Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@odenskrigare,

Some one needs to throw water on this thread, it's flaming!

:whistling:

@Kielicious,

well hey the empirically-minded people posting in this thread have been compared with Nazis, what do you expect

---------- Post added 08-29-2009 at 11:31 PM ----------

also William basically wished death on me in another thread, how nice

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon;86805 wrote:

Some one needs to throw water on this thread, it's flaming!

:whistling:

just noticed your edit back about two pages (i always have to backtrack two or three pages to make sure i am not missing anything). 'the sum of all experience' also suits me for now if you are still counting.

but i do have more to confuse myself-can it be the perception of all experience? because we can experience things we are not conscious of. or are we looking at the process more than what it is conscious of, so that it would be irrelevant whether or not there was anything to be conscious of...you had made mention of something concerning this in a prior post as to whether a person was in a coma or dreaming or whatever state, the consciousness is still there. it must be conscious of everything that is going on, whether or not it ever reaches that small part of our brains that is posting on this forum. in that case it wouldnt matter if anything was being perceived. right, i talked myself out of it.

'the sum of all experience'.

and i have another suggestion: can we start a new thread once we reach a decision? the old-timers who have been here since the beginning will hang on, but having over 60 pages is enough to stop many new people from showing up and contributing.

KJ wanted to close the voting by midnight tonight india time or somewhere close, i cant remember exactly. but i think someone should pm kielicious and ask what he thinks and wait for him about starting a new thread or nailing a final decision on the definition.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Count me out,

The consensus here is not going to take into account any definition of consciousness other than biological, and does not see life as anything except a biological function, so I am assuming that this discussion will simply turn into one where they all pat each other on the backs for their great revelations uncovering the truth of the human mind as mere brain function. What is there to discuss, just get on with the back patting.

None of them have earned my pat! I believe they are simply overlooking and deliberately avoiding the real question.

2 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86839 wrote:

Count me out,

The consensus here is not going to take into account any definition of consciousness other than biological, and does not see life as anything except a biological function, so I am assuming that this discussion will simply turn into one where they all pat each other on the backs for their great revelations uncovering the truth of the human mind as mere brain function. What is there to discuss, just get on with the back patting.

None of them have earned my pat! I believe they are simply overlooking and deliberately avoiding the real question.

Don't give up too soon! If you look at the suggested definitional options in post #611, you will see that they are all worded in terms of subjective experience or awareness. They are therefore all potentially compatible with your view. You will be able to argue that view when we come to discuss the substantive issue of this thread - i.e. that consciousness is (or is not) a biological problem.

1 Reply

@ACB,

ACB;86844 wrote:

Don't give up too soon! If you look at the suggested definitional options in post #611, you will see that they are all worded in terms of subjective experience or awareness. They are therefore all potentially compatible with your view. You will be able to argue that view when we come to discuss the substantive issue of this thread - i.e. that consciousness is (or is not) a biological problem.

I am unsure how to reach that point ACB when they are adamant that it not be considered in their defintion.

0 Replies

@odenskrigare,

Too much negativity here. This isn't philosophy. I believe the intent of the original thread here has been grossly lost. I see in the replies back and forth above a good deal of animosity and put downs. I think this comes from an innate willingness of somekind to put down whoever you disagree with. I like to try and find in any post something I can agree with. For instance: I said, Science has become like a religion, replete with its own high priests. In fact, this is what it has become in the thinking of many. Science for all its wonders, has also brought us nuclear weapons with which nations fighting against nations may one day use to annihiliate all life on our planet. That's one extreme view of science and what it can do for us. Blow us all up into gaseous vapours. The other is, we wouldn't be using the internet now for talking about anything. We might all be looking for caves to live in. Someone took a negative outlook towards the statement that science is like a religion, and even my capitalization of the term God. This is nitpicking. And this thread has declined to absurdity. Maybe the original poster can get things back on track. I joined this forum to discuss philosophical viewpoints.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

It is not science that destroys us Shostakovich, it is what man does with it, it always has been.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86839 wrote:

Count me out,

The consensus here is not going to take into account any definition of consciousness other than biological, and does not see life as anything except a biological function, so I am assuming that this discussion will simply turn into one where they all pat each other on the backs for their great revelations uncovering the truth of the human mind as mere brain function. What is there to discuss, just get on with the back patting.

None of them have earned my pat! I believe they are simply overlooking and deliberately avoiding the real question.

no, i believe everyone here has realized that the definition had to be carefully worded to avoid that. the sum of all experience would have to include transcendental experience, the experience of listening to music, the experience of being in love, all kinds of things that may or may not be biological. i think it should help divert the inquiry to areas it hasnt yet even touched on.

but i do still believe a new thread is in order.

