Consciousness

[Mumbles]

I've been wondering all of today, is consciousness as we know it, a beneficial evolution? Because it seems like while it might have had potential all it's been leading to is complete domination of the ecosystem and the detrimental affects that come with it. And while I like gaining knowledge and being conscious, I still wonder what it might have been like if we'd have stayed not conscious enough of ourselves to become the way we are.

Does this make sense?

[cska]

I've been wondering all of today, is consciousness as we know it, a beneficial evolution? Because it seems like while it might have had potential all it's been leading to is complete domination of the ecosystem and the detrimental affects that come with it. And while I like gaining knowledge and being conscious, I still wonder what it might have been like if we'd have stayed not conscious enough of ourselves to become the way we are.

Does this make sense?

You seem to be saying that consciousness only occurs in human beings. Am I misinterpreting you?

[Blake's Baby]

Are you asking if we'd be better off as baboons?

'Better a happy pig than an unhappy philosopher' and all that?

No, thanks, I'll stick to being human and trying to cope, if it's all the same.

[Mumbles]

No, I don't mean consciousness is only in humans, just the level of it we seem to have in comparison, the ability to work off of it in the ways we do, complex communication, scientific research etc.

And no I'm not asking if we would be better as baboons, I'm asking if the world as a whole would be better without us, although this is entirely a thought experiment, I'm not advocating genocide or anything of that nature. That's just insane.

[A.R.Amistad]

I think that it is beneficial. We can give meaning to our lives beyond necessity because of it.

[Mumbles]

While it is beneficial to us, is it beneficial to the whole of existence? Or would a different order of gaining this level of consciousness have been more desirable? Like having gotten a whole lot more empathy or something and then being able to more or less decide the fate of the planet through our actions?

[A.R.Amistad]

While it is beneficial to us, is it beneficial to the whole of existence? Or would a different order of gaining this level of consciousness have been more desirable? Like having gotten a whole lot more empathy or something and then being able to more or less decide the fate of the planet through our actions?

I guess thats all subjective. Personally, I value passion in my life. If I didn't have consciousness of myself beyond being n object, I would probably not have a very passionate being. People have to struggle and work hard to be authentic. Animals with a less developed cerebral cortex, relatively speaking, don't have to do much other than satisfy their living needs. For example, it is very easy for a Lion to live an authentic life as a lion because they aren't really all that conscious of themselves (Lions don't create philosophy, morality, etc.) They satisfy their needs to live, and they die eventually. Pretty simple. Sea anenomes have even less conscious. They are animals, but to be an authentic sea anenome, they just sit and wait for food to run into their deadly tentacles. But humans need to do more to be authentic individuals because we have more freedom thanks to our more evolved brain. Itsa harder task for us. Hence, we crete our own morality, arguably we create or choose our own interpretation of the universe (some views are more correct than others, but we choose to be either idealists or materialists for example). We set goals for ourselves beyond just satisfying our immediate needs. We live passionately, we despair, rejoice, etc. over things that most other life forms would not in the same way (a Lion won't cry over a failed revolution). So, its a beneficial gift, if we understand it correctly and we appreciate it, and it also depends on what we make of our consciousness. It is probably inevitable that we will feel the negative effects of our consciousiness, but we could always choose another option. We could be a slave of necessity, develop no passions or meaning in our lives and live just for livings sake. But I think that one wo does that misses out on a lot. In other words, don't be afraid of failure, learn from it.

[Mumbles]

That's a good reply, but it goes back to what I was kinda indirectly asking. All those things, passion, sorrow over failure, creating meaning, all come from what we now experience as humans. But are these good things to experience? They may be beneficial to us as an individual, but does it help us in the overall scheme of things? Is it even possible to question without seeing the results? Etc.

If I'm sounding mad, I'm sorry, I just was thinking it to myself, and I'm known for asking the weird. But if it makes sense, I'd just like ya'll to have asked yourself it too, since to me it seems an intriguing question.

[A.R.Amistad]

That's a good reply, but it goes back to what I was kinda indirectly asking. All those things, passion, sorrow over failure, creating meaning, all come from what we now experience as humans. But are these good things to experience? They may be beneficial to us as an individual, but does it help us in the overall scheme of things? Is it even possible to question without seeing the results? Etc.

If I'm sounding mad, I'm sorry, I just was thinking it to myself, and I'm known for asking the weird. But if it makes sense, I'd just like ya'll to have asked yourself it too, since to me it seems an intriguing question.

No worries, comrade, this is a very common existential dilemma. You are confronted with the emptiness and meaninglessness of the world, and you are wondering what is the best course. Its not madness. Its like looking at a blank piece of paper, and you have a set of pastels and watercolors with you. Do you create a painting or a piece of work? Sure, you can, but whats the risk? What if you screw up? What if the final product is not what you wanted, or no body appreciates what you did. In that case, why not just leave the canvass blank? You can't go wrong there, but then again you miss out on the satisfaction of making good art with the tools that you are given. As an existentialist I would say go for it and make some art. In other words, make of your life something passionate and something that you can be true to yourself about, and don't be scared of failure. As to whether these feelings and passions are beneficial or not, well, they are neither, if you hold that the vast array of matter in the universe has no omnipotent meaning. These are all subjective ideas that is part of your somewhat natural instinct as a human to give meaning to things. So, in other words, conscientiousness simply is. It is what you choose it to be. Personally and philosophically, I think tht going ahead and leading passionate life, with ll its benefits and drawbacks, will be much more satisfying than avoiding passion and living simply as a sea anenome, if you catch my drift.

[Mumbles]

As to whether these feelings and passions are beneficial or not, well, they are neither, if you hold that the vast array of matter in the universe has no omnipotent meaning. These are all subjective ideas that is part of your somewhat natural instinct as a human to give meaning to things. So, in other words, conscientiousness simply is. It is what you choose it to be.

This, this is what I was hoping to expound on. And thanks for the existential explanation, it's good and comforting seeing as I consider myself a semi-stentialist (as in I haven't made up my mind about it, but consider that it'll probably strongly be my final choice).

