# My take on consciousness (rather long) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 25, 2006, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-consciousness-rather-long/354110 "2006-04-25T07:27:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2006, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-consciousness-rather-long/354110/101 "2006-05-27T09:58:40Z")
> [@Gyan](#): > > But I don’t know what they mean by soul, but ‘consciousness’ is pretty clear. And they could well say the same to you – they know what their _soul_ is, but what’s all this “consciousness” mumbo-jumbo? > [@](#): > > But that doesn’t make vitalism = animism, anymore than it makes vitalism = theism. Then how can animism = _panpsychism_? You seem to be cherry picking what you take to be equivalent on an utterly arbitrary basis. > [@](#): > > No, I said that the WP entry for animism equates them. So animism _doesn’t_ equal panpsychism in your view, then? > [@](#): > > Not much of a description of modern vitalism. Any primary or focused sources? It’s all you need for this discussion, surely? > [@](#): > > Everything can be conscious without having Godhood or causative powers. _Why_ do you say that? Could you please _expand_ on why you accept panpsychism but reject polytheism, given that they’re both surely equally “noble” subsets of animism? > [@](#): > > If the terms are equivalent to consciousness, only then, yes. Why the seemingly arbitrary distinction? Surely a theist could say “only if this ‘consciousness’ things is the _eternal soul_”? > [@](#): > > No. All panpsychism indicates is that everything is conscious. Other features are extranous to the definition. _Why_ do you say this? Do you just simply _assert_ for no particular reason? > [@](#): > > I outlined the difference as well, so no. But your ‘difference’ was not one of any substance whatsoever. Surely it’s as though you’d said “Ah, but consciousness begins with a ‘c’!”? > [@](#): > > The term is arbitrary, the phenomenon is not. It’s **all** we are: conscious. How did you become aware that consciousness is a set of brain processes? Awareness and consciousness (and experience and first-hand knowledge and subjectivity _etc_.) are _synonymous_ – that’s why I’m saying you keep coming out with irrelevant **tautologies**. I keep asking why X (consciousness) can’t be Y (physical) and you keep replying with the non sequitur **”because X=X”**. > [@](#): > > On the contrary, I see a distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness. Really? _What_ is distinctly **un** conscious, in your view? > [@](#): > > I don’t see a distinction between the consciousness _status_ of a rock and an alive dog because I can’t observe the consciousness or lack thereof, in either. But _all kinds_ of properties aren’t necessarily directly observable, and you don’t therefore posit that _everything_ has those properties _a little bit_. Why not? > [@](#): > > What does this even mean? Explain what it would mean to be conscious in a metaphysical sense. That consciousness isn’t **physical** , as only you and a few eccentrics believe, just as only a few vitalists believe that things are _alive_ in a metaphysical sense. > [@](#): > > And this is not the stated reason, so straw man. So you _agree_ that consciousness could be explicable by physical processes? > [@](#): > > To which I repeat: So what would it mean to possess “elan vital”?. What it means to be conscious is direct knowledge. That is **tautologous** : “direct” knowledge _is_ what “consciousness” _means_. _Indirect_ knowledge **loses** that access – it’s the difference between _observing_ a physical object and actuall _being_ that object, as we discussed before. The vitalist could just throw out tautologies too: “Ah, but _true_ life isn’t the stuff, it’s the élan vital which _everything_ possesses”. > [@](#): > > Of others, not my own. And you cannot **be** others _by definition_. > [@](#): > > Anything that happens to exist, is conscious. How do you know what exists and what doesn’t? Surely you don’t think _everything you can think of_ actually exists, _a la_ solipsism? > [@](#): > > Except that we consciously decide to create encryption algorithms and encrypt files, and thus label only those as encrypted. But some files become encrypted by _natural_ means – that’s what _corruption_ is, really. If we knew the precise sequence of changes of the magnetic domains over time we could recover the data even from a rusted or burnt drive, and nobody I know (except, perhaps, yourself) considers oxidation or fire “conscious” processes. > [@](#): > > If we were to discover some unknown files from a salvaged hard drive, and then claim that only certain files are encrypted because their headers indicate encryption processes known to us; then that’s equivalent in one sense to the physicalist position. Other files may be encrypted, but we only call those files encrypted whose structure parallels the output of our known encryption methods (this is equivalent to the ‘consciousness in others by analogy’ test that I was referring to). So you admit that you _do_ characterize things as conscious or not _based on observed behaviour_, like the vitalist? I’ve been struggling to see how your position is _different_ to vitalism in any substantial way for some days now, and I don’t feel I’m any further forwards. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/my-take-on-consciousness-rather-long/354110.md?page=5)