Any animal would have to be conscious of pain in order to sense pain and react to it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Collin is aware of certain thoughts that he needs to be aware of. He needs to be aware that he has made a deliberation. It doesn't mean that he needs to be aware of all the processes of deliberation.
I never said he had to be "aware of all processes of deliberation". Collin is certainly not aware of neurons firing in his brain, his heart beating, or his hormones, all of which are necessary for deliberation.
But if Collin was not aware of the conceptual contents of his deliberation, and if he has no free control over those concepts, he cannot be said to "agree", since that term implies a free application of reason to a contention. Furthermore, the same can be said about your deliberation over my goat. If you had no control over that deliberation, you have no right to suggest that my goat was a false response to your question anymore than you have a right to suggest that god is an incorrect idea in the head of a Catholic, the tooth fairy an incorrect idea in the head of a child, or the moon a correct idea in the head of a scientist. Each would simply be no different than the blood flowing through their veins, or the grass growing under their feet.
Destroy the free application of the mind, and you destroy everything that your silly question at the start of this thread stands upon, as well as every silly contention you've made here on this board.
They are both awareness. Whether I am aware of the clouds in the sky or the thorn in my side. It's still awareness. If I am aware of my decisions, self-awareness, it's still awareness, but it just happens to be my awareness of my decisions.
If I were not self-aware, then how could I function as a human being? I am neccissarily self-aware, but I am not my self-awareness.
Dictionary.com
the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.
If something is aware of its surroundings but is not aware of itself as a distinct being, doesn't it have consciousness but not self-awareness?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I never said he had to be "aware of all processes of deliberation". Collin is certainly not aware of neurons firing in his brain, his heart beating, or his hormones, all of which are necessary for deliberation.
But if Collin was not aware of the conceptual contents of his deliberation, and if he has no free control over those concepts, he cannot be said to "agree", since that term implies a free application of reason to a contention. Furthermore, the same can be said about your deliberation over my goat. If you had no control over that deliberation, you have no right to suggest that my goat was a false response to your question anymore than you have a right to suggest that god is an incorrect idea in the head of a Catholic, the tooth fairy an incorrect idea in the head of a child, or the moon a correct idea in the head of a scientist. Each would simply be no different than the blood flowing through their veins, or the grass growing under their feet.
I'm not following you FFG. Can you please try to elaborate?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If something is aware of its surroundings but is not aware of itself as a distinct being, doesn't it have consciousness but not self-awareness?
Sure, but I don't know what that would be.
Do you have an example?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not following you FFG. Can you please try to elaborate?
Ok. Let me try another route at this. Imagine you're in fifth grade again. And you're given a pop quiz by your teacher. This quiz contains the following question:
Q: The fifth planet from the sun is:
a: Zebra
b: Nacho
c: Mitt Romney
d: Huggy Bear
You must answer using one of the above 4 options. What answer do you choose?
Ok. Let me try another route at this. Imagine you're in fifth grade again. And you're given a pop quiz by your teacher. This quiz contains the following question:
Q: The fifth planet from the sun is:
a: Zebra
b: Nacho
c: Mitt Romney
d: Huggy Bear
You must answer using one of the above 4 options. What answer do you choose?
If I didn't know then I would take a guess and that guess would likely reflect something that I am familiar with. However, if I did know that none of those are planets, then I would say there is no correct answer. So my decision depends on knowledge and emotional anchoring.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
If I didn't know then I would take a guess and that guess would likely reflect something that I am familiar with. However, if I did know that none of those are planets, then I would say there is no correct answer. So my decision depends on knowledge and emotional anchoring.
Excellent. Now, let me pull something out of your post above:
Ok. Let me try another route at this. Imagine you're in fifth grade again. And you're given a pop quiz by your teacher. This quiz contains the following question:
Q: The fifth planet from the sun is:
a: Zebra
b: Nacho
c: Mitt Romney
d: Huggy Bear
You must answer using one of the above 4 options. What answer do you choose?
and knowing my fifth grade self, i would have asked where jupiter was? why isnt it in this list of possible answers?
if she said i had to provide an answer, i would have refused.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Excellent. Now, let me pull something out of your post above:
"I did know that none of those are planets"
How do you know this?