So would this mean that if we looked at our development into "fully thinking" humans and the implications that go along with evolving into beings conscious and able to make full decisions and act out on them, that we would view this as neither good nor bad, but just an evolutionary step?

I was asking this question to myself because whenever I see stuff about evolution it talks about good mutations vs bad mutations and I was wondering if being as conscious as we are is a good thing or not, but I guess it's neutral, we make of it what we want to, no?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I've been wondering all of today, is consciousness as we know it, a beneficial evolution? Because it seems like while it might have had potential all it's been leading to is complete domination of the ecosystem and the detrimental affects that come with it. And while I like gaining knowledge and being conscious, I still wonder what it might have been like if we'd have stayed not conscious enough of ourselves to become the way we are.

Does this make sense?

I don't see a difference between humanity and nature. We are nature. One could take this a step further and say we are the self consciousness of nature. One shouldn't let the current capitalist destruction of our ecosystem negate the validity of the human project itself.

I'm reading "1491" by Charles Mann. Mann brings up recent findings in archaeology to suggest that Native American civilizations were far more populous and far more sophisticated than has been previously thought. He also criticizes the "Holmsberg Theory", the idea that Native Americans "walked lightly on the land" and lived in harmony w/untarnished nature.The truth is more complicated. Native American civilizations had a profound impact on the environment and seemed to have converted North & South America into vast "gardens", essentially sophisticated systems of wildlife management.

The Amazon supported far more people before 1492 than today. Much of North America was intensely cultivated. The vast forests the Europeans first saw only came after Native Americans had been decimated though disease.

Anyway ecosystems have always been unstable and subject to cycles of destruction and change, with or without humans.There have been many periods of mass extinctions. This doesn't of course justify the ecological destruction happening today. This is a product of capitalism with its need of constant growth and accumulation. we are an inescapable part of the ecosystem and we need to learn to manage it better.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

That's a good reply, but it goes back to what I was kinda indirectly asking. All those things, passion, sorrow over failure, creating meaning, all come from what we now experience as humans. But are these good things to experience? They may be beneficial to us as an individual, but does it help us in the overall scheme of things? Is it even possible to question without seeing the results? Etc.

If I'm sounding mad, I'm sorry, I just was thinking it to myself, and I'm known for asking the weird. But if it makes sense, I'd just like ya'll to have asked yourself it too, since to me it seems an intriguing question.

This is an intriguing question. I used to look forward to a sort of decentralized anarchist society that lived in harmony with nature. This is still part of my world view but I've shifted somewhat. Ironically the "ecological" viewpoint is more dualistic, seeing a separation between humanity and nature. we are nature.

We may have drives-power, sex, aggression, etc. but they can be overridden by consciousness. Sentience is just as much natural as anything else.

[Mumbles]

This is an intriguing question. I used to look forward to a sort of decentralized anarchist society that lived in harmony with nature. This is still part of my world view but I've shifted somewhat. Ironically the "ecological" viewpoint is more dualistic, seeing a separation between humanity and nature. we are nature.

We may have drives-power, sex, aggression, etc. but they can be overridden by consciousness. Sentience is just as much natural as anything else.

The thing I'm wondering about it being natural is whether it was a good mutation or not. Because some species diverge based on bad mutations and they mutate to still survive with that mutations. While it is part of nature, not all of nature is "good"

[TheSultan]

I think it's very much something beneficial, however as it is said, "with great power comes great responsibility". When we abuse our free-thinking abilities and consciousness then it becomes a problem, however I see the benefits far outweighing potential problems.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The thing I'm wondering about it being natural is whether it was a good mutation or not. Because some species diverge based on bad mutations and they mutate to still survive with that mutations. While it is part of nature, not all of nature is "good"

what do you mean by a mutation being good or bad? On what basis would you evaluate this?A species exists to perpetuate itself.It does this in a complex interaction w/many other species. If a trait or mutation contributes to this, its "good", if not, it gets eliminated.Otherwise nature is value neutral.

Homo sapiens is no exception to this. just by existing we have a profound impact on the environment.Its true, we're victims of our success and are massively screwing things up.Hopefully the period we are now in will be seen as a "speed bump" on our way to a more advanced civilization.

I am glad we have consciousness, awareness. Its not good or bad in terms of nature but I am glad that people can produce art, literature, and philosophy, and that others can appreciate it.

[Mumbles]

what do you mean by a mutation being good or bad? On what basis would you evaluate this?A species exists to perpetuate itself.It does this in a complex interaction w/many other species. If a trait or mutation contributes to this, its "good", if not, it gets eliminated.Otherwise nature is value neutral.

Homo sapiens is no exception to this. just by existing we have a profound impact on the environment.Its true, we're victims of our success and are massively screwing things up.Hopefully the period we are now in will be seen as a "speed bump" on our way to a more advanced civilization.

I am glad we have consciousness, awareness. Its not good or bad in terms of nature but I am glad that people can produce art, literature, and philosophy, and that others can appreciate it.

What I was meaning by it was the fact that what is usually considered a good mutation is one that keeps the species alive, longer, better, faster, more efficient, etc. But if consciousness allows us to do stupid stuff that could intentionally endanger all of the earth, say releasing a huge vat of CFCs into the atmosphere or just letting the world go under while knowing it and not doing anything, is it truly beneficial then?

Yes, we enjoy those things, but if we didn't have the level of consciousness to think about them then they wouldn't matter. A dog doesn't appreciate literature, it means nothing to it, but it lives on.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What I was meaning by it was the fact that what is usually considered a good mutation is one that keeps the species alive, longer, better, faster, more efficient, etc. But if consciousness allows us to do stupid stuff that could intentionally endanger all of the earth, say releasing a huge vat of CFCs into the atmosphere or just letting the world go under while knowing it and not doing anything, is it truly beneficial then?

Well, that's the big question for the future, isn't it? But consider; consciousness, among other things, has allowed human beings to number nearly seven billion and inhabit every continent, which is astonishing for a mammal of our size. Such is our range and our numbers, even a global war fought with our most powerful weapons would not totally wipe us out.

