The Flaw in the Definition of Consciousness

[hypnagogue]

Originally posted by Mentat
There is no such thing as "logical necessity", surely you know that by now. A person can deny that the sky is blue, and hold that it is "eulb" long after you've explained everything that there is to explain about the sky.

I get the feeling you are just being difficult now for the sake of it. There is logical necessity, otherwise logic would be meaningless. The laws of logic show that set X of H2O molecules under the proper circumstances must have macroscopic fluidity. Any person who actually follows the logic will not be able to logically assert that X should exist with some macroscopic properties in contradiction with fluidity (like solidity).

I won't take my usual stance, but will instead (once again) mention the most embarrasing aspect of your argument: "Fluidity" is defined, "subjective experience" is not.

I think it is rather quite embarrassing that you are denying the existence of something you know to exist!

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
No, I don't think he was asking a question about purpose. I hoped it wouldn't seem that way, but I guess it did. No, there are other kinds of "why" question, aside from the two I allowed for in the aforementioned thread...one of them is the kind that hypnagogue is asking, which is not a "what cause" or a "what purpose", but a "why not something else". It is the question of why things are the way they are when we can imagine them being otherwise. The scientific answer remains, "They just are", and philosophers can't give much of an improvement on this by giving their own opinions (regardless of experimental data) on the matter.

I think you are reading too much into what he means by that question. I interpreted it to be his way of defining what a proper explanation actually is. A proper explanation for why planets are round can logical show why planets are not square. All of this seems so simple to me. I have to believe you are just being obstinate and not really struggling to understand.

That also follows from the example of a blue sky. Yes, the subjective experience of the color blue calls up the consciousness problem and therefore was not the best analogy but it can quickly be corrected by saying that science does explain why the sky reflects a certain range of wavelength in the sprectrum. "It just does" is not sufficient. I am sure that science can explain why this is the case and this reason alone will logical explain why it is not otherwise.

Also, the idea that subjective experience has not been defined has been coming up more and more in each post. I'm not really sure I understand this position all that much but it seems that if we're going to deny the problem because we can't objectively identify it, all we're doing is using the hard problem of consciousness and the fact that it doesn't fit into the current paradigm to conclude it doesn't exists. All according to the rules of the current paradigm. Doesn't seem like very good philosophy to me. It's like a fish trying to suggest where it's fishbowl would look best in the room.

 

[Canute]

Mentat

Hypno said this about consciousness - "It is usually used as a reference to the 1st person perspective, the 'what it is like.' It cannot be adequately defined in purely objective terms."

You replied - "Doesn't that usually make a term logically useless?"

The answer is no, it makes it scientifically useless. You have hit the nail on the head. This is the hard problem.

"How can you know that something exists if it has no definition"

Consciousness has a perfectly good definition, and everyone can define it. If you won't accept that definition it's your problem. Are you really trying to tell us that because you cannot define your own consciousness it follows that you're not conscious? Can you really not see that this does not make sense.

"(and you can't just say "because I have it", because you can't logically know that you "have something" if you don't even know that that "something" exists in the first place ...snip"

But he does know, so this is irrelevant. I must admit I'm beginning to struggle to keep my posts to you dispassionate. You seem to uninterested in the facts.

 

[clicky]

Everything is an interaction because everybody indicates its existence by certain interaction.

Consciousness is expression of the fundamental property of everybody to be self-defined in a 3D-spiral way [1]. We self-define, i.e. study ourselves and the rest of the universe [1]. Mind is an outcome from the expansion of the all-building interaction [1].


Savov, E., Theory Interaction, Geones Books, 2002.

 

[Mentat]

Forgive the tardiness and necessary brevity of this post, but my access to the internet is not nearly as reliable as I'd like...

Originally posted by hypnagogue
Bad analogy. A better one would be "How can you deny that there are buildings, when you see all buildings around you?" Again we are not talking about inferences here, just observation.

No, we are talking about bad definitions. Subjective experience cannot be defined without first appealing to it (just as "creation" cannot be logically defined without implying a "creator"), and so it is a logically useless term (that is, until you can define it in more logically tenable terms).