Hehe, you cut out the word "If" I gave what my responses would be caused by whether I knew or not.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Does a single celled organism, an amoeba, qualify for something that is aware, ie aware of their surroundings? There are multitude of other singled celled organisms that demonstrate an awareness for routines and cycles in their quest for their survival, ie, getting food & reproducing. Would you say they are conscious, yet not self-aware?
I just think consciousness is multi-dimensional, not simply defined.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Hehe, you cut out the word "If" I gave what my responses would be caused by whether I knew or not.
I'm not trying to be duplicitous here. I'm assuming, in my hypothetical, that you do know that none of them are planets, and that none of the answers given are correct.
When you say "whether I knew or not" or "if I know", you're implying the possibility of knowing something to be true or false, which is at the heart of this issue.
So, assuming you know that none of the options were planets, how did you know this?
Ok. Let me try another route at this. Imagine you're in fifth grade again. And you're given a pop quiz by your teacher. This quiz contains the following question:
Q: The fifth planet from the sun is:
a: Zebra
b: Nacho
c: Mitt Romney
d: Huggy Bear
You must answer using one of the above 4 options. What answer do you choose?
Huggy Bear! It's huggy bear, right?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Something you might find children do as well. Is if they do know they answer... let's say;
A) Bugs Bunny Roadrunner
C) Jupiter
D) Mom
They might see "A) Bugs Bunny" and get excited and say "Bugs Bunny" even though they know that "C) Jupiter" is the correct answer. Then the teacher/parent will say "no, you know the answer, why did you say Bugs Bunny?" and the kid will say "I don't know." but in reality, they answered incorrectly because they were emotionally excited by the answer "A) Bugs Bunny" we learn to overcome this through this very same kind of guidance and brain development.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Does a single celled organism, an amoeba, qualify for something that is aware, ie aware of their surroundings? There are multitude of other singled celled organisms that demonstrate an awareness for routines and cycles in their quest for their survival, ie, getting food & reproducing. Would you say they are conscious, yet not self-aware?
I just think consciousness is multi-dimensional, not simply defined.
I don't see how they would be aware of a prey or predator but not be aware of themselves. When an animal flees from a predator, they must be aware of themselves in relation to the predator or else they would not flee.
A single-celled organism might be different. I would imagine consciousness relies on a complex nervous system.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Something you might find children do as well. Is if they do know they answer... let's say;
A) Bugs Bunny Roadrunner
C) Jupiter
D) Mom
They might see "A) Bugs Bunny" and get excited and say "Bugs Bunny" even though they know that "C) Jupiter" is the correct answer. Then the teacher/parent will say "no, you know the answer, why did you say Bugs Bunny?" and the kid will say "I don't know." but in reality, they answered incorrectly because they were emotionally excited by the answer "A) Bugs Bunny" we learn to overcome this through this very same kind of guidance and brain development.
So knowledge is nothing more than the product of external instruction?
So knowledge is nothing more than the product of external instruction?
Certainly everything originates from without. Inductive reasoning is a way of coming to logical conclusions or in effect 'knowing' something, but it's ultimately based on a knowledge obtained externally.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Certainly everything originates from without. Inductive reasoning is a way of coming to logical conclusions or in effect 'knowing' something, but it's ultimately based on a knowledge obtained externally.
I don't see how they would be aware of a prey or predator but not be aware of themselves. When an animal flees from a predator, they must be aware of themselves in relation to the predator or else they would not flee.
A single-celled organism might be different. I would imagine consciousness relies on a complex nervous system.
OK, so is a brain required for consciousness?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I don't see evidence to the contrary, nor do I see the possibility of such evidence. :(
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Certainly everything originates from without. Inductive reasoning is a way of coming to logical conclusions or in effect 'knowing' something, but it's ultimately based on a knowledge obtained externally.
....the knowledge of good and evil came from (according to the Bible) a fruit that was forbidden by God. Adam and Eve had no idea that they were misbehaving by running around naked until they ate the "fruit".
So without that knowledge, they were just conscious of themselves and other animals on the planet as being just themselves and some animals.