Remember that not every evolutionary adaptation functions flawlessly. Consciousness in the sense that humans have it may be a massive advantage, but we still have huge blind spots, such as superstition, shortsightedness (mentally speaking) and our all-too-frequent tendency for our emotions to overrule our intellect.

It may turn out that we are literally too clever for our own good. I hope that we either create something smarter than ourselves, or make ourselves smarter, before we wipe ourselves out, most likely in some hideously embarassing fashion.


Yes, we enjoy those things, but if we didn't have the level of consciousness to think about them then they wouldn't matter. A dog doesn't appreciate literature, it means nothing to it, but it lives on.

Well, our ability to enjoy the finer things in life may be a "flaw" in the sense of an "unintended" consequence of some other aspect of the adaptation of consciousness. Of course that particular "flaw" is not something I would personally like corrected.

[Mumbles]

Well, that's the big question for the future, isn't it? But consider; consciousness, among other things, has allowed human beings to number nearly seven billion and inhabit every continent, which is astonishing for a mammal of our size. Such is our range and our numbers, even a global war fought with our most powerful weapons would not totally wipe us out.

Well the classic example about adaptations is animals at a limited watering hole. Are we gonna need to adapt it for species on a limited earth? :D



Remember that not every evolutionary adaptation functions flawlessly. Consciousness in the sense that humans have it may be a massive advantage, but we still have huge blind spots, such as superstition, shortsightedness (mentally speaking) and our all-too-frequent tendency for our emotions to overrule our intellect.

This was very much a part of what I was wondering. What if other abilities of the mind had developed first? Such as the ability to see beyond superstition because we relied solely on logic, which could possibly have developed if animals were in a situation where sole logic was needed, or abilities of that nature?


It may turn out that we are literally too clever for our own good. I hope that we either create something smarter than ourselves, or make ourselves smarter, before we wipe ourselves out, most likely in some hideously embarassing fashion.

I was fearing that with our species. We do a lot of dumb things out of ignorance, but maybe we'll develop ways or technologies that allow us to overcome our limited capacities for memory or logic in certain cases.



Well, our ability to enjoy the finer things in life may be a "flaw" in the sense of an "unintended" consequence of some other aspect of the adaptation of consciousness. Of course that particular "flaw" is not something I would personally like corrected.

True, I don't want to not enjoy these things, but that's because I'm human and I really like self-preservation (in the classical sense, not the capitalist sense). I'm just assuming that if we talked from an evolutionary standpoint that the developments that came along with the species would be disregarded because if we take a step back and went in a different direction, they might have never been.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well the classic example about adaptations is animals at a limited watering hole. Are we gonna need to adapt it for species on a limited earth? :D

I'm sorry, I don't understand?


This was very much a part of what I was wondering. What if other abilities of the mind had developed first? Such as the ability to see beyond superstition because we relied solely on logic, which could possibly have developed if animals were in a situation where sole logic was needed, or abilities of that nature?

Animal behaviour is logical, even superstitious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstitious_pigeon#Superstition_in_the_pigeon) behaviour. But "logical" is not the same thing as "correct" or "justified". Superstitious pigeons and human religious believers may be entirely logical in their belief that certain rituals have an effect on nature, but because of the premises that such superstitious logic is based on are incorrect, their naturally-evolved pattern-seeking behaviour has lead them astray.


I was fearing that with our species. We do a lot of dumb things out of ignorance, but maybe we'll develop ways or technologies that allow us to overcome our limited capacities for memory or logic in certain cases.

That's the hope. The alternatives are unpleasant to think about.


True, I don't want to not enjoy these things, but that's because I'm human and I really like self-preservation (in the classical sense, not the capitalist sense). I'm just assuming that if we talked from an evolutionary standpoint that the developments that came along with the species would be disregarded because if we take a step back and went in a different direction, they might have never been.

Perhaps. But how can we know?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Well, the word 'consciousness' is used in ordinary language only in medical contexts, as in:

1) Has the patient regained consciousness?

It's use in philosophy, and in metaphysical contexts in science, is a throw-back to dualist theories invented by Plato, subsequently appropriated by Christianity and later by Descartes.

In which case, there is no such state as 'consciousness' -- any more than there is such a thing as 'winingness' if you have won a race -- unless, of course, you are a Christian mystic.

On this, see the following:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/consciousness-and-passage-t100438/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-do-we-t98047/index.html

http://www.revleft.com/vb/self-t105849/index.html

As this historian of ideas noted:


"Western conceptions of mind began in religion before moving first to philosophy, and then to science. However, for two reasons psychologists have underestimated the influence of religious ideas of the soul -- the ψυχή (psychē -- soul, RL) of our science -- on conceptions of mind and self. First, psychology is an aggressively secular enterprise and psychologists like to think that they put religion behind them when they assume their role as scientists. A more subtle reason concerns the dominance of historical scholarship by Christian belief. When we as psychologists read about past thinkers such as Plato and Descartes, not only do we look at them as protopsychologists, we see them through the eyes of historians and classicists who until recently worked within a quietly but unequivocally held Christian framework. That framework rarely intrudes explicitly, but it filters out the rough splinters, odd conceptions, and obscure but vital disputes concerning mind and soul held from Greek times through to at least Descartes. Thus we psychologists inherit a conception of the mind subtly shaped by forces of which we know little, drain it of its specifically supernatural content (e.g., survival of bodily death), and fancy that what remains is somehow natural and therefore a proper object of science....

"Although there are differences in detail, religions around the world have a remarkably concordant picture of the mind, positing the existence of two immaterial souls for two distinct reasons.... The first, universal reason is to explain the difference between living and nonliving things. The second, less universal reason is to explain human personality....

"Greek religion and the concept of ψυχή underwent a profound change in the later fifth century BCE.... Traditional Greek religious thought had insisted on a great gulf between the human and divine worlds, downplaying the idea of personal immortality. However, in the wake of the Peloponnesian War, continuity between the human and divine worlds was the theme of various new cults, often imported from the non-Greek east. In their practices these new religions induced in worshippers ecstatic states through which they might for a time join the gods, perhaps even briefly becoming the god of their veneration. The ψυχή became a personal, immortal soul, taking after death its rightful place in the divine world of the gods. Plato was influenced by these new teachings, but steered them in a less ecstatic, more philosophical and cognitive direction.... For Plato, the proper object of the soul's attention was indeed something divine, but he taught that instead of seeking salvation through ecstatic communion with the gods, the soul should seek salvation through philosophical pursuit of eternal, transcendental Truth. In Plato's hands, the mind became identified with reason, the ability to formulate and know the universal Truths underwritten by the heavenly Forms." [Leahy (2005), pp.37-39.]