I have defined it, just from a 1st person perspective. I'm sorry if you cannot accept that.

It's not about my acceptance. It's about the logical problem with looping definitions. It's about the fact that you are asking me to help explain a phenomenon that you can't even define. If you can't define it, how do you even know it exists? Is this not the fundamental aspects of a strawman?

Of course an explanation of a phenomenon does not produce the phenomenon. If I explain what a tree is to someone (Bob) who has never seen one, a tree will not magically appear, but what will happen is that Bob will have a good understanding of what a tree is. If we could explain subjective phenomena (say, color) as well as we could explain objective phenomena (like the tree), then we might expect that I could explain color to a blind person (Jill) well enough that she would have a good understanding of what it is, even though my explanation would not magically enable her to see colors. But this is obviously not the case; no matter how I try, Jill will never have a good understanding of what color is, unless she is someday able to see.

She will have as good an understanding as any of us non-blind people do? What do we really know of color anyway, which we can't explain to Jill? It is only having seen the color that is lacking (an "impression" that she cannot have, as Hume would put it).

Why? A tree is defined at least partially defined extrinsically, that is, in relation to other things. So we can at least explain to Bob a tree's shape (the internal geometric relationships among its parts), its functions (its relationships with sunlight, soil, water, etc.), and so on. However, a subjectively experienced color is defined entirely intrinsically. I do not define my sense of redness with respect to my sense of blueness and vice versa; my sense of redness stands on its own. Because it is not defined extrinsically, there is no conceptual 'hook' that I can latch it onto in order to explain or describe it via its relationships with other things.

This is your primary objection, but it is something we must accept if we are to have a complete picture of reality. If you presented the wave/particle duality to Newton, with no means of supporting it empirically, Newton would reject your views immediately. But Newton would be wrong.

While I don't quite understand the analogy, I can say that there is a clear and inescapable problem with all you've said above: It relies on the existence of something that you cannot define.

How can you expect to have a logical conversation about "xxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyyy" if you haven't defined it?

What's worse, you then say that the materialists are "skirting around the issue" by "redefining 'experience'", they are the only ones that have given any meaningful definition to that which they are explaining.

That can explain unconscious processes just fine, but not conscious ones.

What's the difference?

Go into a dreamless sleep. Then wake up and open your eyes. You will see visual images. That's what experience is.

Not good enough, by any stretch of the imagination. First off, you can't have dreamless sleep unless your dead (you just might not remember any of them) - and that is not some irrelevant point, it is an important one since it shows that the processes of the mind are going on all the time, indicating that there is no special process which you keep seeking.

Secondly, when I awaken from dreamless sleep and open my eyes, what changes? I now have interaction between my retinas and the waves of light in the room, which I didn't have before.

Finally, one should not ask one to just "experience for themselves" what one is talking about as a way of escaping the logical necessity for defining all terms.

Neither is P ^ ~P, but we seem to get along with quantum mechanics just fine.

Yes that is good logic, as arkhron would testify in half a second in former times on old threads. But I don't need to defend quantum mechanics here; the reason "oh, you know what I mean" is not good logic is not because I don't like it or because it doesn't make sense, but because it doesn't make any use of reasoning whatsoever - it simply assumes that I know what you mean in order to side-step the necessity for definition.

Yes you do, you are just unfortunately too stubborn to give up a completely objective worldview. Compare what it is like for you to be awake and what it is like for you to be in a dreamless sleep. The zombie would experience the same thing as you do in your dreamless sleep and still appear outwardly like you do when you are awake.

What do you mean "what it's like for you to be asleep"? For that matter, what do you mean by "what it is like for you to be awake"? What is it like to be asleep? What is it like to be awake?

We already established that all definitions must ultimately be circular. The difference is that things defined extrinsically have a much wider 'circle,' so their definitions take on the appearance of not being circular. But in fact anything you can define is just as circular as the definitions I have been using for subjective experience.