Yes. More specifically NCCs are needed for consciousness, so having a brain doesn't neccissarily mean a creature is conscious. I think it requires observation to see how the creature reacts with the world in relation to it's self, or if it doesn't realize that it is not part of the world. Like a fruitfly doesn't seem to be aware of anything really. I can't comment on that though. I don't want to sound too definitive on consciousness as it would be rather pompous of me to claim absolute knowledge on something that remains a massive area of scientific research. But rather I'm just basing on specific scientific discoveries.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
....the knowledge of good and evil came from (according to the Bible) a fruit that was forbidden by God. Adam and Eve had no idea that they were misbehaving by running around naked until they ate the "fruit".
So without that knowledge, they were just conscious of themselves and other animals on the planet as being just themselves and some animals.
I guess if you think that the Bible is factual at all. That's a load of bunk to me.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Cool, and I still believe in free-will. Now, do you believe we can both be correct, or can only one (or neither) of us be correct?
No, I don't see that as possible.
It seems to me to be like saying "a circular square"
Don't think of a black cat or a white bear.
Now, let me ask if you thought of either of those things? Did I not affect your will to think about a black cat and a white bear?
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Yes. More specifically NCCs are needed for consciousness, so having a brain doesn't neccissarily mean a creature is conscious. I think it requires observation to see how the creature reacts with the world in relation to it's self, or if it doesn't realize that it is not part of the world. Like a fruitfly doesn't seem to be aware of anything really. I can't comment on that though. I don't want to sound too definitive on consciousness as it would be rather pompous of me to claim absolute knowledge on something that remains a massive area of scientific research. But rather I'm just basing on specific scientific discoveries.
and it followed the progress of one family of field mice in particular. One day, Mom, Dad, and Kid mice were all running around gathering food in the daylight, and a hawk swept down and grabbed a son. The rest of the family gathered themselves, ran back to their hole in the dirt, and huddled together, shivering and then comforting each other.
Bees communicate, and protect their queen. Termites, well, I don't know. I think the caring stops there, lol....they sure as hell don't care about my basement and its foundation.
Kidding aside, even plants show awareness in some scientific testing.
It seems to me to be like saying "a circular square"
Don't think of a black cat or a white bear.
Excellent. Then you and I do agree at least on one thing: an objective, non-contradictory reality. Unfortunately, you've completely contradicted yourself by claiming that you are right and I am wrong. Do you see why yet?
Now, let me ask if you thought of either of those things? Did I not affect your will to think about a black cat and a white bear?
Of course! But you didn't make me think your post was a black cat or a white bear, nor did you make me think that black cats and white bears are the same. And I'll be asking the questions here, since I'm still indulging your previous request.
Comments
Any animal would have to be conscious of pain in order to sense pain and react to it.
I never said he had to be "aware of all processes of deliberation". Collin is certainly not aware of neurons firing in his brain, his heart beating, or his hormones, all of which are necessary for deliberation.
But if Collin was not aware of the conceptual contents of his deliberation, and if he has no free control over those concepts, he cannot be said to "agree", since that term implies a free application of reason to a contention. Furthermore, the same can be said about your deliberation over my goat. If you had no control over that deliberation, you have no right to suggest that my goat was a false response to your question anymore than you have a right to suggest that god is an incorrect idea in the head of a Catholic, the tooth fairy an incorrect idea in the head of a child, or the moon a correct idea in the head of a scientist. Each would simply be no different than the blood flowing through their veins, or the grass growing under their feet.
Destroy the free application of the mind, and you destroy everything that your silly question at the start of this thread stands upon, as well as every silly contention you've made here on this board.
If something is aware of its surroundings but is not aware of itself as a distinct being, doesn't it have consciousness but not self-awareness?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm not following you FFG. Can you please try to elaborate?
Sure, but I don't know what that would be.
Do you have an example?
Ok. Let me try another route at this. Imagine you're in fifth grade again. And you're given a pop quiz by your teacher. This quiz contains the following question:
Q: The fifth planet from the sun is:
a: Zebra
b: Nacho
c: Mitt Romney
d: Huggy Bear
You must answer using one of the above 4 options. What answer do you choose?
If I didn't know then I would take a guess and that guess would likely reflect something that I am familiar with. However, if I did know that none of those are planets, then I would say there is no correct answer. So my decision depends on knowledge and emotional anchoring.