1 Reply

@salima,

salima;86882 wrote:

no, i believe everyone here has realized that the definition had to be carefully worded to avoid that. the sum of all experience would have to include transcendental experience, the experience of listening to music, the experience of being in love, all kinds of things that may or may not be biological. i think it should help divert the inquiry to areas it hasnt yet even touched on.

but i do still believe a new thread is in order.

agreed! New thread time.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Yes, I agree. I think a new thread with a concise statement would be helpful.

Rich

0 Replies

@Caroline,

Caroline: I agree, entirely.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Kielicious its your thread, could you open one that will address the issues that have come up in this one, mainlky how some of us want to see the metaphysical aspect of mind brain consciousness addressed in more detail than just the biological functioning of the brain so our opinions are not easily cast aside as off topic?

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86958 wrote:

Kielicious its your thread, could you open one that will address the issues that have come up in this one, mainlky how some of us want to see the metaphysical aspect of mind brain consciousness addressed in more detail than just the biological functioning of the brain so our opinions are not easily cast aside as off topic?

I dont see why we cant talk about it here but you guys can do whatever you want.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;86993 wrote:

I dont see why we cant talk about it here but you guys can do whatever you want.

There is a consensus here that there are too many pages and that new blood may not enter into a thread of such length.

There is alos the opportunity to reword the OP to include the option of the metaphysical accounting of mind brain consciousness.

Are you interested or shall we just open another thread ourselves?

2 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86996 wrote:

There is a consensus here that there are too many pages and that new blood may not enter into a thread of such length.

ok

Pathfinder wrote:

There is alos the opportunity to reword the OP to include the option of the metaphysical accounting of mind brain consciousness.

I dont think there is because there is no longer the edit option, but I wouldnt want to anyways because then I would have to rename the thread and forfeit my position as explicit to implicit -to which I dont want to do. That is, after all, the reason why I made this thread -to showcase my position that consciousness is a biological problem and I feel it adequate enough that those who disagree put forth their argument within the same thread. Having separate threads for those who disagree seems a bit like segregating the skepticism and endorsing dogmatism, but like I said before: you guys can do whatever you like. I just dont want some sort of thread tribalism to emerge.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;87001 wrote:

ok

I dont think there is because there is no longer the edit option, but I wouldnt want to anyways because then I would have to rename the thread and forfeit my position as explicit to implicit -to which I dont want to do. That is, after all, the reason why I made this thread -to showcase my position that consciousness is a biological problem and I feel it adequate enough that those who disagree put forth their argument within the same thread. Having separate threads for those who disagree seems a bit like segregating the skepticism and endorsing dogmatism, but like I said before: you guys can do whatever you like. I just dont want some sort of thread tribalism to emerge.

Fair enough, I just thought it only fair to avoid seeming like your thread was being hijacked elsewhere.

1 Reply

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;87006 wrote:

Fair enough, I just thought it only fair to avoid seeming like your thread was being hijacked elsewhere.

If you guys really have issues with the overall conclusion with the thread or you just want to put forth alternative views feel free to speak out. I will not filter out or censor you guys but it must be within reason. I dont want to see the thread derail like it did last time about evolution -that's an entirely different topic. So if you guys have metaphysical assertions about the nature of consciousness then speak out and let your voice be heard but be prepared for rebuttals...

0 Replies

@Pathfinder,

Pathfinder;86996 wrote:

There is a consensus here that there are too many pages and that new blood may not enter into a thread of such length.

I have no eartly idea where this came from, I've seen nothing of an 'consensus'-like gathering of voices here on this thread that would support such an out of the blue statement . . . but anyway.

People, we have a vote closure pending. Our vote, for the nth time, will give us a working definition of the word consciousness--for the purpose of this thread. I don't know exactly why, having the knowledge of what's going down on this thread before our very eyes, actually, we cannot be patient, nor that we cannot understand that arguments will be presented from that basic starting point. (which is why in my concerned opinion, the superlative bare definition of merely awareness would be best)

The closure time I had made the motion on will be 12:59 PM California time, Sunday night (Aug. 30). (see post number 617)

One reason for the thread's having gotten as long as it has, is a degree of rather off-topic posting. Another reason is this unwillingness to accept even the common English dictionary average definition for the word consciousness--leading to this exercise, which in total may almost make two pages itself.

The vote closure time will be some 5 hours and twenty something minutes from now. Everybody hold tight. (I had thought that is what had been happening, for a while there was no posting here....so everybody was waiting for the more organized discussion to begin...I had thought, at least.) Shostakovich, please do take the time to try to pick out and read the more meaty posts on the thread, from page one...that'll help in conceptualizing the general flow by the several participants.

[size=4]EDIT BASED ON BELOW POST:[/size] I have much more to add here; secure evidence which very much supports the position I am presenting here.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

I'm not going to lock the thread unless Kielicious really wants it. If someone wants to start a new thread great, if someone wants to further this one great, and neither is mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know