Wrong. If something can be defined to the level of semantics, then it has been defined well enough to avoid any logical circle. You cannot even define "subjective experience" in the most rudimentary of ways, but must instead hope that I know a priori what you are talking about.

 

[Fliption]

You're really stretching it here Mentat. Are you serious? If early man had approached their curiosities the way you are we'd still be in the stone age. Once again, you put far too much emphasis on language. Langauge has nothing to do with reality.

Originally posted by Mentat
No, we are talking about bad definitions. Subjective experience cannot be defined without first appealing to it (just as "creation" cannot be logically defined without implying a "creator"), and so it is a logically useless term (that is, until you can define it in more logically tenable terms).

All you are doing is taking the fact that the hard problem does not fit into the materialist paradigm and then concluding that it doesn't exists. You aren't addressing the issue at all. The whole point of these threads has been to argue that the hard problem with consciousness will not allow for an objective explanation/definition using all the conceptual tools in the materialists toolbox. All of you've done is change a few words and reverse the problem to argue it doesn't exists.

The whole point of the pursuit of knowledge is to explain what I(you)(we) experience and observe. I observe a difference in dreamless sleep and being fully awake. This should be explained. You deny that you feel it and think there's no difference because you can't find a word to communicate it?

Try to explain "love" to someone who has never loved. Are you going to stop loving people when you fail to explain it?

She will have as good an understanding as any of us non-blind people do? What do we really know of color anyway, which we can't explain to Jill? It is only having seen the color that is lacking (an "impression" that she cannot have, as Hume would put it).

Where is the curiosity? This sounds like a person in denial.

How can you expect to have a logical conversation about "xxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyyy" if you haven't defined it?

Insert "materialism" and you answer it. It's the exact same point I tried to make for months. The difference here is that no one has ever experienced "materialism".

What's worse, you then say that the materialists are "skirting around the issue" by "redefining 'experience'", they are the only ones that have given any meaningful definition to that which they are explaining.

That's because "meaningful" means that which fits into the current materialist paradigm. This isn't honest philosophy.

Not good enough, by any stretch of the imagination. First off, you can't have dreamless sleep unless your dead (you just might not remember any of them) - and that is not some irrelevant point, it is an important one since it shows that the processes of the mind are going on all the time, indicating that there is no special process which you keep seeking.

It is an irrelevant point. The point hypnagoue was trying to make was the experience of these things are different. There is an experience of dreamless sleep once you wake up from it. Whether it is truly dreamless or not isn't relevant.

Secondly, when I awaken from dreamless sleep and open my eyes, what changes? I now have interaction between my retinas and the waves of light in the room, which I didn't have before.

So every time you close your eyes, shutting off all light from your retinas you fall immediately asleep? There is no state where you have your eyes closed and yet you are not asleep? This is getting silly.

Yes that is good logic, as arkhron would testify in half a second in former times on old threads. But I don't need to defend quantum mechanics here; the reason "oh, you know what I mean" is not good logic is not because I don't like it or because it doesn't make sense, but because it doesn't make any use of reasoning whatsoever - it simply assumes that I know what you mean in order to side-step the necessity for definition.

I'd like to suggest that Mentat is a zombie and this explains why he isn't curious about how consciousness works. This whole conversation makes sense in light of this theory. I recommend that it be discontinued as it is impossible to explain consciousness to a zombie. That's what the hard problem is all about.

What do you mean "what it's like for you to be asleep"? For that matter, what do you mean by "what it is like for you to be awake"? What is it like to be asleep? What is it like to be awake?

That zombie theory is gaining strength.

Wrong. If something can be defined to the level of semantics, then it has been defined well enough to avoid any logical circle. You cannot even define "subjective experience" in the most rudimentary of ways, but must instead hope that I know a priori what you are talking about.

Wrong? Bold.

I'm not sure what the objective is here. There's been hints that this is just arguing for the sake of arguing. There's nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate but that doesn't mean it is an infinite process. Either you believe this stuff or you don't.

 

[Canute]

Mentat

One last shot.

Consciousness can be defined perfectly well. I don't know where you get the idea that it cannot be. It is generally defined in the literature as 'what it is like' or similar. No problem.

