# Is there such a thing as consciousness? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018 "2005-11-14T18:04:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/41 "2005-11-17T23:17:29Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > It’s not the same to assert that “I just experienced seeing a leprechaun” and “There was a leprechaun in my room just now.” Why not? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/42 "2005-11-17T23:23:02Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Why not? The former leaves open the possibility that the “leprechaun” was an illusion or hallucination. ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/43 "2005-11-17T23:26:47Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > The former leaves open the possibility that the “leprechaun” was an illusion or hallucination. So does the latter. Asserting a statement doesn’t make it absolutely true. At most, taking into account modern sensibilities, the former indicates that the speaker is being self-conscious about epistemology. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [November 17, 2005, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/44 "2005-11-17T23:55:20Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Asserting a statement doesn’t make it absolutely true. It doesn’t _make_ it true, of course, but it _says_ it’s true. > [@](#): > > At most, taking into account modern sensibilities, the former indicates that the speaker is being self-conscious about epistemology If I started seeing leprechauns, I would indeed get self-conscious about epistemology. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/45 "2005-11-19T04:14:22Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > The former leaves open the possibility that the “leprechaun” was an illusion or hallucination. How do you know posting on here isn’t a hallucination? How would **SentientMeat** know that anything he sees/hears is not merely a hallucination? Is being able to complicate it to an extreme degree in an internally consistent manner evidence enough that it is not a hallucination? What about his ability to relate multiple interactions qualifies his experiences as anything more than a hallucination? What qualifies ANY experience you ever had as a hallucination? On to semantics. If you define the experience of seeing a leprechaun as “Seeing a leprechaun”, then how can one argue that they did not see a leprechaun, if “I saw a leprechaun” is how they define the experience they just had? **SentientMeat** Your arguments are compelling, and you are one of the most intelligent people I have ever conversed with, however, you tend to lose me on many of the things you talk about simply because I do not have access to the same semantic space that you have. While you have one of the most internally consistent belief systems I have found, how is internal consistency evidence of anything? How do I possibly know that anything you say is anything more than the relation of a very thorough hallucination on your part? One of the reasons I have believing in anything you say is because you say that everything is physical and that metaphysics and physics do not interact. I disagree that by definition they are mutually exclusive. Physical properties are not the same as physical objects. The meaning of the words I disagree have temporal and spacial properties in and of themselves out of context. “Hard” has no location in time or space. “I am picking up a hard piece of granite on 11.18.05.” described physical properties, but “hardness” in a vacuum without that spacial and temporal context does not exist physically, but it exists metaphysically. Metaphysics doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist in the physical world, it means that it is not limited by temporal and spacial properties in the same way that “physical” objects are. Basically to put it succinctly, ‘physical properties’ are not physical out of context. The concept of the rock, and the physicality of the rock are not the same thing. Erek ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/46 "2005-11-19T04:18:43Z")
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics) ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/47 "2005-11-19T05:25:18Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > What qualifies ANY experience you ever had as a hallucination? Metaphysical semantic framework a.k.a. worldview. ‘Hallucinations’ behave differently than ‘real things’. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/48 "2005-11-19T12:35:24Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > How would SentientMeat know that anything he sees/hears is not merely a hallucination? I don’t. I can only _strongly believe_ that the solipsistic position is false. > [@](#): > > Is being able to complicate it to an extreme degree in an internally consistent manner evidence enough that it is not a hallucination? It is enough to make me believe so, but not enough to give me absolute certainty. > [@](#): > > What qualifies ANY experience you ever had as a hallucination? If the versions of other witnesses (either other people or experimental apparatus such as a camera) are at odds with mine, I might well re-assess my version as being a hallucination, rather like I might assess a digital photograph as being _genuine_ or _Photoshopped_. > [@](#): > > If you define the experience of seeing a leprechaun as “Seeing a leprechaun”, then how can one argue that they did not see a leprechaun, if “I saw a leprechaun” is how they define the experience they just had? They must take all the relevant facts into consideration, such as camera footage, diagnoses of temporary anatomical conditions, and the logical consequences of “what they saw”. > [@](#): > > how is internal consistency evidence of anything? In and of itself, it _isn’t_. I can only place shapes on your monitor which are the semantically coded output of my brain, with all its emotions and logical processing and whatnot. If you _disagree_ (_ie._ output some other position than mine), I can ultimately only repeat myself. > [@](#): > > How do I possibly know that anything you say is anything more than the relation of a very thorough hallucination on your part? You don’t, any more than you know I (or, indeed, _you_) “really exist”. > [@](#): > > One of the reasons I have believing in anything you say is because you say that everything is physical and that metaphysics and physics do not interact. I do not simply _say_ that: it is a logical consequence of their mutually exclusive _definition_. > [@](#): > > I disagree that by definition they are mutually