Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!ncar!hsdndev!admii!ovation!rscanlon
From: rscanlon@pica.army.mil (Raymond D. Scanlon (CCB))
Subject: Definition of Consciousness
Message-ID: <CzKpn4.oM@pica.army.mil>
Sender: usenet@pica.army.mil (USENET Special Account <usenet>)
Nntp-Posting-Host: lee
Organization: U.S Army ARDEC, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
Date: Sun, 20 Nov 1994 15:57:04 GMT
Lines: 87

Burt Webb writes:

(snip)

>I will start with the following definition:
>"The state of being aware of one's existence, sensations,
>thoughts, surroundings, etc."

I would like to remove "The state of" as mildly logical positivist.
I also would like to remove "etc" as vague.

Defn: Being aware of one's existence, sensations, thoughts, or
surroundings.

I also would point out that I see this as a definition of only one
aspect of consciousness, the subjective. Consciousness has two
aspects: one, alertness, is objective, the other, awareness, is
subjective.

To conjugate:

     I am aware.
     You are alert.
     You say you are also aware.
     I believe you.

Alertness may be measured. Medically, we speak of alertness, of
confusion, of stupor, and of coma.

All those who claim awareness are admonished to draw nigh.

Neil Rickert writes:

>We have been singularly unsuccessful in creating definitions of
>consciousness.

Only when we ask for operational definitions. If we restrict
ourselves to talking about the contexts in which posters to c.a.p.
should use the word, I think we can manage.

When we ask for a definition we ask for recommendations about
acceptable contexts for the word, that is all. Any reference to an
absolute meaning, to Truth, is ridiculous. Any reference to
operational definitions is silly. Consider --

     North: that direction on the left hand of a person facing due
east.

Simple things may be defined in a phrase, but not basic notions
such as cardinal directions and handedness. These must be shown. It
is by demonstration (in childhood) that we come to use left hand
and east in a comprehensible fashion.

Words that have we misuse for awareness are: intelligence,
thinking, and understanding. Turing, as an instance, should have
better used "awareness" rather than "thinking." A computer may
think but is it aware? Searle uses "understand" rather than "be
aware." The computer may manipulate squiggles, but is it aware of
them? It is not necessary to understand Chinese to be aware of a
Chinese ideograph. When we speak of being aware we are speaking of
the meat of the matter.

Since I believe that all who read this topic are aware, I think
that each may ask of himself, "Am I aware of my existence, of my
sensations, of my thoughts, of my surroundings?" "How shall I
discuss my awareness with others?"

Ian Noe writes:

(snip)

>The most despicable and criminal activity happening in philosophy
>and science today is the materialistic reduction of consciousness
>to machinery.

I would argue to the contrary. The attempt to find a physical basis
for awareness, as is fashionable today in psychology and
philosophy, is to end in complete failure. When we see the brain as
a meat machine, there is no mind, no awareness, and no possible
reason for awareness. But I am aware and you are aware and we know
we are aware. Materialism is thus to be found wanting and the 21st
century shall turn to dualism.

This may only be seen as a good.

Ray

