lolz, it's the pineal gland dude, descartes says so, and so does this guy : Rick Strassman, "M.D." : DMT: The Spirit Molecule

Last edited by kendo99 (2010 April 19, 5:05 pm)

I'm not sure a fruitful discussion can occur when there's no shared definitions. But J7's photos was worth it.

vileru wrote:

Philosophers who argue self-consciousness is consciousness [snipped illustrative eg] she is not self-aware, and is therefore unconscious

Seems like just repeating a conclusion - rather then an explanation of anything. Doesn't it still depend on defns of self-awareness and consciousness? big circle.

Regardless, the real strength of the argument comes from the fact that animals aren't considered ethical agents, that is, entities we hold responsible for their actions.

Not persuaded it's a real strong argument (but you don't need to defend it here):

Consciousness requires moral culpability.  (according to your defn)
We don't treat animals like they have it. (although we can't know what's going on)
Therefore animals aren't conscious.

Consciousness includes suffering. (b/c ...)
Animals aren't conscious. (per above)
Therefore animals don't suffer.

However, I kindly suggest moving the conversation away from neuro-anatomy since its very easy to spiral out into wild speculation.

..unlike purely philosophical attempts to explain consciousness?   

The hypotheticals in this thread have some interesting real life examples. That fellow who responded to an online ad to be cooked and eaten for dinner. And was. (Careful, blahah.)  Also, sleep-walking rapists and sleep-driving murderers.  So much for thought experiments.  :-)

nest0r wrote:

Don't forget comatose rape victims, Thora. ;p

You can't rape a comatose person, silly. They're not conscious, so there's no suffering. No direct harm, no crime. One cannot claim an interest or right to not be harmed if there's no awareness of being harmed.

Besides, the neurothingies triggered an electrical impulse across the synaptic thingie which caused involuntary muscle twitching which was reasonably interpreted as a consenting nod.

.... how about them whales, eh?  :-)

I know I said I'd leave the discussion of consciousness, but I'll take a moment to explain a few things...

Thora wrote:

vileru wrote:

However, I kindly suggest moving the conversation away from neuro-anatomy since its very easy to spiral out into wild speculation.

..unlike purely philosophical attempts to explain consciousness?   

The difference is that the speculation that goes on in neurological explanations of consciousness presents itself as scientifically based, suggesting its credibility, although it's just the same kind of speculation used in philosophy with scientific findings sprinkled on top. Claiming that an entity is conscious because its brain structures are similar to a humans is just as speculative as claiming that a human is conscious because it can describe its feelings in ways you and I can understand.

It's funny how expanding on a theory I explored in jest has led to a heated debate, and even a revisit to Descartes! I will concede that most of the criticisms of my posts are justified. However, as I expressed in my previous posts, I purposefully did not consider the arguments in depth. Ironically, my goal was to push the discussion in new directions rather than spark criticisms. With a similar goal in mind, I suggested to avoid the neurological discussion not because I think it's irrelevant, but since I foresaw an impending debate to nowhere about what neuroscience suggests about consciousness.

At any rate, my true philosophical stance is much different from both the one I developed in my posts and the neural-cognitive one that is popular today. However, I'm not one to lay out all my cards on the table. Anyway, I deeply respect those of you who have held me responsible for my words. However, please treat me more kindly in the future! I know the position I put forth is controversial, but that doesn't justify dismissive remarks. It's a little unseemly to mock other posters in a thread concerned about ethics. The purpose of discussion is to explore ideas, not to battle egos. A mentor who I respect very much once told me, "I grade papers, not people." This is the sort of attitude that makes constructive, pleasant discussion.

/my last post in this thread

Last edited by vileru (2010 April 19, 6:39 pm)

Eh, did you only read the one link via the sn.im thing? (i.e. Did you get 'both' links.)

Last edited by nest0r (2010 April 19, 6:41 pm)

kendo99 wrote:

Got them now, thanks

Sorry, I didn't delete--I mean, uh, criticize, the cover of the book before not-linking to it. I hate that thing. The physical copy, sans jacket, is simple black with the title and author in nice gold lettering on the side.

Last edited by nest0r (2010 April 19, 7:12 pm)

@vileru - I feel guilty now for helping to distract from Japanese and spoiling my own vacation from such posts, but I do hope you'll read some of my links or use them as nodal tangents for your own research. If you're already well familiar with the current cognitive neuroscience of consciousness and still think it's mostly speculative and comparable to facile evidence use in certain philosophical theories, and still think there's a 'problem of other minds' and/or a 'hard problem', then I can't say much to change your mind, methinks.

Last edited by nest0r (2010 April 19, 7:48 pm)

IceCream wrote:

i think you're placing too much importance on the electrical impulse and not enough on the chemical. i had in mind that base levels of such chemicals can have effects on a conscious level regardless of the impulses, but it looks like it would affect the impulse regardless, so, it's difficult to tell just from that. (knowledge of biology is not my strong point btw.

It all comes down to energy. Memory/consciousness is the result of energy produced by chemical reactions on a cellular level (my assumption). These reactions signal on/off, yes/no, hot/cold, etc. How would, say, a massive electronic switch board be any different.

Why would there be any sort secret ingredient in the chemicals?

Whether biology is your strong point or not, all you're doing is taking a look at a small difference and using it as a base for what determines consciousness. This is akin to saying, "I think consciousness is determined by the pigmentation of the eyes."

vileru wrote:

kazelee wrote:

How is it difficult to imagine consciousness without awareness?

Before becoming aware of myself I have many vivid memories where it seems I'm almost autonomic in the things I do.

Yet, you have a memory of those autonomic experiences, which means that you were aware of it to some degree.

How does the memory alone suggest evidence of awareness? Can it be proven that the two are so intrinsically tied together?

There are many who have memories of committing acts to which they were not aware they were committing at the time. The awareness only comes afterwards, when the situation is revisited in their minds. In these cases there is lose of consciousness and memory, but awareness has been removed from the picture.