Comments on: I think therefore I … am a curmudgeon

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 20:09:49 +0000

Frederick, I was thinking something more like this, although the concept is the same.Cool curriculum posts on your blog, by the way.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:36:45 +0000

Don, neither. He interrupted the discussion with what amounted to an assertion that no one had considered what they were talking about. Not that they were wrong–that they hadn’t bothered to think about it.Given the definition, I believe that it exists because very little about the “wiring” of complex brains is deterministic or reflexive. Big masses of fluctuating action potentials and all that. It is a materialist perspective, and it doesn’t suggest that consciousness is anything specific to humans.I’m not arguing with Moran’s idea. I’m suggesting that he could use a clue about making friends and influencing people. How difficult would it have been to say, “Okay, let’s make sure we’re not disagreeing on a matter of semantics. Let’s give a brief definition of consciousness and why we think it’s special to humans”? It’s less likely to produce winners and losers, but it’s much more likely to get someone to rethink their position.

By: Virgil Samms

Virgil Samms — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:07:35 +0000

Interesting comment from John Hawks over at Moran's post.
Stephanie Z.: Personally, I define consciousness as...
Personally, I suspect 90% of the people in that room each had their own "personal" definition, and they were all different.

By: Don Cates

Don Cates — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:52:22 +0000

Moran didn’t start a discussion on the meaning of consciousness

Did he start the discussion or just get involved?

Personally, I define consciousness as a non-reflexive awareness of self vs. other. I.e., the response to outside events is not functionally deterministic.

Your definition is fine. Now, what makes you believe that such a thing exists? (ie [a]response to outside events [that] is not functionally deterministic.)

By: Frederick Ross

Frederick Ross — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:34:01 +0000

Stephanie Z, I think that is the only time I have ever seen someone tossed a semantic bone.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:34:39 +0000

Virgil, Moran didn’t start a discussion on the meaning of consciousness then decide that no one had a workable definition. He began with the assumption that they didn’t agree with him because he was the only one who had considered the basics.Personally, I define consciousness as a non-reflexive awareness of self vs. other. I.e., the response to outside events is not functionally deterministic. Sure, it has some weaknesses: Where do we draw the line on reflex? Where does it leave the narcisists and solipsists? (/joke) But it’s a useful working definition.I’m sure Greg’s definition will be more entertaining, but feel free to tear into this one while you’re waiting.

By: Virgil Samms

Virgil Samms — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:10:32 +0000

I don’t know what you mean by “vitriol,” I never once mentioned your mother. I look forward to your definition. Without a definition, any insistence on existence is quite empty.
I doubt very much whether all the people in the room with Moran were using this same definition.

By: Stephanie Z

Stephanie Z — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:01:33 +0000

Virgil, just because you can’t do it doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Why don’t you give Greg more than an hour or two before you decide he’s never going to post his explanation? I’d want my coffee to kick in before writing something that’s going to be scrutinized down to the last semicolon.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:01:28 +0000

Virgil: Why the vitriolic response? I had neither the time nor energy to write about consciousness in this post, yet I wanted to bring it up for conversation. I assure you there is no “convenience” … which I take as a nasty remark of some sort that you can, frankly, stuff.What I have to say is interesting, fun, and controversial. Stay tuned. But don’t be an ass about it, please. I think you need to examine your subconscious!!!

By: Virgil Samms

Virgil Samms — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 09:29:16 +0000

Consciousness IS a thing (sorry Larry, if you were stuck in a room full of people who could not explain what they were talking about). It can be identified, measured, you can point to it and you can say “That’s consciousness”… Some other time, here, I’ll explain to you what consciousness is, and how to know it when you are looking at it.

How convenient; you really do have a solid, testable definition of consciousness (although most people who discuss consciousness are not aware of this definition), but you can’t tell us what it is. Anyhoo, that’s off the topic, let’s get back to dickering over the price of this bridge.