122 upvotes, 5 direct replies (showing 5)
Arnt we only able to perceive conciousness because we have it?
Comment by [deleted] at 16/01/2020 at 18:56 UTC*
116 upvotes, 11 direct replies
According to materialism (at least according to the version Daniel Dennett holds and is being discussed in the article) that question is circular because the term "perceive" relies on an internal-external world dualism akin to the Cartesian theater[1]. According to this materialist view there is no central "I" to do any perceiving, no homunculus inside our skull. A materialist might use the word "perceive" but would simply mean "neurons process environmental information" or something similar.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_theater
Comment by Abab9579 at 17/01/2020 at 05:29 UTC
3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Agreed, consciousness need to exist for any subjective experience. Otherwise subjective experience doesn't exist as well, thus rendering any thoughts obsolete.
I think the real problem with science in brain research is that they lack ability to dig in individual, subjective incidents. Subjectivity means it is fixed on one individual, especially likely at fixed time and space. In this setting, it is simply impossible to find any correlations between pattern and concept via induction - or whatever method you'd call for, nothing would work since you won't be able to know what pattern to look at. At least two experiences in same settings should exist to compare, but that's impossible.
So ya, materialism could simply denounce ability of science.
Comment by Xudda at 17/01/2020 at 01:40 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Isn't "perceiving consciousness" simply the same thing as being conscious?
It's circular and meaningless.
Comment by nukefudge at 17/01/2020 at 05:31 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
"Perceiving consciousness" would amount to the perception of humans (or perhaps also animals, depending on framework of choice) doing the things that humans do which require consciousness. This might sound circular, but that's because it's an answer to an odd question, and consequently, it's framed from an odd angle.
(Some might make a case for someone e.g. sleeping not counting as conscious, but in the general sense, it's still 'consciousness', since we know it's someone sleeping - and yes, we could come up with all sorts of additions to this example, but for the current purpose, we don't need to.)
At any rate - what you're thinking of must be self-consciousness. I think in that case, the question becomes moot, since it's now instead a matter of detailing what self-consciousness amounts to.
And if we simply define self-consciousness as "the perception of your own consciousness" we've done ourselves a major disservice, since we're sneaking in a redefinition at the same time. Not advisable.
Comment by GuyWithTheStalker at 16/01/2020 at 19:39 UTC
-3 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Jocko Willink actually had an interesting Instagram story post which relates to this in a way.
It was a pic of the the seat diagram for the theatre were he'll be speaking.
The theatre uniquely gives the performer 270 degrees of audience rather than something more like 180.
The cheapest seats were the ones "behind" Jocko and the only ones which were available
Food for thought...
Some people don't want to get the cheap seats required to learn what's what... Call it "woke seating" if you want...
Maybe universities and high schools should provide those metaphorical seats for free?