[Wittrs] Re: Defining Consciousness -- Can we, and if so what is it?

  • From: "Stuart W. Mirsky" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 19:08:24 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Cayuse" <z.z7@...> wrote:
>
> Stuart wrote:
> > Cayuse wrote:
> >> Stuart wrote:
> >>> And what has microcosm as a concept (if it can even be one?) to do with 
> >>> understanding how brains make minds? 
> >>
> >> That all depends on how you're using the word "mind". If you're using it 
> >> in a behaviorist sense then the concept of the microcosm has nothing to do 
> >> with it at all. If you're taking it to be synonymous with the microcosm, 
> >> then you are trying to understand how brains make microcosms.
> > 
> > But I never mentioned microcosms and, in fact, specifically reject that 
> > usage. So what has my claim about brains and minds to do with that? 
> 
> If you're using the word mind in a behaviorist sense then the concept of the 
> microcosm has nothing to do with it at all. But in that case neither has it 
> anything to do with the use that Nagel makes of the word consciousness. 
> 
> 

I'm using "mind" as we normally do: "When I think of X, I have X in mind"; "My 
mind is all confused"; "I have a certain image in my mind"; "A person who is 
brain dead no longer gives evidence of having a mind"; etc. 

> >> Actions are observable, as is any other behavioral trait you wish to 
> >> mention. What I don't understand is how consciousness (or any aspect of 
> >> it) can be observed.
> <snip> 
> >> Thoughts (etc.) take their place in the microcosm, but I don't know what 
> >> it means to speak of an observer of thoughts (etc.)
> > 
> > We observe them, albeit not with our sensory apparatus but by attending to 
> > them (which may include attending to our sensory inputs). 
> 
> What is this "me" that putatively "observes thoughts"?
> 
> 

The "I" who is speaking about it.

> >>> How can it be nonsensical if we can shut down a brain and end 
> >>> consciousness 
> >>
> >> I don't know how you can make any such claim about consciousness when the 
> >> idea has not been derived from empirical data (unless you're stipulating 
> >> it to be a behavioral trait).
> > 
> > Do you think consciousness happens without brains (or some equivalent)? 
> 
> It would be nonsensical to make any such claim.
> 

Yes because it goes against every bit of evidence we currently have. Is it 
"nonsensical" in the same way to to say that brains produce or cause minds?


> 
> > I'm being called away. Any further responses will have to wait. Sorry but 
> > the world (not the microcosm) beckons.
> 
> Strange. You didn't have to hit the "send" button until you'd finished.
>

No, the way I work I do (I was running late for a promised task). As it happens 
I'm off again now for the rest of the day (just managed to stop back in for a 
half hour). Summers are tough, especially when wives are home and grandchildren 
are visiting. Will try for more thorough response later tonight if I get back 
early enough. If you think there's amything specific that I missed that you 
would have liked a response on (though it's hard to see why since we seem to be 
talking from different ends of a very long spectrum) just indicate it and I'll 
try to do better later on.

SWM

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. wittrs
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2009