The fact that scientists do not like this definition is neither here nor there. Some things are beyond science, metaphysics for instance.

Also - if there is scientific explanation of everything then we know it must contain an undefined term, this follows from common sense, since a theory of everything must be circular, and Goedel, for as Stephen Hawking points out in 'The Death of Physics', the explanation must have a indefinable meta-system.

“…since every word in a dictionary is defined in terms of another word…The only way to avoid circular reasoning is a finite language would be to include some undefined terms in the dictionary. Today we must realize that mathematical systems too, must include undefined terms, and seek to include the minimum number necessary for the system to make sense.” Leonard Mlodinow

As for materialism it is unprovable. This is because it is false.

Its impregnability to disproof, plus its philosophical advatages, has attracted many philosophers to idealism. Indeed, nearly every significant philosopher from the late 18th century to the early 20th century has been a paid up idealist.”
David Papineau and Howard Selina

(Including Georg Hegel, Arthur Schopenhauer, Martin Heidegger, Edmund Husserl, Henri Bergson, John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell etc etc etc etc.)

“It is important to realize that what we know as the ‘scientific worldview’ is an image of the universe that rests on a host of daring metaphyical assumptions. These are often presented and seen as facts that have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, while in reality they stand on very shaky ground, are controversial, or are inadequately supported by the evidence.” Stanislav Grof

As for consciousness not being definable then perhaps you'd better write to the scientific community and tell them that they're wasting their time. At the moment there are a huge number of scientists trying to explain what you say we can't talk about.

“It would seem reasonable to expect any conprehensive account of consciousness to accommodate two of its most fundamental attributes: that we have a self-centred sense of experience and that this sense is somehow linked to the conditioning of our physiology. Yet those conversant with post-Cartesian philosophy will know that time and again significant doubts have been raised about any apparently obvious link between mind and body. So of all of the questions implicated by the scientific study of consciousness perhaps the most pressing is to what extent, if at all, does our mental life correlate with bio chemical activity at the neuronal level? Until this is resolved we will be unable to reconcile the data gathered from phenomenological analysis of introspective experience with tha derived from neuroscientific analysis of brain behaviour. The infamous gap will persist.”
Robert Peperell ‘Between phenomenology and neuroscience’ A report of the ‘Towards a Science of Consciousness’ Conference, Prague, July 2003)

Please note the title of the conference here.

If you continue to ignore all the evidence, and all the advice you're getting here then one must conclude then you're a zombie. Please note that the rest of us have subjective experiences. I'm sorry that you don't but nothing can be done about it, they are incommensurable so we can't tell you what they are like and you will never know.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Fliption
You're really stretching it here Mentat. Are you serious? If early man had approached their curiosities the way you are we'd still be in the stone age. Once again, you put far too much emphasis on language. Langauge has nothing to do with reality.

Let's stick to the issue at hand: you haven't defined your term, so I can't discuss it with you.

Define it, or at least make it intelligible, instead of obviously circular, and we will have something to talk about.

All you are doing is taking the fact that the hard problem does not fit into the materialist paradigm and then concluding that it doesn't exists. You aren't addressing the issue at all. The whole point of these threads has been to argue that the hard problem with consciousness will not allow for an objective explanation/definition using all the conceptual tools in the materialists toolbox. All of you've done is change a few words and reverse the problem to argue it doesn't exists.

I hope your joking, because I wouldn't like to think I've posted all that I have and it's just fallen on deaf ears. Please, pay attention to what I'm saying, not to what you think I mean: I don't care about materialism right now, I care about having a logical discussion. This completely precludes strawman arguments which use terms that are never even rudimentarily defined, but which one simply assumes the other will understand.[/color]

The whole point of the pursuit of knowledge is to explain what I(you)(we) experience and observe. I observe a difference in dreamless sleep and being fully awake. This should be explained. You deny that you feel it and think there's no difference because you can't find a word to communicate it?

What?! I don't deny that I observe a difference between dreamless sleep and being fully awake. I do indeed observe such a difference. What does that have to do with anything?

