On 12/11/2013 12:56 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 December 2013 17:34, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>
wrote:
On 12/10/2013 7:42 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 December 2013 10:24, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 12/10/2013 11:54 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 7:33 PM, LizR <lizj...@gmail.com
<mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> One needs a rigorous definition of what consciousness is, to
start with,
Examples are usually preferable to definitions.
> and then a theory that explains all its observed features, and
makes
testable predictions.
But that's the beauty of consciousness theories, we can detect
consciousness
only in ourselves so there are no observed features that a consciousness
theory must explain,
Actually there are some observed features. A sharp blow to the head
can create
a gap in ones consciousness. Imbibing various substances that can cross
the
blood/brain barrier have somewhat predictable effects. Localized
electrical
stimulation of the brain produces repeatable effects, both in
consciousness and
somatic.
If you're assuming there is more to consciousness than the sum of our
thoughts,
experiences, memories, etc - then this /may/ be a description of features
of the
contents of consciousness, rather than of the thing itself.
?? Are you speculating that there are parts of consciousness we're not
conscious of?
Not exactly. Consciousness has been /defined/ as a "bundle of sensory impressions" - I
think this was originally David Hume - but it has also been defined as something else,
which I guess would be called the having of those experiences. If one defines
consciousness as the sum of one's sense impressions and so on, then the things you
mention above affect consciousness; if not, they affect the contents of consciousness,
but in the latter case the only way that consciousness itself is affected is that it is
either present, or not.
Of course I may be following in the long philosophical tradition of splitting
hairs here.
OK. That's reifying the set of experiences into a kind of vessel that holds the
experiences. That seems like a mistake to me. Didn't Hume also say that however he tried
he could not have an experience that had no content?
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
