jpahmad

I say call into the show asap

Human consciousness is unique. This is a no-brainer (no pun intended). Consciousness itself though, is not unique, in that it is probably a part of the experience of all life forms. It's only a matter of to what degree. Human consciousness is unique only in its complexity, not existence. It's the complexity of the human consciousness that allows me to talk to you and communicate. I can't talk to a worm, not because it's not consciousness, but because it is not complex enough. But to make the jump from that obvious observation to the idea that a worm has no self-awareness either is silly. We don't know what it's like to be a worm. I think we're mixing up our use of the word "consciousness". Sometimes we are referring to it specifically as "human consciousness" and sometimes we are using to refer to any kind of "self-awareness" that an organism can experience. I would like to be clear and restate my premise with this in mind. My Premise: Human consciousness is unique, but consciousness, the feeling of self-awareness, is not unique. Consciousness is shared by all living things, it is only a difference of degree. Just like the nervous system. The nervous system is a perfect example to use to illustrate my point about consciousness. The human nervous system is unique. It is complex and there is nothing else like it. That doesn't mean that nervous systems are unique. All animals have nervous systems, it's just a matter of complexity or degree. Just because an animal has a less complex nervous system, doesn't mean that it doesn't feel pain when poked with something sharp. It's a matter of degree. Our nervous systems give us the sensation, or experience of what we call "pain." Our brains give us the sensation, or experience of what we call "qualia" or "consciousness". An animals nervous system gives it the sensation of pain, maybe not to the extreme degree as we feel it, but it's there. An animals brain gives it the sensation of "qualia" or "consciousness", maybe not to the extreme degree as we feel it, but it's there. Therefore, "consciousness" is not unique to human beings and doesn't have to be explained any more than the effects of our nervous system has to be explained. Consciousness is just an effect of matter like feelings we get from the functioning of any other organ in our body. So, if you are with me so far, than you would have to reword your initial premise from "only intelligent conscious beings can achieve" to "only intelligent beings can achieve", omitting the word "conscious". All animals experience the effect of the brains just like all animals experience the effect of their nervous systems. The effect of your nervous system is "pain" and the effect of one's brain is "self-awareness", or "consciousness". Of course, defining intelligence is another matter all together.

Stop teabaggin me man. You're getting upset for no reason here. We both agree that there is a grey scale here, that probably corresponds to the complexity of the brain. I'm not saying you're not conscious for crying out loud. I never said that. I just said that it isn't unique, and there is no basis to claim that it is unique. We certainly don't know what it's like to be a dog or a cat. It seems pretty obvious that they are not as complex as humans, but that doesn't mean they don't have a degree of self-awareness. I never said that there wasn't a distinction between a human and a rock. You're putting words in my mouth. rock's are not living things. Grass is though. But a blade of grass doesn't have a complex brain like you with the ability to form language and reason. Grass would certainly be on the far left end of our grey scale of consciousness. Look at our nervous system. The human nervous system. It is the most complex in the animal kingdom. It is unique in it's complexity, but not unique in its existence, for all living things have a nervous system. Just because a creature has a less extensive nervous system doesn't mean they don't experience pain. Even if they don't look like it. The same thing can be said for consciousness. fyi, consciousness just means that certain faculties in your brain are operating unimpeded. That's why we can put a lab rat to sleep and claim it's unconscious, and then wake it up and claim that it is conscious. "Self-aware" doesn't mean anything. Its just a term we use to describe our feeling of "qualia" or the "what it's like" aspect of human cognition. It's a descriptive term, not a definitive objective term. "Sad" and "Happy" would be in the same category as "self-aware".

Oh, I certainly feel and claim that I am the one responsible for my actions. This includes my successes and my failures. I don't use the term "free will". It is nonsensical and meaningless. It was invented by mystics to rationalize their power. If you get rid of the term "free will", then there is no illusion of "free will". Problem solved. What is there then? Existence. There is just existence and what it feels like to exist. I have a functioning definition of the self and that "self" is responsible for my actions. Since "I" = "the self", then "I" am responsible for my actions. It is just logic. And yes, we are maid up of parts of the universe. So what. If you want to get nitty-gritty, then you can attempt to define what the "self" is. I've done that to my own satisfaction in my video I posted earlier in the thread. And I gave a very general all-encompassing definition which works for me. After I went through that exercise, and applied transitive logic to it, I was very satisfied with the results, both intellectually and most importantly, emotionally.