Try to explain "love" to someone who has never loved. Are you going to stop loving people when you fail to explain it?

If "love" had no definition, then I could never start "loving" in the first place. As it is, "love" is much more tenably defined than "subjective experience".

Where is the curiosity? This sounds like a person in denial.

I'm absolutely curious and interested in consciousness. I just happen to have no (current) interest in "subjective experience", because I don't know what it means. Please help me understand what it is, don't just write me off as a lost cause because I can't understand and accept this term a priori.

Besides, it appears to me that philosophers starting from the assumption that "xxxxxxxxxx yyyyyyyyy" exists have reached a cul de sac anyway, so why are you implying that curiosity naturally leads down that same path?

Insert "materialism" and you answer it. It's the exact same point I tried to make for months. The difference here is that no one has ever experienced "materialism".

You're dodging the issue, and dredging up an old debate. We can discuss materialism on another thread, and you can feel free to quote me there, but this thread is about consciousness and this "subjective experience" that everyone else seems to know about. What is it?

That's because "meaningful" means that which fits into the current materialist paradigm. This isn't honest philosophy.

"Meaningful" means definable without quickly falling into circular reasoning. "Meaningful" means definable without implying the phenomenon within the definition. Why is this so hard to understand for you, of all people? And why do you keep making it seem as though I'm trying to insult your philosophy? I'm not, you know, I'm just trying to make sense of it.

It is an irrelevant point. The point hypnagoue was trying to make was the experience of these things are different. There is an experience of dreamless sleep once you wake up from it. Whether it is truly dreamless or not isn't relevant.

I said it was relevant because it shows that there is an ongoing process, and that nothing special is added when dreams, or when one awakens...but we can drop that minor point if you want.

So every time you close your eyes, shutting off all light from your retinas you fall immediately asleep? There is no state where you have your eyes closed and yet you are not asleep? This is getting silly.

I didn't say that. I said the reason I start to observe something other than the blackness of sleep is because I can now see the inside of my room (i.e. light has entered my retinas).

Sleep is different from being awake because the brain is not paying nearly as much attention to what little data it is recieving (hypnagogue and I talked about the brain "paying more attention" to one set of stimuli than another, and yet this is still not what he means by "subjective experience"...can you now understand why I'm so confused about this term?).

I'd like to suggest that Mentat is a zombie and this explains why he isn't curious about how consciousness works.

I am curious about how consciousness works.

And I am a zombie.

This whole conversation makes sense in light of this theory. I recommend that it be discontinued as it is impossible to explain consciousness to a zombie. That's what the hard problem is all about.

Why is it impossible to explain consciousness to a zombie?

That zombie theory is gaining strength.

It is proven by my own testimony: I am a zombie.

Wrong? Bold.

My apologies. I only used it for the economy of words (instead of saying "there is something distinctly missing from what you have said" ).

I'm not sure what the objective is here.

Then I'll make it clear for you: The objective is to explain "subjective experience" to Mentat. If you cannot do this, then you should (for the sake of being reasonable) at least admit the possibility that it doesn't exist at all. Then, to continue on this path of "rationalism", you should think of how it is that something can be assumed to exist right from the start, without even a rudimentary definition that isn't logically circular, and yet the argument not be an empty straw-man.[/color]

Do you understand the objective now? It is to be rational about all things.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Canute
Mentat

One last shot.

Consciousness can be defined perfectly well. I don't know where you get the idea that it cannot be. It is generally defined in the literature as 'what it is like' or similar. No problem.

First of all, I don't where you get the idea that I don't think consciousness is defined. It's "subjective experience" that isn't defined, "consciousness" makes perfect sense.

Secondly, consciousness is not defined as "what it is like", "subjective experience" is.

Finally, "what it is like" is self-assuming, ergo: circular. It assumes the experience of "being" right within the definition of "experience" itself. That is bad logic (and I am rather shocked that you don't see that).

Also - if there is scientific explanation of everything then we know it must contain an undefined term, this follows from common sense, since a theory of everything must be circular, and Goedel, for as Stephen Hawking points out in 'The Death of Physics', the explanation must have a indefinable meta-system.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

“…since every word in a dictionary is defined in terms of another word…The only way to avoid circular reasoning is a finite language would be to include some undefined terms in the dictionary. Today we must realize that mathematical systems too, must include undefined terms, and seek to include the minimum number necessary for the system to make sense.” Leonard Mlodinow

Quick question: Where are you quoting from? I really like Mlodinow's writing (I've recently read "Euclid's Window"), and would be happy to read anything by him.

As for materialism it is unprovable. This is because it is false.

Did I miss something?!? Why is everyone talking about Materialism now? When did I ever say the explanation had to be Material? I just want a simple definition with extra cheese, and a side order of logical consistency, to go please.

Seriously though, that's all I'm asking for. I don't want to change the world of philosophy, I don't want to prove Materialism (I don't WHY this keeps coming up!), and I don't even really want to explain consciousness right now (I'm holding off on that, because everyone seems to have taken of in a completely different direction than me, and I can't catch up if I don't know where you started from), I just want a definition that is logically consistent to some miniscule extent[/color]. Please.

As for consciousness not being definable then perhaps you'd better write to the scientific community and tell them that they're wasting their time. At the moment there are a huge number of scientists trying to explain what you say we can't talk about.

For the last time Consciousness is definable, it's "subjective experience" that has no meaning. These scientists that you mention are doing the right thing, I applaud them, it's the philosophers who are stuck on this horrendous strawman that I can't comprehend. Where exactly are they getting by assuming something undefined right from the start? How can you denounce Materialism for making "daring assumptions" while you yourself make an assumption that has almost passed into the realm of "completely irrational"?

Please don't take offense at anything I say here, just answer my simple question, please.

If you continue to ignore all the evidence, and all the advice you're getting here then one must conclude then you're a zombie. Please note that the rest of us have subjective experiences.

Are you sure? Please hear me out: How can you know you have something if you can't even define it? You don't even know what it is, and yet you insist that not only you, but everyone else, has it?

That sounds like some of the worst reasoning I've ever heard, but it's not you, there are soooooo many others making the same assumptions. What am I missing?

Yes, I'm a zombie. So what? If you can't explain "subjective experience" to me, who can you explain it to?

I'm sorry that you don't but nothing can be done about it, they are incommensurable so we can't tell you what they are like and you will never know.

There's an interesting statement. So, because I don't participate, myself, in this action/process that you insist all of you do participate in...while being unable to come up with the most simple of definitions - without being logically circular...you're saying I'll never understand because I didn't understand right from the start...hmm.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
First of all, I don't where you get the idea that I don't think consciousness is defined. It's "subjective experience" that isn't defined, "consciousness" makes perfect sense.

Mentat, take a look at the title of this thread that you started. That's why people are saying "consciousness". Your first post is also littered with the word as well.

Secondly, consciousness is not defined as "what it is like", "subjective experience" is.

This isn't what you said in your first post.

Finally, "what it is like" is self-assuming, ergo: circular. It assumes the experience of "being" right within the definition of "experience" itself. That is bad logic (and I am rather shocked that you don't see that).

Ok, I don't understand this at all. Explain to me what this means AND why it is a problem. With my current level of understanding this seems like an irrelevant point that totally misses the point. You're nitpicking the phrase "what it's like to be". It feels like something to do the things I do. That better?

Did I miss something?!? Why is everyone talking about Materialism now? When did I ever say the explanation had to be Material? I just want a simple definition with extra cheese, and a side order of logical consistency, to go please.

The reason I brought it up, (since you asked) is because you keep saying things like "you of all people ought to understand this" based on my position in the materialism discussion. So I bring it up in this thread to show you that it is not the same thing. The rationale I used in that thread is consistent with the rationale in this one.

Are you sure? Please hear me out: How can you know you have something if you can't even define it? You don't even know what it is, and yet you insist that not only you, but everyone else, has it?

I defined it. But finding a materialist way to describe it to you doesn't mean it doesn't exists to me.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Mentat
Let's stick to the issue at hand: you haven't defined your term, so I can't discuss it with you.

I have.

Define it, or at least make it intelligible, instead of obviously circular, and we will have something to talk about.

Explain why it's circular.

What?! I don't deny that I observe a difference between dreamless sleep and being fully awake. I do indeed observe such a difference. What does that have to do with anything?

Then you have observed subjective experience. You're saying you experienced it but you don't know what it is?

If "love" had no definition, then I could never start "loving" in the first place. As it is, "love" is much more tenably defined than "subjective experience".

Love is subjective experience.

I'm absolutely curious and interested in consciousness. I just happen to have no (current) interest in "subjective experience", because I don't know what it means. Please help me understand what it is, don't just write me off as a lost cause because I can't understand and accept this term a priori.

Ridiculous.

You're dodging the issue, and dredging up an old debate. We can discuss materialism on another thread, and you can feel free to quote me there, but this thread is about consciousness and this "subjective experience" that everyone else seems to know about. What is it?

I'm not dredging it up, you are. You're telling me I ought to think a certain way based on my view in that thread. So I'm showing why this isn't so. Stop saying that and materialism will not be mentioned.

I didn't say that. I said the reason I start to observe something other than the blackness of sleep is because I can now see the inside of my room (i.e. light has entered my retinas).

You just repeated what you said and to me it still reads like you think the difference between being asleep and awake is whether your eyes are open or not.

Why is it impossible to explain consciousness to a zombie?

It can be explained but never fully understood. If you have never been swimming then no amount of description or reseach will ever convey the feeling one gets when swimming.

Do you understand the objective now? It is to be rational about all things.

Could have fooled me.

The objective for the topic in this thread wasn't what I was referring to. I was referring to the few posts where you insinuate that you don't believe any of this necessarily, you just argue it for some other reason. I don't personally understand this(if I even believe it) and it doesn't do much for my patience because I feel like I'm particpating in someone's debating experiment.

 

[hypnagogue]

Mentat, here is another equivalent definition that you may like better.

Subjective experience refers to those phenomena that you can directly observe but which cannot be directly observed by other people observing you. One can observe your behavioral patterns or even your brain functioning, but one cannot observe the particular field of blueness that you observe when you look into the sky. Subjective experience is a private phenomenon, as opposed to any phenomenon that can be considered objective, or public.

 

[Canute]

Originally posted by Mentat
First of all, I don't where you get the idea that I don't think consciousness is defined. It's "subjective experience" that isn't defined, "consciousness" makes perfect sense.

Please explain the difference between subjective experience and consciousness,

Secondly, consciousness is not defined as "what it is like", "subjective experience" is.

They both are. If you don't agree then please write and tell and all those involved in consciousness studies so they stop using this definition.

Finally, "what it is like" is self-assuming, ergo: circular. It assumes the experience of "being" right within the definition of "experience" itself. That is bad logic (and I am rather shocked that you don't see that).

Of course the experience of being is 'within' the definition of experience. It should be obvious that it has to be. Are you seriously suggesting that it shouldn't be?

What does this have to do with the subject at hand?

An explanation of everything must have an undefined term in it. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the consciousness is it.

Quick question: Where are you quoting from? I really like Mlodinow's writing (I've recently read "Euclid's Window"), and would be happy to read anything by him.

That's where the quote came from.

Did I miss something?!?

No offense, but there's almost nothing you have not missed.

Why is everyone talking about Materialism now? When did I ever say the explanation had to be Material? I just want a simple definition with extra cheese, and a side order of logical consistency, to go please.

If you don't acknowledge the existence of subjective experience then you are a materialist/physicalist.

Seriously though, that's all I'm asking for. I don't want to change the world of philosophy, I don't want to prove Materialism (I don't WHY this keeps coming up!), and I don't even really want to explain consciousness right now (I'm holding off on that, because everyone seems to have taken of in a completely different direction than me, and I can't catch up if I don't know where you started from), I just want a definition that is logically consistent to some miniscule extent[/color]. Please.

You seem to completely miss the point here. There is no scientific definition of consciousness! (And IMHO there never will be one). This is because of the hard problem, which entails that science cannot prove the existence of consciousness (aka subjective experience).

However in consciousness studies the most widely used definition for consciousness (aka subjective experience) is 'what it is like'. These are brutal facts and there's really no point in continuing to deny them.

For the last time Consciousness is definable,

Not according to science it isn't. Perhaps you know better.

it's "subjective experience" that has no meaning.

So there is nothing that it's like to be you then? I don't believe a word of it.

These scientists that you mention are doing the right thing, I applaud them, it's the philosophers who are stuck on this horrendous strawman that I can't comprehend.

It's impossible that you can miss the point so completely and so consistently. People who take the trouble to think about consciousness and brains conclude there is a hard problem, some of them are philosophers, some of them are scientists and some of them are neither. Do you think science and philosophy are not connected?

Where exactly are they getting by assuming something undefined right from the start?

What assumption?

How can you denounce Materialism for making "daring assumptions" while you yourself make an assumption that has almost passed into the realm of "completely irrational"?

What assumption was that?

Please don't take offense at anything I say here, just answer my simple question, please.

How many times must I answer your simple question before you start listening? Do you argue that the Earth is flat as well, or do you specialise in consciousness studies?

Are you sure? Please hear me out: How can you know you have something if you can't even define it?

Yes - that nicely sums up the hard problem

Again, more slowly, consciousness (aka subjective experience) is 'what it is like'.

If there was a scientific defintion there would not be a hard problem - can't you see this? Why do you think Francis Crick argues that we should inefinitely postpone defining it scientifically?

You don't even know what it is, and yet you insist that not only you, but everyone else, has it?

I fear for your sanity if you think you're not conscious.

That sounds like some of the worst reasoning I've ever heard, but it's not you, there are soooooo many others making the same assumptions. What am I missing?

A heap of neurons and subjective experiences by the sound of it.

Yes, I'm a zombie. So what? If you can't explain "subjective experience" to me, who can you explain it to?

It is impossible to explain subjective experiences. This is why having sex explained to you is not as much fun as having it, and why it's no fun at all for a zombie.

There's an interesting statement. So, because I don't participate, myself, in this action/process that you insist all of you do participate in...while being unable to come up with the most simple of definitions - without being logically circular...you're saying I'll never understand because I didn't understand right from the start...hmm. [/B]

Frankly I have no idea why you don't understand it. You're the first person I've met who doesn't.

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Canute
You seem to completely miss the point here. There is no scientific definition of consciousness! (And IMHO there never will be one). This is because of the hard problem, which entails that science cannot prove the existence of consciousness (aka subjective experience).

If there was a scientific defintion there would not be a hard problem - can't you see this? Why do you think Francis Crick argues that we should inefinitely postpone defining it scientifically?

This has been exactly my point. I stated this several posts earlier and the response I got was "are you joking?" But this IS the issue we're having here. If we can only get more than 5 minutes of thought on it.

What's ironic about this whole thing is that Mentat is using the hard problem of consciousness and the fact that we can't prove he has subjective experiences to play dumb. He thinks he is proving it is logically inconsistent but the only thing he is doing is demonstrating the nature of the hard problem. Anyone can take advantage of the hard problem and deny they are conscious but this just seems so dishonest to me.

To define something means that we are trying to relate this thing to other words and concepts that we already have defined. This is why I used the term "toolbox" earlier to illustrate that there are only so many words that we have to describe something. In order for there to be a scientific definition, we would have to have a toolbox of scientific concepts that we could build into a definition that would represent consciousness. It seems you'd need a reductive understanding of consciousness to do this. This can't be done and it is exactly what the hard problem is. Hypnagogue has been arguing all along that the current paradigm, (the toolbox), needs additional tools.

 

[Canute]

Yes - completely agree. But Mentat isn't the only one to be 'playing dumb' in one way or another. Even now I don't think the scientific and academic community have really woken up to the implications of the hard problem.