Peter wrote > On Feb 25, 2007, at 8:14 AM, Pollak, Edward wrote: > >> It's quite rare that I disagree with Stephen but this is one of >> those times. >> >> Stephen wrote >> "......We generally accept two kinds as uncontroversial: either >> we're >> conscious or we're not. And we know someone is conscious >> when they're >> aware of their surroundings." "(1) One can answer the first point, e.g. 'X is conscious" only if we can clearly specify 'consciousness'. But this is a concept the borders of which are not specify-able. (2) Is someone day dreaming not conscious? Someone focused on a, say, severe pain... Someone absorbed in a book... etc., etc.? And, if someone cannot verbally describe the surroundings is she/he not aware? I just set these as examples to point to the fact that it is not so easy to say what is and is not being conscious."
--------- 1) Why are the borders of consciousness not specifiable? What is stopping us from developing a good definition? Is it not possible that, rather than consciousness being a fuzzy concept, it is merely our definition of it that are fuzzy? I suggest that the latter possibility may have the greater heuristic value. 2) Jaynes would argue that daydreaming is eminently conscious but that dreaming may or may not be conscious. He argues, for example, that young children dream differently from adults. Is "someone focused on severe pain" conscious? It depends what you mean by "focused." If he is simply experiencing the pain, no he is no more conscious than any other vertebrate experiencing severe pain. But if he is focusing on what he is experiencing, that would qualify as consciousness. As for a person absorbed in a book: he would not be conscious according to my definition (or even the standard definition of "attending to one's thoughts, perceptions, emotions, etc.). If he sat back and started thinking about what he just read, he would be "consciousing." Is someone conscious if he cannot verbally describe the surroundings? Yes, so long as he can attend to and think about his perceptions (although that might be hard to prove without the ability to communicate). Here's the problem: A person is not conscious or unconscious. A person is conscious OF SOMETHING or not conscious of something. e.g., As I drive home from school I am often thinking about my lectures and how I did that day and how I could have explained things better. I am, at that time, conscious of my memories and thoughts. I am not, however, conscious of my driving as the steering wheel turns & the brake is applied without my conscious awareness. Of course, I can become conscious of driving at any time. as soon as I start thinking about driving I become conscious of driving and might, therefore erroneously conclude that I was conscious of driving all the time. If consciousness is a verb rather than a noun, then it needs to be acting on something. i.e., you must be "consciousing about something" in the same sense that you are not in a state of thinking. Rather, when you think, you are always thinking about something. Edward I. Pollak, Ph.D. Department of Psychology West Chester University of Pennsylvania http://mywebpages.comcast.net/epollak/home.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Husband, father, grandfather, biopsychologist, bluegrass fiddler and herpetoculturist...... in approximate order of importance. --- To make changes to your subscription go to: http://acsun.frostburg.edu/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=tips&text_mode=0&lang=english