Excellent. Now, let me pull something out of your post above:
"I did know that none of those are planets"
How do you know this?
and knowing my fifth grade self, i would have asked where jupiter was? why isnt it in this list of possible answers?
if she said i had to provide an answer, i would have refused.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
and moved on to the next question.
*EDIT*
And then I would've asked Cate why she thinks the teacher is female.
Hehe, you cut out the word "If" I gave what my responses would be caused by whether I knew or not.
well Bu my fifth grade teacher was female.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
Does a single celled organism, an amoeba, qualify for something that is aware, ie aware of their surroundings? There are multitude of other singled celled organisms that demonstrate an awareness for routines and cycles in their quest for their survival, ie, getting food & reproducing. Would you say they are conscious, yet not self-aware?
I just think consciousness is multi-dimensional, not simply defined.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I'm not trying to be duplicitous here. I'm assuming, in my hypothetical, that you do know that none of them are planets, and that none of the answers given are correct.
When you say "whether I knew or not" or "if I know", you're implying the possibility of knowing something to be true or false, which is at the heart of this issue.
So, assuming you know that none of the options were planets, how did you know this?
Huggy Bear! It's huggy bear, right?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
A) Bugs Bunny
C) Jupiter
D) Mom
They might see "A) Bugs Bunny" and get excited and say "Bugs Bunny" even though they know that "C) Jupiter" is the correct answer. Then the teacher/parent will say "no, you know the answer, why did you say Bugs Bunny?" and the kid will say "I don't know." but in reality, they answered incorrectly because they were emotionally excited by the answer "A) Bugs Bunny" we learn to overcome this through this very same kind of guidance and brain development.
I don't see how they would be aware of a prey or predator but not be aware of themselves. When an animal flees from a predator, they must be aware of themselves in relation to the predator or else they would not flee.
A single-celled organism might be different. I would imagine consciousness relies on a complex nervous system.
So knowledge is nothing more than the product of external instruction?
Certainly everything originates from without. Inductive reasoning is a way of coming to logical conclusions or in effect 'knowing' something, but it's ultimately based on a knowledge obtained externally.
You're still a determinist, right?
OK, so is a brain required for consciousness?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Yes, that will probably never change.
I don't see evidence to the contrary, nor do I see the possibility of such evidence. :(
....the knowledge of good and evil came from (according to the Bible) a fruit that was forbidden by God. Adam and Eve had no idea that they were misbehaving by running around naked until they ate the "fruit".
So without that knowledge, they were just conscious of themselves and other animals on the planet as being just themselves and some animals.
Cool, and I still believe in free-will. Now, do you believe we can both be correct, or can only one (or neither) of us be correct?
Yes. More specifically NCCs are needed for consciousness, so having a brain doesn't neccissarily mean a creature is conscious. I think it requires observation to see how the creature reacts with the world in relation to it's self, or if it doesn't realize that it is not part of the world. Like a fruitfly doesn't seem to be aware of anything really. I can't comment on that though. I don't want to sound too definitive on consciousness as it would be rather pompous of me to claim absolute knowledge on something that remains a massive area of scientific research. But rather I'm just basing on specific scientific discoveries.
I guess if you think that the Bible is factual at all. That's a load of bunk to me.
No, I don't see that as possible.
It seems to me to be like saying "a circular square"
Don't think of a black cat or a white bear.
Now, let me ask if you thought of either of those things? Did I not affect your will to think about a black cat and a white bear?
and it followed the progress of one family of field mice in particular. One day, Mom, Dad, and Kid mice were all running around gathering food in the daylight, and a hawk swept down and grabbed a son. The rest of the family gathered themselves, ran back to their hole in the dirt, and huddled together, shivering and then comforting each other.
Bees communicate, and protect their queen. Termites, well, I don't know. I think the caring stops there, lol....they sure as hell don't care about my basement and its foundation.
Kidding aside, even plants show awareness in some scientific testing.
Excellent. Then you and I do agree at least on one thing: an objective, non-contradictory reality. Unfortunately, you've completely contradicted yourself by claiming that you are right and I am wrong. Do you see why yet?
Of course! But you didn't make me think your post was a black cat or a white bear, nor did you make me think that black cats and white bears are the same. And I'll be asking the questions here, since I'm still indulging your previous request.
But it makes for some good conversations.