It would be preferable to find consciousness in the real world.
Meaning the world of exteriors? If so, is that not question begging?
: Either reflected in behavior or in the physical structure of the brain.
Well, it;’s defintiely reflected in the physical structure of the brain, because you can tell
whether someone is conscious with an FMRI scan.
I’m under the impression that cousin_it believes you can have the latter without the former. I say you must have both.
OK. Now you you have asserted it, how about justifying it.
Are you saying you don’t need either? That you could have two physically identical agents, one conscious, the other not?
No. I am saying you shouldn’t beg questions, and you shouldn’t confuse the evidence for X with the meaning of X.
You are collapsing a bunch of issues here. You can believe that is possible to meaningfully refer to phenomena that are not fully understood. You can believe that something exists without believing it exists dualistically. And so on.
No, meaning the material, physical world. I’m glad you agree it’s there. Frankly, I have not a slightest clue what “exterior” means. Did you draw an arbitrary wall around your brain, and decided that everything that happens on one side is interior, and everything that happens on another is exterior? I’m sure you didn’t. But I’d rather not answer your other points, when I have no clue about what it is that we disagree about.
because you can tell whether someone is conscious with an FMRI scan.
No, you can tell if their brain is active. It’s fine to define “consciousness” = “human brain activity”, but that doesn’t generalize well.
I have not a slightest clue what “exterior” means.
It’s where you are willing to look, as opposed to where you are not. You keep insisting that cosnciousness can only be found in the behaviour of someone else: your opponents keep pointing out that you have the option of accessing your own.
No, you can tell if their brain is active. It’s fine to define “consciousness” = “human brain activity”,
We don’t do that. We use a medical definition. “Consciousness” has a number of uses in science.
It’s where you are willing to look, as opposed to where you are not.
That’s hardly a definition. I think it’s you who is begging the question here.
You keep insisting that cosnciousness can only be found in the behaviour of someone else
I have no idea where you got that. I explicitly state “I say you must have both”, just a couple of posts above.
The state of being aware, or perceiving physical facts or mental concepts; a state of general wakefulness and responsiveness to environment; a functioning sensorium.
Here’s a google result for “medical definition of consciousness”. It is quite close to “brain activity”, dreaming aside. If you extended the definition to non-human agents, any dumb robot would qualify. Did you have some other definition in mind?
I explicitly state “I say you must have both”, just a couple of posts above
Behaviour alone versus behaviour plus brain scans doesn’t make a relevant difference..
Brain scans are still objective data about someone else. It’sll an attempt to deal with subjectivity on an objective basis.
The medical definition of consciousness is not brain activity because there is some dirt if brain activity during, sleep states and even coma. The brain is not a PC.
Meaning the world of exteriors? If so, is that not question begging?
Well, it;’s defintiely reflected in the physical structure of the brain, because you can tell whether someone is conscious with an FMRI scan.
OK. Now you you have asserted it, how about justifying it.
No. I am saying you shouldn’t beg questions, and you shouldn’t confuse the evidence for X with the meaning of X.
You are collapsing a bunch of issues here. You can believe that is possible to meaningfully refer to phenomena that are not fully understood. You can believe that something exists without believing it exists dualistically. And so on.
No, meaning the material, physical world. I’m glad you agree it’s there. Frankly, I have not a slightest clue what “exterior” means. Did you draw an arbitrary wall around your brain, and decided that everything that happens on one side is interior, and everything that happens on another is exterior? I’m sure you didn’t. But I’d rather not answer your other points, when I have no clue about what it is that we disagree about.
No, you can tell if their brain is active. It’s fine to define “consciousness” = “human brain activity”, but that doesn’t generalize well.
It’s where you are willing to look, as opposed to where you are not. You keep insisting that cosnciousness can only be found in the behaviour of someone else: your opponents keep pointing out that you have the option of accessing your own.
We don’t do that. We use a medical definition. “Consciousness” has a number of uses in science.
That’s hardly a definition. I think it’s you who is begging the question here.
I have no idea where you got that. I explicitly state “I say you must have both”, just a couple of posts above.
Here’s a google result for “medical definition of consciousness”. It is quite close to “brain activity”, dreaming aside. If you extended the definition to non-human agents, any dumb robot would qualify. Did you have some other definition in mind?
Behaviour alone versus behaviour plus brain scans doesn’t make a relevant difference.. Brain scans are still objective data about someone else. It’sll an attempt to deal with subjectivity on an objective basis.
The medical definition of consciousness is not brain activity because there is some dirt if brain activity during, sleep states and even coma. The brain is not a PC.