exclusive. **Meta** : _beyond_ or _transcending_. > [@](#): > > Physical properties are not the same as physical objects. Agreed: a physical object is a _spatial_ arrangement. A physical **process** (like consciousness) is a _temporal_ arrangement. > [@](#): > > “Hard” has no location in time or space. It is the label a human sensor bestows upon an object which has undergone a physical process of _eg._ being cut with a diamond at a given rate. All of this is still, ultimately, physical by nature. > [@](#): > > but “hardness” in a vacuum without that spacial and temporal context does not exist physically, but it exists metaphysically. A linguistic referent which does not _refer_ to any real thing is not necessarily _metaphysical_, just rather _useless_. For example, a random string of symbols _‘grythu’_ is a “word in a vacuum”. Again, that does not make it **un** physical. > [@](#): > > Metaphysics doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist in the physical world, it means that it is not limited by temporal and spacial properties in the same way that “physical” objects are. Arrangements (_eg._ of symbols or phonemes, _ie._ “words”) sometimes **seem** to violate spatio-temporal boundaries (_ie._ “physical laws”) but actually do not. For example, sweeping a laser spot across the moon seems to make the spot go faster then light, violating the physical laws of relativity. But no **object** is travelling so fast: it is just an arrangement in time of photons, just like _eg._ a line of dominoes a million miles long could _all fall at once_. > [@](#): > > Basically to put it succinctly, ‘physical properties’ are not physical out of context. The concept of the rock, and the physicality of the rock are not the same thing. Yet, I consider that the “concept” is effectively an **average of all the memories of rocks you have ever seen**. And memories, as I directed you earlier, are [physical things](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=304969). That is, “concepts” are as physical as memories, which are as physical as the things themselves. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2005, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/49 "2005-11-19T20:45:25Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > “Hard” has no location in time or space. “I am picking up a hard piece of granite on 11.18.05.” described physical properties, but “hardness” in a vacuum without that spacial and temporal context does not exist physically, but it exists metaphysically. “Hardness” in a vacuum does not exist metaphysically. In a vacuum, “hardness” does not exist at _all_. “Hard” only has meaning _within_ a spatial and temporal context, i.e., within a concept of physicality, explicit or implicit. Otherwise, it’s like saying that chocolate is irrelevant to the meaning of “chocolate flavored". > [@](#): > > Basically to put it succinctly, ‘physical properties’ are not physical out of context. The concept of the rock, and the physicality of the rock are not the same thing. I can’t speak for **Sentient** , but I think his view is that while the “physical properties” of the rock _describe and define_ the rock, they’re not _in_ the rock per se; rather, “physical properties of the rock” are concepts that exist as spatio-temporal arrangement of our _physical_ neurons. Hence, “the rock” and “the concept of the rock” are indeed _not_ the same thing, but they’re both _physical_. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/50 "2005-11-20T01:36:57Z")
**other-wise** , if your 246 posts to date since August 1999 are _all_ that precise and concise, I really will have to look them all up some time. Truly, you must be the uber-lurker of the SDMB. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Wm\_Fleming](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Wm\_Fleming](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wm_Fleming)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/51 "2005-11-20T03:36:34Z")
“Can someone prove to me that consciousness exists?” Being simple minded, can I ask would the concept of proof have any meaning in a context which conciousness did not? However one would define the terms, “proof” would imply “conciousness” in all cases where any reasonable consistency of usage maintains. No? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/52 "2005-11-20T04:20:44Z")
“His was a great sin who first invented consciousness.” from _The Diamond As Big As The Ritz_ - F. Scott Fitzgerald. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/53 "2005-11-20T09:18:48Z")
I think the OP’s question at bottom is about what is or is not real. That’s one of the topics that the first, pre-Socratic philosophers tackled and they didn’t have an answer either. That’s the fascinating thing about the subject of philosophy. In it there are no settled questions. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018/54 "2005-11-21T05:25:40Z")
Have you heard of CEMI field theory? That theory is that consciousness is an electromagnetic field that plays a role in coordinating the activation potentials of our neurons, leading to consciousness and free will. Essentially when unconscious behavior leads to a crossroad in behavior consciousness is activated to pick a pathway. Johnjoe McFadden writes pretty heavily on the subject. Pro: [http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/mcfadden\_JCS2002b.pdf](http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/pdfs/mcfadden_JCS2002b.pdf) [http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/news/electromagnetic-field-theory-of-consciousness.htm](http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/news/electromagnetic-field-theory-of-consciousness.htm) (the weblink for that article sucks, I couldn’t find one w/o mindcontrolforums in the title) Anti: [http://www.phy.auckland.ac.nz/assets/pdf/difficulties\_jcs.pdf](http://www.phy.auckland.ac.nz/assets/pdf/difficulties_jcs.pdf) Study of consciousness in general can be found at the Journal of Consciousness > **[Journal of Consciousness Studies - Imprint Academic](https://www.imprint.co.uk/product/jcs/)** > > Journal of Consciousness Studies is a peer reviewd journal which examines the study of consciousness in plain english. Can computers ever be conscious? > **[Journal of Consciousness Studies - Imprint Academic](https://www.imprint.co.uk/product/jcs/)** > > Journal of Consciousness Studies is a peer reviewd journal which examines the study of consciousness in plain english. Can computers ever be conscious? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-such-a-thing-as-consciousness/331018.md?page=2)