce thoughts" - Merriam-Webster.com.
There must be a subject who is thinking, the same as there must be a subject who is experiencing. There is a theory that claims there can be unconscious thoughts - Unconscious thought theory (UTT) - but i think thoughts isn't the right word, it's more like unconscious processing.
My point is, Thinking is a conscious activity and thoughts are "flow of ideas", ofcs based upon brain prior structures but none the less conscious "flow of ideas" - consciousness may interfere -, what we can call unconscious thoughts are just unconscious brain processing and calling those processing "thoughts" is like saying your computer think bcs he process information.
But beliefs are not the same as thoughts. If you are born in a catholic - or other religion - family and since the young age your family teach you that Jesus is God, your unconscious mind will form new brain structures and will hold the statement "Jesus is God" for true. Your belief in God is just some brain structures developed by unconscious processes through repetition. The same as your environment build the belief in God, another environment can make you doubt about that belief.
I see beliefs like mental principles which we hold through time, theses principles can emerge from unconscious processes or conscious "flow of ideas".
I will copy-paste what i wrote before in page 1 ..
Awareness : Having or showing realization, perception, or knowledge
Imagine we understand what consciousness really is and how it works, then we proceed to create a artificial life form with our understanding. As we build we realize we don't have enough money to build it like we wanted so we chose to decrease dramatically the cognitive abilities, the memory storage and the capacity of our AI to form a new structures.
Once we finished, we decide to study it, by various tests, to see how our AI work. As we test our AI we remark that it can't realize what is happening due to very low cognitive abilities, it cannot form enough knowledge too bcs of very low memory storage, and bcs of low capacity of forming new structures it perceive - organization of sensory inputs - very little about the world. Our AI experience - the rough sensory inputs - without realization of experiencing and without realization of oneself identity, our AI is not aware - at least by the definition above.
Ofcs is an imagined scenario, maybe what we call consciousness need some good level of cognitive abilities, memory, perception and maybe more ..
Well i think the "oneself" is more like an idea a person have about themselves, a Self-concept which include probably the association with the body.
If "What am i ?" isn't the right question to ask, then what question is most appropriate to ask ..?
:up: :up: :clap: