Why is consciousness special?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Guest Speakers » David Chalmers » Why is consciousness special? » Why is consciousness special?

Why is consciousness special?

Page: 1 2 3

Why is consciousness special?

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/28/09 - 04:52 AM:	#21
bert1 wrote Oh, I see. It's my view that these apparently different spaces are token-identical. Do you think the objects (perceived or conceived) that inhabit the two spaces are token-identical? What does a photon (for example) look like?
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

nousPLOTINU
The Flux

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 07, 2008
Location: Montreal

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 150

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 05/28/09 - 11:55 AM: Subject: collecting information on thought content.	#22
davidchalmers wrote: The "at what point" question is a good one. There are basically two or three options. (i) Some element of consciouness existed all along, even at the big bang. (ii) Consciousness came into existence at some point in the evolutionary history, once cognitive systems evolved with an appropriate sort of coplexity. (iii) We should reject the question as there is no single "point" -- rather the term "consciousness" applies vaguely to a huge cluster of phenomena that may have evolved at different times. Speaking for myself, as someone who thinks that consciousness may be fundamental, I reject (iii), but that leaves (i) and (ii). I am quite sympathetic with (i), either in its version as panpsychism or its version as "panprotopsychism", with some precursors to consciousness (protoconsciousness) present at the fundamental level of matter (see the section on type-F monism in my paper "Consciosness and its Place in Nature" for more here). But I also don't rule out (ii). It may be that there are fundamental laws connecting consciousness to certain sorts of information processing, such that when processing of that sort evolves, then one gets consciousness automatically as a consequence. Perhaps that is a somewhat less elegant picture, but it's not easily ruled out. I was thinking the other day about being conscious of the content of thought, which yields where your thoughts are being focused . This calls for a self-reporting mechanism, (now I am thinking about making a decent point), which in itself can raise the level of soft consciousness (if it is possible to call it by that name). The last week most of my thoughts were focused on marketing my No2bots product. Now I believe I can take a break away from marketing without diminishing my continuous progress, and I was able to select an activity, and make a point here. Well David, on your report #1, it is written thanks for that reporting stuff! (soft chuckle). The next step, I guess if we wanted to tailor "bad" thoughts, this "conscious of doing what" mechanism, would have had to have been hard coded at some earlier point, like you suggested, instead of the soft memetic approach I am currently engaged in, to maximize my thinking time.
It is not that I think I know, it is that I know when I think.

Vague Abstraction
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 20, 2009

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 56

Posted 05/28/09 - 03:27 PM:	#23
It's possible that inanimate objects, such as trees, have minds, especially since they are, in one sense, "alive." I feel that even rocks have some degree of awareness. Might it be true that consciousness is ubiquitous?

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 235

Posted 05/29/09 - 02:24 AM:	#24
ragus wrote: Do you think the objects (perceived or conceived) that inhabit the two spaces are token-identical? What does a photon (for example) look like? Good question. I haven't had a chance to think about it properly yet, and I don't have a pre-cooked answer. I'll answer when I've dealt with a batch of real life stuff.
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

knowitall
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 18, 2004

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 15

Posted 05/29/09 - 08:08 AM: Subject: Consciousness and Self-awareness	#25
Excerpt from something I wrote elsewhere: "To be conscious an entity must also be self-aware. For example, the computer monitor displaying these words is not conscious of them because it has no sense of itself in the context of them. In other words, there is no intrinsic component of the monitor can be interpreted by the monitor as representing the monitor displaying the words. By contrast, you are conscious of these words because you are also aware of yourself interacting with them. This is because there is an intrinsic component of you that is interpreted by you as you reading these words. Self-awareness is the component of your mind that interprets the relationship between the entity reading these words and the being recognizing itself as that entity as a connection. As such, you are both the subject and object of your self-awareness. Consciousness is the component of your mind that interprets the relationship between the object of your self-awareness and these words (and everything else that you are interacting with in some manner) as a separation. Consciousness represents the boundary of our self-awareness in that it essentially defines what we are not. Since we are shaped by what we are not, for many of us consciousness is the primary vehicle by which we can understand what we are." This is one of the key reasons why consciousness is special.

bert1
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Location: Morecambe, UK

