Forget discussions about the origin of consciousness – I don’t even believe in it in the first place. I figured I’d see if anyone else here shares this understanding – I’ve never met anyone who did (or even read about it discussed by any philosopher).
A few preemptive remarks are in order to defend against critical response:
First of all, to anyone accustomed to the study of physics, or even basic naturalism/determinism, it should come as no surprise that humans are, like the rest of the universe, nothing more, ultimately, than a collection of particles moving dumbly according to the same basic laws, blind to any greater process of which they are a part of. It turns out that there are natural processes, namely evolution, whereby groups of particles coalesce into fairly organized bodies that stay together for a while before eventually decaying back into seemingly random and disparate trajectories. Some of these organized bodies are so complex that they include computers (of a sort) that transmit and receive information; they have a language, and they “say” things like “I am conscious.” It should therefore come as no surprise that someone might conclude that “consciousness” is the ability of an organism to say it is conscious, and nothing more. Some might object: “but I know I am conscious – I am experiencing it right now!” Are you? Or are you and your statements (including the ones you make to yourself) nothing more than the deterministic result of the particles moving in your body according to the laws of physics, which happen to have organized in a way so that you say “I am experiencing consciousness”? Personally, I find that if you look deep and close and hard, there is not much to support an “experience” of consciousness – it is nothing more than a tautology amounting to a computer programmed to say it is conscious, and to have a process by which it says it is conscious to itself in a complicated internal exchange of information. Of some relevance is the fact that studies have shown that our decisions are made (at least the ones tested) before we are consciously aware of them. These studies have become increasingly compelling and robust. (Cite: from Benjamin Libet’s early experiments to the more recent)
Finally, I should add that I am aware of the irony of asking these questions (or any questions at all), having these thoughts (or any thoughts at all), when in my view I and you have no free will to think about any of this. My response is: fuck it, I’ll maintain the illusion, ultimately because I am deterministic and have no choice, but if I were to have a choice, it would be because I might as well play along in order to avoid discord.
By definition, consciousness is the subjective self awareness we experience inside our own heads. It’s a word we use to describe something that we really do experience (at least I do). So, by definition, we are conscious.
It strikes me that you may be confusing consciousness with the question of free will, or maybe I’m misunderstanding you.
I think you are misunderstanding me. I take issue with your description of consciousness as something we “really do experience”. I only believe that you say that you experience it. And no, this isn’t solipsism I am describing. I think that if you stop for a minute and genuinely reflect on what you mean by “I experience something, and by definition that is consciousness”, you can come to the conclusion that you are not in fact experiencing anything. You are just saying that you are experiencing something. Even the word “experience” is in question – I posit it is meaningless, just a word used by us tautologically. What I am describing is fraught with semantical issues, so it is very difficult to describe to someone who doesn’t ‘get it.’ So that’s why I posted the question, to see if anyone else ‘gets it’.
I agree that free will doesn’t exist. But as I sit here thinking, I am conscious. “I think therefore I am”, while trite, sums it up perfectly.
You’re going to have to define consciousness a bit more thoroughly before you can say whether or not we’re experiencing it but consciousness as I’ve understood it- yes, I’m experiencing it.
Oh, and you mentioned the confusion between free will and consciousness. I think the two terms are impossible to coherently define, and are indeed intimately related. For example, I’m can’t see how any conception of “subjective self awareness” is consistent with the deterministic and relatively simple behavior of microscopic constituents of a being. Self-awareness is a concept that contradicts that deterministic behavior (which has no awareness, only simple rules to follow), and therefore is mostly a re-statement of the concept of free will. One might object that I am ignoring the ability of emergent phenomena to overcome the simplicity of microscopic behavior and the laws of physics, but that is a red herring; given deterministic rules, macroscopic behaviors can be predicted and described. The concept of “subjective self awareness” can only be predicted and described as I have: as a phenomena in which language is used to make statements about one’s self. That in no way validates the incoherent concept of “subjective self awareness”. The reason why the term ‘subjective’ must be used is because there is no objective meaning; one can only understand that phrase by empathizing with the “experience” – it is tautological.
“I can process language and therefore I have the ability to write this sentence and state that I am” would be more logically precise and true, and removes the crucial bit of “therefore I am”.