Leahy, T. (2005), 'Mind As A Scientific Object: A Historical-Philosophical Exploration', in Erneling and Johnson (2005), pp.35-78.

Erneling, C., and Johnson, D. (2005) (eds.), The Mind As A Scientific Object. Between Brain And Culture (Oxford University Press).

[Mumbles]

I'm sorry, I don't understand?

It was supposed to be an attempt at humor based around the common example of limited resources and the fight between species or members of a species for that resource, here it's the earth.



Animal behaviour is logical, even superstitious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstitious_pigeon#Superstition_in_the_pigeon) behaviour. But "logical" is not the same thing as "correct" or "justified". Superstitious pigeons and human religious believers may be entirely logical in their belief that certain rituals have an effect on nature, but because of the premises that such superstitious logic is based on are incorrect, their naturally-evolved pattern-seeking behaviour has lead them astray.

This is true, I'm sorry I made a false assumption in my attempt to talk about the way we as humans see our view of "the growth of consciousness".



Perhaps. But how can we know?

We can't really, which is why I was thinking about it, I like thinking about stuff we can't know.

@Rosa, okay... I think everyone's kinda gotten the point that I was using the term consciousness to refer to the state of mind we're all in as type or read this. I was using the term human consciousness in regard to the evolution of the state of mind over time to the one we currently have. It's a whole lot simpler to just use the incorrect, but understood, word instead of saying "human perception of the world in comparison to that of the animals" every time.

[A.R.Amistad]

check out Rollo May :thumbup1: Greatest Psychologist ever

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Given that he based many of his ideas on that fraud, Freud, he can't be.

[Hit The North]

@Rosa, okay... I think everyone's kinda gotten the point that I was using the term consciousness to refer to the state of mind we're all in as type or read this. I was using the term human consciousness in regard to the evolution of the state of mind over time to the one we currently have. It's a whole lot simpler to just use the incorrect, but understood, word instead of saying "human perception of the world in comparison to that of the animals" every time.

I think you'd be better off framing your question in terms of human activity, rather than human consciousness, given that it is not our ideas which impact upon the natural environment, but our material activity.

Lenina is correct when she argues that the problem isn't human intelligence per se, but the uses it is put to by the capitalist mode of production. Overthrowing social relations of production which are based on the absolute requirement to create profit, would be the first step in transforming our impact on the natural world.

[Meridian]

It's use in philosophy, and in metaphysical contexts in science, is a throw-back to dualist theories invented by Plato, subsequently appropriated by Christianity and later by Descartes.

In which case, there is no such state as 'consciousness' -- any more than there is such a thing as 'winingness' if you have won a race -- unless, of course, you are a Christian mystic.
I've written an essay about Descartes' Meditations were I argued that his usage of the word 'consciousness', and his theories about the mind, were analogous to the ability to use a language, or having mastered a language.

If so, maybe there is such a state of 'consciousness', but it is the state of being able to use language. I think this holds true because anyone (or any animal) that did not know a language would not be able to communicate anything to themselves or others. The 'mind', as the term is employed by philosophers, seems to me to refer to just this ability, being able to think and 'express themselves'.

And if we are to continue with that usage of the word then we would not say that animals were conscious, because they do not have language with which to communicate, and therefore have no thoughts.

All this is of course ignoring the medical usage of the word 'conscious'. Perhaps when one is unconscious, in the medical sense, one could also 'think consciously'. So, I believe the terms for the 'mind' and 'consciousness', used philosophically, are really obfuscations, when what you are basically trying to express is the ability to communicate with language.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think you'd be better off framing your question in terms of human activity, rather than human consciousness, given that it is not our ideas which impact upon the natural environment, but our material activity.

Human "consciousness" (sorry Rosa) and ideas are a material activity. Just because you can't point at someone's mind or an idea and say "there it is" does not mean it doesn't have a concrete existence. Abstract concepts are as real in the same as, say the gene for green eyes is real. Human ideation exists in a similar manner to the way a computer program exists. Sure, if you examine a brain or a computer purely as a set of physical reactions and nothing more, you won't find "NoXion" or "Microsoft" there. But you will find those same constituents arranged in patterns which, when they interact with other patterns of energy and matter, make something non-random.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's not just what something is made of, but how those parts are arranged is important as well. Ideas and thoughts are physical things, but the actual composition doesn't matter; it's the arrangement that counts. One can read the word "Cat" regardless of whether it is written on a computer screen or carved on a marble tablet.

By dismissing thoughts, ideas, memes, whatever you choose to call them, as something irrelevant, you're ignoring an important part of the material world. Why? Because whatever you think, lots of other people think that "irrelevant" stuff is important. God may not exist as an actual being capable of moving mountains, but people think he does, and that thinking informs their actions. Nobody would build cathedrals if nobody thought like that. Sure, there may be other motivations involved in cathedral-building, but one must ask what they would build instead.


Lenina is correct when she argues that the problem isn't human intelligence per se, but the uses it is put to by the capitalist mode of production. Overthrowing social relations of production which are based on the absolute requirement to create profit, would be the first step in transforming our impact on the natural world.

I suppose it remains to be seen whether we as a species are capable of making that first step.

[JazzRemington]

I've written an essay about Descartes' Meditations were I argued that his usage of the word 'consciousness', and his theories about the mind, were analogous to the ability to use a language, or having mastered a language.

If so, maybe there is such a state of 'consciousness', but it is the state of being able to use language. I think this holds true because anyone (or any animal) that did not know a language would not be able to communicate anything to themselves or others. The 'mind', as the term is employed by philosophers, seems to me to refer to just this ability, being able to think and 'express themselves'.

But that's still a queer use of the word. The ordinary language and medical senses seem to suggest being able to use language by the fact that only people who are conscious can say (or do, for that matter) anything, period. If you were unconscious you wouldn't be able to speak.


All this is of course ignoring the medical usage of the word 'conscious'. Perhaps when one is unconscious, in the medical sense, one could also 'think consciously'. So, I believe the terms for the 'mind' and 'consciousness', used philosophically, are really obfuscations, when what you are basically trying to express is the ability to communicate with language.

To be sure, I think when one is unconscious he or she may still have some brain activity. But because one has to be able to speak in general to think, I don't believe unconscious people can think.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

BTB:


I think you'd be better off framing your question in terms of human activity, rather than human consciousness, given that it is not our ideas which impact upon the natural environment, but our material activity.

Excellent point! There's hope for you yet...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Human "consciousness" (sorry Rosa) and ideas are a material activity. Just because you can't point at someone's mind or an idea and say "there it is" does not mean it doesn't have a concrete existence. Abstract concepts are as real in the same as, say the gene for green eyes is real. Human ideation exists in a similar manner to the way a computer program exists. Sure, if you examine a brain or a computer purely as a set of physical reactions and nothing more, you won't find "NoXion" or "Microsoft" there. But you will find those same constituents arranged in patterns which, when they interact with other patterns of energy and matter, make something non-random.

1) I notice that you have to put the word "consciousness" in quotes. This means that you are using it in a special and as-yet-unexplained sense. But what is it?

2) But are there any genes for our ideas, like there are genes for green eyes? If not, your analogy with computers is inapt. Of course, computers do what they do because of the intelligence of the programmer and/or designer. So, the analogy with computers in fact implies we were created by an outside intelligence. You might want to keep that faux pas hidden from Spiltteeth...

[Hit The North]

NoXion,

True, I'm not trying to exclude the role of ideas, as human activity is self-consciously intentional. We do things for a reason and we interact with things on the basis of the meaning they have for us. However, these 'reasons' and 'meanings' are socially constructed. If human beings respond in a destructive way to their environment it is because their social relations compel them to (the capitalist is compelled to place profit before sustainability, for instance). Higher level ideas may develop to justify this activity. Take religion. Much of it is taken up with justifications of power and authority and it is rooted in and shaped by the social lives of a people. If we want to understand why certain people hold certain beliefs we should not investigate the content of their ideas, but the forms of their social practice. Every ideology, no matter how transcendent, no matter how far it reaches for heaven, has its roots in bare necessity.

I suppose it remains to be seen whether we as a species are capable of making that first step. That's a hope which unites most of us here.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Meridian:


I've written an essay about Descartes' Meditations were I argued that his usage of the word 'consciousness', and his theories about the mind, were analogous to the ability to use a language, or having mastered a language.

Except, in this case, it is an alleged 'state' of being able to misuse language.

Anyway, is there such a 'state of being able to use language'? Certainly we have linguistic skills, but why call this a state?

Compare that with genuine states we undergo: a state of fear, pride or courage. We undergo these we do not control them in any obvious sense. And yet, we certainly have control over language.


If so, maybe there is such a state of 'consciousness', but it is the state of being able to use language. I think this holds true because anyone (or any animal) that did not know a language would not be able to communicate anything to themselves or others. The 'mind', as the term is employed by philosophers, seems to me to refer to just this ability, being able to think and 'express themselves'.

And yet, the only legitimate use of "consciousness" is in medical contexts, as I said. If one regains consciousness, one does not regain a state anymore than if you climb a mountain you have obtained a state of 'being-ontop-ness'.


And if we are to continue with that usage of the word then we would not say that animals were conscious, because they do not have language with which to communicate, and therefore have no thoughts.

And yet if being conscious is being aware, then many animals are plainly conscious. If they weren't, then when they came out from under an anaesthetic, say, a vet would never say "Ah, your cat, Tiddles, has just regained consciousness...".

And why use this odd term for our capacity to use language? We already have a phrase that covers this aspect of our lives -- namely: "the ability to use language".

In philosophy, the hardest thing is to avoid theorising, to paraphrase Wittgenstein. Seems to me you've still to win that battle.


All this is of course ignoring the medical usage of the word 'conscious'. Perhaps when one is unconscious, in the medical sense, one could also 'think consciously'. So, I believe the terms for the 'mind' and 'consciousness', used philosophically, are really obfuscations, when what you are basically trying to express is the ability to communicate with language.

I'm not sure what you mean by "think consciously".

Notice, you have to use language in rather odd ways to explain yourself.

[Meridian]

It seems my last post must have been severely poorly formulated.


But that's still a queer use of the word.
What is a queer use of what word?


The ordinary language and medical senses seem to suggest being able to use language by the fact that only people who are conscious can say (or do, for that matter) anything, period.
What is a 'medical sense'? I do not understand what you are trying to say here.


If you were unconscious you wouldn't be able to speak.
Right.


To be sure, I think when one is unconscious he or she may still have some brain activity. But because one has to be able to speak in general to think, I don't believe unconscious people can think.
What? You don't have to be able to speak (which means; utter words from the mouth) to be able to think. Mute people would disagree.


Except, in this case, it is an alleged 'state' of being able to misuse language.
What?


Anyway, is there such a 'state of being able to use language'? Certainly we have linguistic skills, but why call this a state?
Not sure. I used the word "state" from the concept of 'a state of consciousness'. I did not mean to suggest that being able to use language is a state. If I said "state" in that context, I meant "ability".


Compare that with genuine states we undergo: a state of fear, pride or courage. We undergo these we do not control them in any obvious sense. And yet, we certainly have control over language.Well, we can forget languages, which we some times do not have much control over. But I don't find it so interesting whether or not we can describe knowing a language as 'being in a state'. We can say someone is in a 'state of learning a language', for example. But I don't think anything interesting is to be derived from whether or not this is a normal use of the word 'state'.


And yet, the only legitimate use of "consciousness" is in medical contexts, as I said. If one regains consciousness, one does not regain a state anymore than if you climb a mountain you have obtained a state of 'being-ontop-ness'.
Not sure what you are saying here. However, I think perhaps my main point did not come through clearly enough in my first post: I don't believe in any concept of 'mind' or 'consciousness' (philosophically). Wherever Descartes used these terms he was depending on a distorted concept of thoughts that were without language, or at least language-independent. So, thoughts "needed" philosophical 'explanation'.



And why use this odd term for our capacity to use language? We already have a phrase that covers this aspect of our lives -- namely: "the ability to use language".
Exactly. I would say this about animals: They have no language, so they can not think. I am not promoting Descartes' use of 'mind' or 'consciousness', which is why I said "And if we are to continue with the usage of the word...", by which I meant Descartes' use.



In philosophy, the hardest thing is to avoid theorising, to paraphrase Wittgenstein. Seems to me you've still to win that battle.
Not at all.


I'm not sure what you mean by "think consciously".I meant use language internally. I thought "consciously" would be a helpful addition, or else I would have just written "think". Obviously I was wrong.


Notice, you have to use language in rather odd ways to explain yourself.I am afraid that has more to do with my lacking skills in the language, causing a seemingly endless amount of misunderstandings, than any underlying philosophical misconceptions.

[JazzRemington]

What is a queer use of what word?

Usage outside of ordinary language, or any other language for that matter.


What is a 'medical sense'? I do not understand what you are trying to say here.

When doctors use it, what else?


What? You don't have to be able to speak (which means; utter words from the mouth) to be able to think. Mute people would disagree.

But then we're no longer talking about people who are unconscious. Mute people still have a language, but I doubt they can think in the sense of speaking to one's self. They can still think on paper by writing out, say, a mathematical problem in full while working on it. Or they can "think on their feet," write down their thoughts on paper, etc.

[NGNM85]

I think it would be a horrible tragedy for this amazing and complex universe to exist without sentient minds to appreciate and explore it. Drake equation aside, we are the only sentient life that we know of, therefore we must at least consider the possibility we are alone. That just makes human life even more precious.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

1) I notice that you have to put the word "consciousness" in quotes. This means that you are using it in a special and as-yet-unexplained sense. But what is it?

I am referring to human mental activity in general.


2) But are there any genes for our ideas, like there are genes for green eyes? If not, your analogy with computers is inapt.

I don't see how that follows. Of course there aren't any genes for our ideas (at least none that I know of), but by the same token we do not have an accurate computer simulation of embryonic development. DNA is a set of instructions for building an organism, a computer program is a set of instructions for performing calculations, and a blueprint is a set of instructions for building something artificial. The point is that all of those physical patterns do something materially significant in the right context.


Of course, computers do what they do because of the intelligence of the programmer and/or designer. So, the analogy with computers in fact implies we were created by an outside intelligence. You might want to keep that faux pas hidden from Spiltteeth...

It implies no such thing. It's obvious to anyone who isn't an ignoramus that naturally evolved parallel processors (AKA brains) came first.


NoXion,

True, I'm not trying to exclude the role of ideas, as human activity is self-consciously intentional. We do things for a reason and we interact with things on the basis of the meaning they have for us. However, these 'reasons' and 'meanings' are socially constructed. If human beings respond in a destructive way to their environment it is because their social relations compel them to (the capitalist is compelled to place profit before sustainability, for instance). Higher level ideas may develop to justify this activity. Take religion. Much of it is taken up with justifications of power and authority and it is rooted in and shaped by the social lives of a people. If we want to understand why certain people hold certain beliefs we should not investigate the content of their ideas, but the forms of their social practice. Every ideology, no matter how transcendent, no matter how far it reaches for heaven, has its roots in bare necessity.

What's the "bare necessity" in believing that the Earth is ~10,000 years old, in the teeth of all evidence to the contrary?

Organised hierarchical religions justify power and authority, yes, because they need both to survive. But there's more to religion than simply justifying the status quo. I think we ignore at our peril the human propensity to believe in and act on the strangest crap.

[Hit The North]

What's the "bare necessity" in believing that the Earth is ~10,000 years old, in the teeth of all evidence to the contrary?


This is why I argue that the content of the ideas is not the best way of reaching an understanding of why people hold the ideas they do. Neither a belief that the Earth is 10,000 years old or that it is held up on the back of a giant turtle is necessary for someone to believe in a theistic universe. But the roots of these ideas are in the material relations, in the bare necessities of social life, which produces alienated modes of experience. This is why Marx insists that the abolition of religion depends upon the abolition of the conditions which make religious belief necessary.


Organised hierarchical religions justify power and authority, yes, because they need both to survive. But there's more to religion than simply justifying the status quo. I think we ignore at our peril the human propensity to believe in and act on the strangest crap. I agree.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Meridian:


What?

Well, as I noted, this is to misue this word, so if this is a state/ability, then it is a state of, or ability to misuse language.


I used the word "state" from the concept of 'a state of consciousness'. I did not mean to suggest that being able to use language is a state. If I said "state" in that context, I meant "ability".

'Ability' is decidedly better, but then, if you equate 'consciousness' with the ability to use language, then those who can't use language (aphasics, mutes or animals) cannot be said to be conscious, when they obviously are. But, why make this equation anyway? We do not do so in ordinary language.


Well, we can forget languages, which we some times do not have much control over.

And yet, even then we are surely conscious.


But I don't find it so interesting whether or not we can describe knowing a language as 'being in a state'. We can say someone is in a 'state of learning a language', for example. But I don't think anything interesting is to be derived from whether or not this is a normal use of the word 'state'.

Then you must be using "state" in a new and as-yet-unexplained sense; but, if so, what is it?


Not sure what you are saying here.

Well, outside of philosophy and the use of metaphysical langauge in science, you would only use the word "consciousness", or here it used in the following sort of contexts:

1) Has the patient regained consciousness?

2) I blanked out and lost consciousness for a minute.

This word is only normally used in such medical contexts (when patients are knocked out, or are under anaesthetic, or when they recover, etc.).


However, I think perhaps my main point did not come through clearly enough in my first post: I don't believe in any concept of 'mind' or 'consciousness' (philosophically). Wherever Descartes used these terms he was depending on a distorted concept of thoughts that were without language, or at least language-independent. So, thoughts "needed" philosophical 'explanation'.

And yet Descartes had to use distorted language to get there.


They have no language, so they can not think. I am not promoting Descartes' use of 'mind' or 'consciousness', which is why I said "And if we are to continue with the usage of the word...", by which I meant Descartes' use.

And yet animals (or at least mammals) are conscious.


I meant use language internally.

But what is the 'internal use of language'?


I am afraid that has more to do with my lacking skills in the language, causing a seemingly endless amount of misunderstandings, than any underlying philosophical misconceptions.

Well, you are doing far better than I did at your age; so don't get too despondent!

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


I am referring to human mental activity in general.

But 'mental activity' is what the insane get up to, that is why they are called 'mental patients'.

Are you really committed to the view that only the insane are conscious?


I don't see how that follows. Of course there aren't any genes for our ideas (at least none that I know of), but by the same token we do not have an accurate computer simulation of embryonic development. DNA is a set of instructions for building an organism, a computer program is a set of instructions for performing calculations, and a blueprint is a set of instructions for building something artificial. The point is that all of those physical patterns do something materially significant in the right context.

DNA cannot be a 'set of instructions', since instructions are written in a language which the one following them understands and can apply. Are you suggesting that DNA molecules are intelligent, and can issue commands to other molecules which are also intelligent enough to do what they are told? Of course, you might be using 'instruction' in a new, and as-yet-unexpalined sense. If so, what is it?

Now, you might mean 'code' here, but even a code requires a language to code out of, a coding manual, a decoding manual, and a language to code into. This would still suggest that molecules are intelligent.

Unless, of course, you are using 'code' in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense. But, if so, what is it?


It implies no such thing. It's obvious to anyone who isn't an ignoramus that naturally evolved parallel processors (AKA brains) came first.

But you are assuming what you are required to show: that the brain is as you say it is -- some sort of computer. And even if it is, since such processors require designers, then our brains must have been designed.

Unless, of course, and once again, you are using 'computer' in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense. But, if so, what is it?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But 'mental activity' is what the insane get up to, that is why they are called 'mental patients'.

Are you really committed to the view that only the insane are conscious?

Don't be silly. That's not the definition of "mental" I was using, and if you couldn't gather that from the context then I wonder how you manage to understand anybody.


DNA cannot be a 'set of instructions', since instructions are written in a language which the one following them understands and can apply. Are you suggesting that DNA molecules are intelligent, and can issue commands to other molecules which are also intelligent enough to do what they are told? Of course, you might be using 'instruction' in a new, and as-yet-unexpalined sense. If so, what is it?

DNA molecules aren't intelligent, but they can still "issue commands" in the sense that they can arrange matter into a new organism. Intelligence is not necessary for complex, step-wise construction to occur.


Now, you might mean 'code' here, but even a code requires a language to code out of, a coding manual, a decoding manual, and a language to code into. This would still suggest that molecules are intelligent.

You don't need to be intelligent to pass on information.


But you are assuming what you are required to show: that the brain is as you say it is -- some sort of computer. And even if it is, since such processors require designers, then our brains must have been designed.

That argument is bollocks and you should know that. Evolution by natural selection has produced lenses, jet propulsion, lighting, and a staggering array of chemical products and processes. What makes computers special?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Don't be silly. That's not the definition of "mental" I was using, and if you couldn't gather that from the context then I wonder how you manage to understand anybody.

But, you keep using words (like "mental") in odd ways. What else can I do but point this out to you?


DNA molecules aren't intelligent, but they can still "issue commands" in the sense that they can arrange matter into a new organism. Intelligence is not necessary for complex, step-wise construction to occur.

Then you must be using "intelligence" in a new and as-yet-unexplained sense. If so, what is it?


but they can still "issue commands" in the sense that they can arrange matter into a new organism

I do not deny their role in development, but I note you have to put "issue commands" in quotes, which suggests you are using this phase in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense, too. If so, what is it?


You don't need to be intelligent to pass on information.

But you do need intelligence if it is to count as information.

Unless, of course, you are using "information" in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense, too. If so, what is it?


That argument is bollocks and you should know that. Evolution by natural selection has produced lenses, jet propulsion, lighting, and a staggering array of chemical products and processes. What makes computers special?

Like many who have swallowed Neo-Darwinism whole, you wave your hands at the problem, and assume that that explains how intelligence arose, all the while using terms that imply the whole thing was set in motion and is controlled by intelligent forces (like 'information', 'code', 'instruction', 'command', 'computer', etc.).

[Tribune]

As to "consciousness" and language:

My uncle had a stroke which cost him his speech. He could still demonstrate awareness of events, by rough gesture and eye movement, even though he could not communicate that awareness in verbal language.

He can with some assistance now type a number of words and communicate in non-verbal English, but during the period of time in which he had no language, he did not lack awareness.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

But, you keep using words (like "mental") in odd ways. What else can I do but point this out to you?

Mental: referring to the mind. Activity: A physiological process: ex. respiratory activity.


Then you must be using "intelligence" in a new and as-yet-unexplained sense. If so, what is it?

Intelligence: The faculty of thought and reason. By this perfectly reasonable definition, DNA molecules do not have intelligence, but nonetheless get things done.


I do not deny their role in development, but I note you have to put "issue commands" in quotes, which suggests you are using this phase in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense, too. If so, what is it?

I was attempting to suggest that evolution by natural selection can mimic intelligent design, in a close enough fashion at least to fool humans into thinking so for millennia.


But you do need intelligence if it is to count as information.

Unless, of course, you are using "information" in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense, too. If so, what is it?

Most vertebrates have 2 eyes regardless of whether or not there are humans around to count them.


Like many who have swallowed Neo-Darwinism whole, you wave your hands at the problem, and assume that that explains how intelligence arose,

Do you have a better explanation?


all the while using terms that imply the whole thing was set in motion and is controlled by intelligent forces (like 'information', 'code', 'instruction', 'command', 'computer', etc.).

