zapatos

Welcome! And no issue with the language. We'll do our best.

That is only on day one of your membership here. It is to limit things like advertising bots and trolls. You can now post to your heart's content. EDIT: Oh, or what Phi said...

You just string words together and pretend they are meaningful. What did I say that was ironic? How was I hiding behind that? Save me from what? You are simply trying to distract from the fact that I called you out for complaining about an ad hominem attack against yourself while you disparage an entire generation of people who are not even here to defend themselves. I'm tired of your nonsense.

My irony meter just broke.

Has anyone here actually taken the course or seen details of the case it makes? I don't know if it is valid or not, but I presume the instructor intends to make their case during the duration of the semester.

Because you said...

This is a science site so we are interested in discussing the scientific aspects of consciousness. If you don't believe consciousness is a natural phenomenon, and thus supernatural, you are in the wrong place.

Well, this is a discussion site, so if you don't want to talk about it, it might be best not to bring up that particular topic.

Sure, I understand. If you clearly explain your position, can provide reason or evidence to support your position, and respond directly to the questions of others, you will get along great here even if others disagree with you. You also have the right to expect the same from others. If you don't know, simply say "I don't know". If you are shown to be in error, admit to it and move on. No one cares if someone makes a mistake; we all do it. If you mean "almost never", don't say "never". People will respond to the words you use, not the words you "meant" to use. This is a science site. Logic, reason and evidence are important, no matter the topic.

Who is "they"?

Do you have a recollection of begging for life before coming here?

Can you expand on this please? What is "crosstalk error"? What is "weight of its eventual public acceptance"? On what are you basing your conclusion that the 'error' seems to be related to the 'weight'?

I personally have no use for your diluted version of consciousness. It is so broad as to make it impractical. Similarly, I don't want to read an article about how shoe laces are made that starts with the assembly of Pangaea.

Peoples' identity is often tied to the group they belong to. It is incredibly important to be a part of that. That is where your friends are. You have a lot invested in the group. If you deny the beliefs of your group you are ostracizing yourself and cutting yourself off from an important part of your life. For many people it is better to not look too closely, or to entertain questions which in the long run can do you harm. I overlook things my family members do that I would find unacceptable in others. People vote for candidates in their political party who are clearly unqualified. It is a lot more common than many people recognize.

The above seems at odds with the below. Am I misunderstanding? That does seem to make the most sense. I am no expert on Evolution and wonder how individuals develop traits that are beneficial to the group, which of course then makes those traits beneficial for the individual in a round about way.

Would it be more accurate to say that something evolved to read the other's reactions, because it helps to avoid danger? I'm wondering how an organism would develop a trait to benefit someone else.

If you are implying a conscious decision to warn their neighbors I think we can safely assume that is not the case. Otherwise, it seems rather similar to other organisms. I see a snake strike at me and jump up in fear. My friends pick up the signal I sent and quickly jump up/scan the area/increase adrenaline flow/whatever. Did I send the signals of danger or were they the effects of a snake attack and people evolved to respond to them?

I don't know whether or not it is a universal trait. It was more meant as a description that gives us a 'pretty good' idea of the boundaries surrounding the concept of consciousness (as I've found 'consciousness' to be generally described). Thus, humans are conscious, rocks are not, and there is likely something in between where there will never be complete agreement on the definition. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-whispering-trees-180968084/ I am not suggesting this implies 'consciousness', but it tells me there seems to be a continuum of traits, and at some point we get a fuzzy line between consciousness and unconsciousness.

I don't think a plant is conscious either. But it has traits that may be useful to study when trying to understand consciousness. Similarly, studying planets without life may help us understand life on earth. The quote came from the course description you cited. I originally said consciousness had a loose definition. You responded by citing a course and suggesting it was an example of people going so far as to assign consciousness to plants. I then responded by saying it was a course suggesting senses, not consciousness. And then the death spiral of our conversation began...

Because you said "See and feel without a nervous system - a loose definition indeed." Seeing and feeling do not necessarily imply consciousness. They imply senses. So while those terms were a loose definition 'seeing' and 'feeling', they said nothing at all about consciousness.

Sorry, what do you mean? Edit: My point was simply that if a tree can sense then it may have a subset of what we consider consciousness in, for example, humans.

I think it is 'see' and 'feel' that are being used loosely here, not 'consciousness'.

From your link, plants seem to still fall under the loose definition I alluded to, and thus part of what might be subject to research on this topic.

Panpsychism certainly removes a threshold, but in doing so it eliminates the border around that aspect of life that people want to study and understand, which is commonly called 'consciousness'. Generally speaking it is sentience and awareness, the ability of an organism to have a sense of 'what it is like to be me'. Panpsychism and the loose definition of consciousness used by science and the public are not the same thing. Conflating the two only leads to confusion.

Not true. There were three people who did. The crazy part is that their names all start with the same letter.