3 ms·

You can be mistaken about the content of your experience, but I can not conceive you you can be mistaken about the fact you're having one. Dream, delusion, rea

by rosser 8y ago

You can be mistaken about the content of your experience, but I can not conceive you you can be mistaken about the fact you're having one. Dream, delusion, reality, drugs, schizophrenia, completely fabricated sensory manifold, whatever; the content does not matter for purposes of this question. Is that brain in a jar experiencing something? Is it experiencing at all? That's consciousness.

incadenza 8y ago
Yes! Much better said.
kovrik 8y ago
But wouldn't it mean that literally all living beings have consciousness? That consciousness is not a binary thing, but there are many levels of consciousness. Humans always liked egocentric views -- "The Earth is the center of the Universe". Or another version: "Humans are superior because they have consciousness". If there are many levels of consciousness, one may imagine some extraterrestrial super intelligent beings that are many levels above humans, that would think of humans as non-consciousness beings -- like we think of many animals. Now, if we go down instead, we can say that all animals with brain are conscious (just as not as we are), can't we?
- rosser 8y ago
  Yes, it does. In fact, I submit that it's the duty of anyone saying that the line separating "conscious" and "not-conscious" animals is here or there has to justify not just why that's where they drew the line, but that there is one in the first place.
szemet 8y ago
can not conceive you you can be mistaken about the fact you're having one The experince of having an experince can be wrong. If the existinece of experience is the content of the experience - and you have written that the content can be wrong. If one mistaken about the very fact of experience, is that valid an experience too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton–Babinski_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton–Babinski_syndrome
- hackinthebochs 8y ago
  AB syndrome doesn't seem any more significant to the issue here than a synesthesia or schizophrenia. That their reported experience has no correspondence to the outside world isn't relevant to whether they're having an experience and its nature.

by rosser 8y ago

incadenza 8y ago

Yes! Much better said.

kovrik 8y ago

But wouldn't it mean that literally all living beings have consciousness? That consciousness is not a binary thing, but there are many levels of consciousness. Humans always liked egocentric views -- "The Earth is the center of the Universe". Or another version: "Humans are superior because they have consciousness". If there are many levels of consciousness, one may imagine some extraterrestrial super intelligent beings that are many levels above humans, that would think of humans as non-consciousness beings -- like we think of many animals. Now, if we go down instead, we can say that all animals with brain are conscious (just as not as we are), can't we?

rosser 8y ago
Yes, it does. In fact, I submit that it's the duty of anyone saying that the line separating "conscious" and "not-conscious" animals is here or there has to justify not just why that's where they drew the line, but that there is one in the first place.

szemet 8y ago

can not conceive you you can be mistaken about the fact you're having one The experince of having an experince can be wrong. If the existinece of experience is the content of the experience - and you have written that the content can be wrong. If one mistaken about the very fact of experience, is that valid an experience too? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton–Babinski_syndrome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton–Babinski_syndrome

hackinthebochs 8y ago
AB syndrome doesn't seem any more significant to the issue here than a synesthesia or schizophrenia. That their reported experience has no correspondence to the outside world isn't relevant to whether they're having an experience and its nature.