tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post9176094350495525394..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: Carroll on ConsciousnessRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-52087277685468800272021-11-22T23:13:00.554-08:002021-11-22T23:13:00.554-08:00Dear Roger,
The primary evidence of consciousness...Dear Roger,<br /><br />The primary evidence of consciousness is via introspection, by directly observing (i.e., by directly perceiving) that one is conscious --- that one is aware of reality including of one's own mental states; and then reaching the idea that one has a faculty of being conscious, of perceiving reality (i.e. of the fact that one indeed has a self, with a free-will).<br /><br />The term "consciousness" refers to both a state of being conscious (being aware of reality including of one's own mental states), as also a faculty of being conscious. <br /><br />Observations of one's own consciousness (in both senses of the term) is the primary evidence for consciousness. <br /><br />Each conscious being is *directly* aware of his own consciousness. Leaving aside claims of telepathy and all that, we normally do not have a direct experience of someone else' consciousness. But the point is, a direct experience like that is not at all necessary. We can also infer, from "external" observations, that other people are conscious, that they are aware, that they have the faculty of consciousness.<br /><br />Further, we can also infer, from observations, that people [and even animals or living beings] are conscious only when they are living. Dead bodies feel no joy or pain. [That's why (at least in India) we even cremate them.]<br /><br />So, the very blatantly obvious conclusion is this: *Life* is necessary for consciousness. <br /><br />Now, consider, e.g., your statement:<br /><br />>> "If (2) and scientific reductionism are true, and humans are composed of 1030 or so quarks and electrons, then it seems plausible that each quark and electron has a little bit of consciousness. "<br /><br />If you replace "consciousness" with "life", would it continue to look plausible? After all, if an electron has to be conscious, it has to be living, no? ... So, does it look plausible to say that we always live in a universe that is *entirely* made of "animals" (in the sense: animate beings)? That not just people and animals and insects and trees and fungi and amobae and viri (when in living action), but also tables and chairs and buildings and roads and rocks are, in a way, "animals"? At least in some elementary or rudimentary sense of the term "life"?<br /><br />And if panvitalism (just to coin a term) doesn't seem plausible, then why does panpsychism?<br /><br />Best,<br />--Ajit<br /><br />PS: If things continue in the same direction, it won't be long before they introduce topics on Quantum Computing in "Psychology 101". ... Also, PhD topics: "Survey of psychological difficulties faced by ions in the trapped-ion quantum computer." Another PhD topic: "Psychological difficulties of trapped ion and optical qubits --- a comparative study." Etc. [Also biological difficulties, really speaking... Also medical remedies...] QC enthusiasts would love it too. "Potential applications of the quantum computer include biological, psychological, and medical fields". You get the idea...<br /> <br /><br />Ajit R. Jadhavhttps://ajitjadhav.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-27320477512241984652021-11-22T13:58:20.877-08:002021-11-22T13:58:20.877-08:00GIGO from so many overpaid fat heads with nothing ...GIGO from so many overpaid fat heads with nothing intelligent to say. Embarrassing really, having to choose between inanimate meat puppets on one side and secret magical soul sauce ingredients on the other. Pray tell, what the heck does anyone even mean by 'consciousness'? <br /><br />Would be kind of nice if anyone decided to specify exactly what they were talking about... which might also reveal how little they know about what they are talking about.<br /><br /> Consciousness as an awareness of the immediate self and surroundings like many animals, or more abstract levels of awareness involving half-assed pretzel-knot reasoning that really don't do anything useful ...except get silly papers published in academic journals? <br /><br /> As with many things, there is more than on or off, 0 or 1. There is a matter of degree in a spectrum of consciousness that might be considered almost mechanical on one end (such as with insects or most woke college activists), and more involved, devious and unpredictable on the other end (such as the average little old lady trying to cheat at bingo). CFTnoreply@blogger.com