Consciousness is what I am experiencing right now. I might (and no doubt am) wrong about exactly how it works, but it certainly exists just as much as the color red does.
And I don’t think one can define consciousness in any coherent way, other than tautologically: “consciousness is the ability to express in language that one is experiencing something, which may or may not exist, called consciousness”
Just because someone says they are “experiencing” something doesn’t make it so. For example, how do I know you are not just a computer that is programmed to say that you are experiencing consciousness? How do you know you are not a computer that is programmed to say that you are experiencing consciousness? Because you say you are conscious to yourself? Because you “experience” something? What exactly do you experience? Can you describe it? And how can I trust you? One thing I know about people is how un-self-aware we are – there is simply no way I can trust someone flippantly saying that they are experiencing consciousness, if they haven’t taken the time to really meditation on the question, looking inwardly and trying to understand what is it I really think I am experiencing? Because when I do that, I come out finding it less than obvious that I can flippantly say I am experiencing something. Apologies in advance if you have in fact meditated deeply on this question!
And by the way, it’s funny you mention that consciousness exists for you the way the color red does. It’s funny because of course the experience of the color red is about as subjective as you can get. My “red” could be your “orange”. This is stoned-freshman-philosophy level stuff, but it’s true. There is certainly no coherent definition of the subjective experience of the color red.
“This is stoned-freshman-philosophy level stuff” is exactly right. There’s a reason Descartes was reduced to cogito ergo sum: even he realised that if everything else is in doubt–even if everything experienced is deception–there must be a subject to be deceived. Total, absolute solipsism still requires that you are experiencing something.
Are you a fan of Daniel Dennett, by any chance? I enjoy what I’ve read and seen of him, but I can’t agree with him on this point.
We are conscious because a person experiencing the same type of existence and awareness as we are, invented that word to mean what we are experiencing. You can’t decide the word is describing something we’re incapable of experiencing when the word means what we are experiencing.
If you have proof that the word came from some other life form and they used it incorrectly when applied to human experiences then you can maybe say we are not conscious.
None of that matters. Consciousness is the word that describes what I am experiencing - regardless of whether or not you exist, or if I’m a simulation, or can describe it or not. It’s a sensation.
Pardon me, but this is the stupidest premise I’ve ever run across. Anything else can be an illusion to me, including nearly the entirety of my identity as I perceive it, but not my consciousness.
I’m not referring to my writing the sentence. I’m referring to me, sitting here, right now, thinking as I write this, not even about the sentence that I’m writing. For you to deny that I’m experiencing what I’m thinking is… well, that’s your problem.
This. As mentioned above, “consciousness” is defined as…well, being conscious. If you are conscious of the fact that you are conscious, you are conscious. It’s not science, just a way to define a discrete segment of existence.
Now, if you’re asking WHY we are conscious, or what natural forces create consciousness…well, nobody has any fucking clue.
Was going to ask if you’ve recently taken LSD, until I saw your nick and realized, for you, it’s not necessary…
Of course much of our mentality is unconscious. Often more than people think–our inner narrative is stitched of the conscious parts.
Regardless, the possibility of acting unconsciously in modes and phases doesn’t mean consciousness doesn’t exist. I am conscious… and it seems reasonable to assume that most humans are more or less so as well.
If iamnotbatman insists, I am willing to grant that he may not be. Indeed, I have no proof he is not an automaton. But I’m certainly not going to believe, counter to both intuition and testimony, that everybody else is.
I disagree. Everyone here is relying on that axiom that they are “obviously” experiencing something. I think it may be too subtle a point to convey on a message board, but I don’t think it is obvious. I think it is only obvious that signals inside your body of conspired to make you say that you have experienced something, both inwardly as information stored for retrieval as well as in real time. For example, referring to the cites in my OP, it is clear that if I ask you if you are experiencing anything, you decide on your response before even thinking about the issue consciously. I really don’t think your basic axiom of experience is as obvious as you think it is.
Well, I’ve read Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, which I enjoyed, but I can’t say I remember anything particularly applicable here.
In your above argument I’m taking issue with how you are defining the word “experiencing”. My point is that if you try to be coherent, you will always end up using circular definitions.
