'I' am not consciousness

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

catefrances

Bu2 wrote:

And then I would've asked Cate why she thinks the teacher is female.

well Bu my fifth grade teacher was female. it's a simple case of transference.

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

Sure, but I don't know what that would be.

Do you have an example?

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.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

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?

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

Ahnimus

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.

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

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?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

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?

baraka

Ahnimus wrote:

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?

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

You're still a determinist, right?

Yes, that will probably never change.

I don't see evidence to the contrary, nor do I see the possibility of such evidence. :(

Bu2

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

Yes

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?

Ahnimus

baraka wrote:

OK, so is a brain required for consciousness?

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.

Ahnimus

Bu2 wrote:

....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.

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

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?

Bu2

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

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.

Bu2

Ahnimus wrote:

I guess if you think that the Bible is factual at all. That's a load of bunk to me.

But it makes for some good conversations.