Limitations of human language. We have a natural tendency to see purpose everywhere, and this is reflected in our language, as well as our behaviour.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion:


Mental: referring to the mind. Activity: A physiological process: ex. respiratory activity.

Ah, so you are now using the word "mind" in a new, and-as-yet-unexplained sense...


Intelligence: The faculty of thought and reason. By this perfectly reasonable definition, DNA molecules do not have intelligence, but nonetheless get things done.

But, your own 'definition' of "intelligence" suggests that DNA molecules possess "The faculty of thought and reason". If not, then you must be using this word in a new, and-as-yet unexplained sense, as I alleged in my last post.

And DNA no more 'gets things done' than concentrated Sulphuric Acid does when you drop granulated sugar in it.

Unless, of course, you are using "gets things done" in a new, and as-yet-unexplained sense.


I was attempting to suggest that evolution by natural selection can mimic intelligent design, in a close enough fashion at least to fool humans into thinking so for millennia.

It can do no such thing, unless you think nature is mind. Here's how Jerry Fodor explains the point:


"Suppose, however, that adaptationism is true; is it able to ground a notion of natural teleology?... Is it then reasonable to speak of [a certain property] P as a property that [organism] O was 'designed' to have? Or as a 'solution' to an 'engineering problem' that O's ecology posed?...

"The subtext is the thing to keep your eye on here. It is, no doubt, an interesting question in its own right whether adaptationism licences teleological notions like SELECTION FOR. But what makes that question interesting in the present metaphysical context is that SELECTION FOR is presumably intensional (sic).... If so, then maybe a naturalistic teleology is indeed a first step toward a naturalistic theory of mind.

"But, promising though it may seem, I'm afraid this line is hopeless, and for familiar reasons. Design (as opposed to mere order) requires a designer. Not theologically or metaphysically..., but just conceptually. You can't explain intentionality by appealing to the notion of design because the notion of design presupposes intentionality....

"...Patently, not every effect that a process has is ipso facto an effect that it designs; short of theology, at least some effects of every process are merely adventitious. This must hold of the process of natural selection inter alia. So, in evolutionary theory as elsewhere, if you wish to deploy the idiom of posed problems and designed solutions [as Dennett does -- RL], you must say something about what designing requires over and above mere causing. Lacking this distinction, everything a process causes is (vacuously) one of its designed effects, and every one of its effects is (vacuously) the solution to the problem of causing one of those.

"To be sure, if solutions aren't distinguished from mere effects, it does come out -- as Dennett would want it to -- that the giraffe's long neck solved the problem of reaching to the top of things, and did so under precisely the ecological conditions that giraffes evolved in. But equally...the Rockies solve the problem of how to make mountains just like the Rockies out of just the materials that the Rockies are made of and under just the conditions of upthrust and erosion in which they formed; and the Pacific Ocean solves the problem of how to make a hole of just that size and just that shape that is filled with just that much salt water; and the tree in my garden solves the problem of how to cast a shadow just that long at just this time of the day. This, however, is no metaphysical breakthrough. It's just a rather pointless way of talking; neither [the Rockies] nor the Pacific get any kudos for being solutions in this attenuated sense. That's because problems like this are like headaches; they don't float free of people having them. The Pacific [and the Rockies] didn't really solve anything because nobody had the problems that [these] would have been the solutions to....

"Serious talk about problems and solutions requires a serious account of the difference between designing and merely causing. Notice, moreover, that if your goal is a reductive theory of intentionality, then your account of this difference cannot itself invoke intentional idiom in any essential way. This really does make things hard for Dennett. In the usual case, we distinguish designing from mere causing by reference to the effects that the designer did or didn't intend. For example: The flowers that Sam gave Mary made her wheeze and did not please her. They were, nonetheless, a failed solution to the please-Mary problem, not a successful solution to the wheeze-Mary problem. That's because Sam intended that receiving the flowers should please her and did not intend that they should excite her asthma. Suppose, by contrast, that Mary merely came across the flowers, and they both pleased her and made her wheeze. Then the flowers didn't solve, or fail to solve, anything; they just had whatever effects they did.... It certainly looks [from this that] the concept of design presupposes, and hence cannot be invoked to explain, the accessibility of intentional idiom.

"If you found a watch on a desert island, you'd have a couple of options. You could argue that since it was clearly designed, there has to have been a designer; or you could argue that since there certainly was no designer, the watch can't have been designed. What is not, however, available is the course that Dennett appears to be embarked upon: there was no designer, but the watch was designed all the same. That just makes no sense." [Fodor (1998a), pp.176-78. Capitals and italics in the original; quotation marks altered to conform to the conventions adopted at my site.]

Fodor, J. (1998a), 'Deconstructing Dennett's Darwin', in Fodor (1998b), pp.171-87.

--------, (1998b), In Critical Condition. Polemical Essays On Cognitive Science And The Philosophy Of Mind (MIT Press).


Most vertebrates have 2 eyes regardless of whether or not there are humans around to count them.

Indeed, and most dogs bark, but what has this got to do with anything?


Do you have a better explanation?

I'm not a scientist. But even if I were, and I didn't have one, and we lived 400 years ago -- can you imagine someone arguing as follows, for example:

A: You say that the sun is the centre of the universe (as we know it). But if that were so, and the earth moved, we'd see stellar parallax. Do we see stellar parallax?

B: No, but the sun is still the centre of the known universe. This theory makes the mathematics far more simple.

A: Well, can you explain why we don't see stellar parallax?

B: No, I can't. Maybe the stars are much further away than we think.

A: Have you any evidence for this conjecture?

B: No.

If I were B, and you were A here, your attitude would hold up the development of science, since it's only when we are prepared to admit that current theory is not all it's cracked up to be that science can advance, even if we haven't yet got an alternative theory. Your mind is rather closed to new possibilities and you are far too ready to accept current theory as gospel (just as scientists have done for hundreds of years, thus holding up development) -- in this case when it implies nature is intelligent!


Limitations of human language. We have a natural tendency to see purpose everywhere, and this is reflected in our language, as well as our behaviour.

But, this is not a 'limitation' of language; you are using words that seem to attribute to nature/chemicals some form of intelligence.

We call this 'fetishism'.