From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!decuac!pa.dec.com!decwrl!atha!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!burt Tue Nov 24 10:51:43 EST 1992
Article 7613 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!decuac!pa.dec.com!decwrl!atha!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!burt
>From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: definition of consciousness
Message-ID: <burt.721537714@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: 12 Nov 92 03:08:34 GMT
References: <tim.720580709@giaeb> <1992Nov2.195050.1296@wixer.cactus.org> <tim.
Sender: news@cs.athabascau.ca
Lines: 43


>>In article <tim.720580709@giaeb> tim@giaeb.cc.monash.edu.au I wrote:

>>Consciousness is to the study of the brain what phlogiston is to the study of
>>combustion.

>The analogy breaks down, you say, because consciousness DOES exist.  Aha, I
>say, they said that about phlogiston too....

>What is consciousness ?  How do we know of it ?  I know of it because "I"
>exist.  Consciousness is, in fact, this "I".  How do I know "I" exist ?
>Descartes proved it.  Cogito ergo sum.  I think, therefore I am.  This has
>been central to all western cultures now for a long period.

>I hold it to be false.  I maintain that is is possible - indeed probable -
>that there is NO clear distinction between what is "I" and what is not "I".

>If you think this is hugely counter-intuitive, you're right.  I don't like
>admitting any more than you do that there is no clear distinction between me
>and everything else.  But if there isn't, then consciousness becomes so
>changed as a concept that it's hardly worth using the term any more.  Rather
>like phlogiston, in fact.

I would respond that the problem is with not having a clear definition of
consciousness.  In particular, I think that there needs to be a distinction
between consciousness and self-consciousness, the I in the Cogito being
the I of self-consciousness.  To develop a theory, then, one would need
to give the distinction, and provide a theory of how it is that
self-consciousness arises.
For example, a definition I've used: consciousness is that which is beyond
all possible distinction (a la the "what is" of Parmenides)  Distinctions
occur within consciousness and out of these distinctions and their
interactions certain structures appear which eventually organize into
a self-structure which becomes an object of intentional identification,
resulting in a self-consciousness which thinks of itself as a distinct I.
On this basis I would say that there is:
a) A clear difference between me and you (experiences, etc.);
b) A similarity between us in terms of the structures and processes which
gave rise to and support our self structures;
c) an identity of our consciousness (since it is beyond distinctions)
All the rest of the exposition is a matter of filling in the theoretical
detail, an exercise left to the student...
bv


