Philosophy: books and discussion

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Is there noise in the external world, or is reality silent?

Originally Posted by TGS

So long as there is something equipped with the sensory apparatus to hear it there is noise - but if there isn't anything so equipped then there isn't noise.

Sound is energy. That energy has to go somewhere and if it is intercepted by auditory senors then we have noise/sound that the brain has to interpret. Without the brain is there still sound ?

Originally Posted by TGS

So, here's your mission - should you choose to accept it - without relying on vitalism, say what the difference is between an living thing and a non-living thing.

Everything is alive, just responsive within different scales of time.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TGS

Oh I agree - instinctively at least. But you do run up against the problem of saying what the difference is between a living thing and a non-living thing - unless you rely on some kind of "vitalist" philosophy - that living things are different from non-living things because the are, well, alive, they contain the "life-force" - which gets a bit circular. The trouble with vitalism is that whilst it is clearly nonsense it does seem to accord with our intuitions - an tomato is alive but this computer that I am writing on isn't.

So, here's your mission - should you choose to accept it - without relying on vitalism, say what the difference is between an living thing and a non-living thing.

I recall reading the web page of one renegade scientist years ago who believed that consciousness is an innate characteristic of matter in the same way as are the four interactive forces (electromagnetism, the weak force, strong nuclear force, and gravity). One of the examples he used as evidence was how certain metals are able to "remember" their shape and reform to their original configuration when released from outside forces that are deforming it. The article seemed about as out there as it gets; but the fact remains that a universally agreed upon working definition of consciousness remains elusive.

I became a vegetarian when I became aware that animals possess minds not that dissimilar from our own. When I realized that plants are living things and our distant cousins in the tree of life, I gave up plants and began consuming only rocks for sustenance. If this scientist is right, and not merely some woo-woo wacko as I suspect, I may have to give up eating altogether. It seems the only truly ethical choice.

[WT Sharpe]

OK, full disclosure: I'm not really a vegetarian, although I admire those who undertake it because of their ethical beliefs. And even as a kid, I don't believe I ever ate rocks!

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

OK, full disclosure: I'm not really a vegetarian, although I admire those who undertake it because of their ethical beliefs. And even as a kid, I don't believe I ever ate rocks!

Well, you kind of gave it away when you mentioned eating rocks... until then I believed you were a vegetarian, but I doubt that you could be a rockarian and stay alive for very long

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

OK, full disclosure: I'm not really a vegetarian, although I admire those who undertake it because of their ethical beliefs. And even as a kid, I don't believe I ever ate rocks!

You imply that rocks are not 'alive' ... they may beg to differ.

[FlorenceArt]

I seem to remember that very few birds recognize themselves in a mirror. Crows and magpies do, but not other species. So they don't have self-awareness. Or is their self-awareness not related to sight? Maybe they would recognize themselves if they heard a recording of their own voice?

Of course self-awareness is not necessarily the same as consciousness.

Oops, I think I just muddied the issue even more

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

Do you mean that the octaves are the same everywhere, which I suppose would mean that everybody uses the same divider/multiplier? So that the tonal range is the same, but only the number of notes in between varies? ...

That's exactly what I meant. Notes are not the same across cultures, but the interval of the octave between any note and the same note at the next higher pitch remains consistent.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by FlorenceArt

...
Of course self-awareness is not necessarily the same as consciousness.

....

Uh oh, you're just trying to get me going aren't you Florence.....

In my view self-awareness is the basis of consciousness and equivalent in a manner of speaking.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

You imply that rocks are not 'alive' ... they may beg to differ.

Should rocks have rights?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

The article seemed about as out there as it gets; but the fact remains that a universally agreed upon working definition of consciousness remains elusive.

And if we had one would that also be a definition of life? Could there be a living thing that is not conscious, and could the be a conscious thing that is not living? There are fairly non-contentious examples of the former and slightly more contentious examples of the latter.

[FlorenceArt]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Uh oh, you're just trying to get me going aren't you Florence.....

In my view self-awareness is the basis of consciousness and equivalent in a manner of speaking.

Well, I think I've been "working", instinctively, on that assumption. But it's best to get the question out in the open, yes? Not that I have a definitive answer, really...

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

In my view self-awareness is the basis of consciousness and equivalent in a manner of speaking.

The basis of and equivalent to - clever stuff this consciousness.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

The basis of and equivalent to - clever stuff this consciousness.

As always, the devil is in the details....defining consciousness or defining Living...

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by TGS

And if we had one would that also be a definition of life? Could there be a living thing that is not conscious, and could the be a conscious thing that is not living? There are fairly non-contentious examples of the former and slightly more contentious examples of the latter.

Excellent point. Not many people would doubt that plants are alive, but few would consider them to possess consciousness; although for my part, I'm not sure they don't possess some rudimentary form of consciousness. There was an interesting article in Psychology Today February 1981 issue entitled "Do Bacteria think?" The article poses the following question: "Researchers are turning up more and more evidence that these single-cell organisms are living, sensate beings whose activities can be described with such psychologically oriented terms as stimulus, response, excitation, and adaptation The new studies raise a profound question about the evolution of mind: if the simplest forms of life are capable of purposive activity, can they be said to engage in a form of thinking?"

But as to the question you posed, namely "Could there be a living thing that is not conscious, and could there be a conscious thing that is not living?", I would say "most likely" to the first part, and "I don't know" to the second. If a machine ever develops anything akin to consciousness but lacks the ability to procreate via biological means, should we consider it alive, even if the hallmark of at least the potential for biological self-replication inherent in all forms of things we currently call "alive" is lacking? Is Data, the Star-Trek android, alive?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

.. Is Data, the Star-Trek android, alive?

So if we are able to duplicate the functioning of the human mind in a computer, would it be considered conscious? Would it be alive?

P.S. There is an ongoing discussion thread I started a few weeks back on another forum called "What is Consciousness"