In order to achieve one must be: Intelligent Conscious Ok, that's fine, but these two things can't be defined. So, it really doesn't mean anything. Intelligent? Like I said before, it is really tricky to hash out that definition because it would necessarily have to exclude a large portion of living, carbon-based individuals. But who gets excluded, and why? It's easy to look at a termite and say "yeah, that's not intelligent", but could you say that about a Neanderthal man or a gorilla? If you could, then what is the anatomical basis for it? The same thing goes for "consciousness". At what point does the complexity of an organism equal "having a conscious"? I'm not just being "sophistical" for the sake of blabbing my mouth, for this problem has bothered me for awhile until recently when I realized (as far as I'm concerned) that consciousness is just a word we invented to describe what it feels like to be a living organism. More specifically, what it "feels like" to have certain parts of the brain operating in a certain way. This is why we can be unconscious but alive (sleep, surgery, etc..) Therefore, I claim that there is nothing "unique" about consciousness and nothing that needs to be explained. It's much easier to deal with the topic of "free will" with this idea settled and agreed upon.

Sorry, I forgot your point. What was it again?

well, at some point going backwards through the evolutionary tree, there must be a point where a species doesn't have enough intelligence to have free choice correct? If so, where would this point be?

So what's your argument for Neanderthals not having free will?

Right, we don't know the minds of individuals in these groups, nor the minds of anything else other than our own for that matter. Therefore we can't claim (only perhaps speculate) that other living things don't make choices in the same way we do. There is no way to know.

So then what is the answer to this question:

o.k., would you say that all living things can achieve?

I gotta know what triggered the whole thing?

correct Question: Did Homo erectus achieve or Homo ergaster achieve? They were certainly conscious. What about the Neanderthal? Homo habilis, australopithecus? How far back must we go along the evolutionary tree before things stop achieving? Can an ape or a dog achieve something? Can they have personal accomplishments?

People are part of the universe. If people achieve, that means some aspect of the universe achieves.

You have pointed to a disconcerting, problem, however, this problem can be circumvented if you equate the self (you) with the universe, or a fragment of the universe. It's the only way. I look at it like this: the self = a material body = a "piece of the universe playing out" transitively, the self = "a piece of the universe playing out" So, as far as taking credit for achievements and taking personal responsibility, both the universe and the self get credit. Because the are in a way the same thing. Now, before i get jumped on, I just want to say that this dilemma, that of a causal universe and personal responsibility, caused me great grief for a few days in a row as I was searching for a way out of the paradox. But as soon as I worked through this formula in my head. I felt much better and back in control of things with a new conviction and feeling of autonomy. At 5:10 he says that consciousness is the ultimate product of the brain. I would say that action is the ultimate product of the brain. Consciousness is just an effect that we experience. He seems to be starting off on a false premise right away This would be like saying the experience of being a dog is the ultimate product of the dog brain

This quote is a good place to start: "The dominant theories of elite art and criticism in the twentieth century grew out of a militant denial of human nature. One legacy ugly, baffling, and insulting art. The other is pretentious and unintelligible scholarship." -Steven Pinker, THE BLANK SLATE, p. 416

Why does consciousness need to be explained?

Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO35eHxJvkI

It is answerable. I just answered it for you.

I'm sorry but I could only watch this drunk. Kevin, what did you call?

"You", and that which drives your will, are one in the same thing. Everyone who attempts to tackle this subject matter seems to fall into the trappings of dualism. Determinism and free will can be reconciled with basic Aristotelian logic. I am X X moves me Therefore I move me ("I" being the self)

Sure Mike, it would be a fun conversation and perhaps help me to work some knots out in my thinking. Just tell when you have an opening.

Thanks Mike, that's all I needed to hear Yes, of course, however, Stefan has grown with the show and sometimes he gains a new perspective on situations, like the "atheist apologizes to Christians" video. All I wanted to hear was what Mike said in the above quote. That makes sense. I'm not sure if someone who doesn't know Stefan's work would gleam that Stefan was just taking a stance as an exercise of what would work within "the system." I think most people would actually think that Stefan is going to go out and vote for Trump after seeing that video. I'm not sure what the difference is between a active pragmatic approach to the world we currently live in, and making a case for what actions would be most effective given the unfortunate system we live in. Stefan, although not voting himself, is giving voting advice to other people, republicans. What's the difference? I'm not against this, in fact, I was on the verge of calling in and making the case the we should vote republican for the sake of saving the family unit. I think someone on the forum talked me out of it. But, the thought has crossed my mind.

I'm a little confused by Stefan's last video about Trump and McCain. Is he actually endorsing Trump in sort of a pragmatic way, or is he just having fun with the thought of it. He did mention the words "Goodness, truth, justice, and virtue" in reference to people who the media don't like (Trump). Can someone clarify this for me? It's a little disconcerting.

If you're losing your appetite that most likely is the anxiety and/or depression. It is unclear what specifically triggered or caused the onset of the anxiety from your story. There is the job itself, then there are the relationships with the people you work with. Which do you think is the trigger? It is sometimes very subtle and hard to tell. But once these emotions get triggered, they sort of take on a life of their own and it becomes hard to stop the cycle downward. You seemed to have very high expectations of this programming internship thing. Were you perhaps relying to heavily on this job experience being a positive change in your life? Is it that everything has been one big let down? How old are you by the way?