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 235

Posted 06/17/09 - 05:24 AM:	#26
ragus wrote: Do you think the objects (perceived or conceived) that inhabit the two spaces are token-identical? I'm still not exactly sure how to answer this! First, I obviously don't think there are two spaces. On my view there is one space with objects in it. Some of these objects we perceive, others we conceive on the basis of our perceptions. A photon, I guess, is an example of an object that we do not perceive as such, but whose existence we infer from reflecting on our perceptions. (I suspect I may have missed a deeper point here somewhere!)
"Like a ungroomed dog in which the desired look is it’s long hair but it has been so unattended to, that combing is impractical, and it might be better if the hair was cut and attended to as it grows back." d_martin

JezCave
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 16, 2009
Location: United Kingdom

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 31

Posted 06/17/09 - 08:21 AM:	#27
ichiemperor wrote: the cat understands the basic needs of survival and therefore, in my humble opinion, understands that it exists and want to continue that existence. This phenomenon does not exist with rocks. I don't think a cat "understands" any of what it's doing, understanding the reasoning behind something is a form of consciousness. It seems far more like instinct and the basic programming we all hold to keep us alive. Despite being an incredibly crude example it's like an erection. Our brain subconsciously provides it, or not, without our conscious bidding as the brain instinctively decides it's time to procreate. Edited by Bobard on 06/17/09 - 09:05 AM. Reason: attributed quote
"What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?" C.S Lewis Rights? "Nonsense on Stilts" Jeremy Bentham

YadaYada
fool

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 12, 2004
Location: in the past

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 316

Posted 06/17/09 - 05:30 PM:	#28
Yeh, there's a problem with calling it all "consciousness". There are both qualitative and quantitative differences between a cat and a human, and a rock and a tree. Judging by understanding, only humans are conscious because understanding requires society and language. Cats have powerful instincts, are clever and learn, but can't have more than the simplest reason. And trees have DNA that propels a very complex cycle of development while rocks seldom do anything, at least within our lifetimes. Yet, all the same, there is structure everywhere that encodes the state of the universe.
{}{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{ . . . }{}{}{}{}{ . . . We may assume the superiority ceteris paribus of the demonstration which derives from fewer postulates ~ Aristotle

Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 617

Posted 07/06/09 - 09:16 AM:	#29
Pardon, but I am surprised that we can so casually talk about consciousness in so many different senses of the word without anybody even trying to define what we are talking about. I mean, it seems impossible to talk about consciousness as something that is a property, a substance, obtains existence and yet still differentiates one form of being from another. Are we not risking a horrible category mistake? And yet still, we can all speak of different forms of consciousness, and still be talking about this general consciousness. For example, we can discuss the differences in the consciousness of cats and humans, but what about the differences in the consciousness of Biologists and Philosophers? Or even more generally, mentally handicapped and someone with the average IQ of 110. Is intelligence a true measure of consciousness or merely a phenomena of consciousness altogether? Of course we can merely change our definition of consciousness depending on what we want to include, but that presents its own problems. Also, it betrays the topic of the Original Post, at what point does consciousness become significant? Of course, as the OP mentioned, the anthropocentric answer is one that includes humans but excludes cats. So awareness of awareness seems to be an apt definition. But then we wind-up with obtuse judgements like "only humans are conscious because understanding requires society and language." This seems ludicrous, however, for how can we possibly have society and language without first having some sort of understanding? In the same way, it makes little sense to claim that awareness of awareness is indicative of consciousness, for awareness of any kind seems to necessitate some form of consciousness. I think the most rational conception of consciousness is one that entails consciousness as being part of our limited understanding of existence. Taking into account our presumed cognitive development and evolutionary cycle, humans too are instinctual, just as cats, and we learn just as cats. But as can be seen when looking at the difference between species, mere consciousness does not necessitate the ability to do advanced calculus. If we are looking for some sort of consciousness gradient, we can always look at the differences between ameoba and Protoans, Fish and Plankton, Reptiles and Fish, Rodents and Reptiles, Primates and Rodents. And when we analyze this even further, the difference between the consciousness of humans and cats does not seem so different. Anyone who has volunteered to feed the stray cats in a given area (yes, I know cat ladies), knows that cats certainly do have their own society complete with relationships and awareness of histories. Even Biologists will testify to the social behavior of even microbial life forms. Now whether or not all of this constitutes consciousness is a rather different debate, but if we try to define consciousness in such a limited way, we face clear epistemological concerns that lead only to an anthropocentristic view of things.

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.