Space Cadet Will Hutton is sadly misinformed.

[UndercoverElephant]

I'm done with neologisms and appeals to authority, Kant, Wittgenstein et al.,

AT NOT POINT HAVE I APPEALLED TO AUTHORITY.

I'm pretty much done with somebody who thinks they can respond to what I'm posting with crass one-liners. An "appeal to authority" is where you say "Wittgenstein said this, so it is probably true." I have done the opposite. I have explained what Wittgenstein believed about something and then proceeded to DISAGREE with it. I also explained WHY I disagreed with it.

You think you can dismiss this as "an appeal to authority?"

I suggest you need to start with a book on the basics of philosophy. Something which introduces you to terms like "argument from authority" and "straw man".

particuarly since you are now using the term qualia to refer to something quite different to its wikipedia definition so I have no idea what you're on about. I have no desire to introduce new unclear definitions.

Total crap, Andy. My definition of "qualia" is the absolute, bog-standard normal one. If you have no idea what I'm on about then that is not my problem.

This argument hinges on the assertion that consciousness is a non-physical...

No it doesn't, Andy. It starts with a question I have tried asking you about five times: "is a private ostensive definition of consciousness possible?"

So far, you still haven't answered this question. Instead you are offering yet another strawman - this time you are "summarising" my argument as starting with it's conclusion. This is pure fantasy. It has nothing to do with what I am actually saying.

Clearly physical evidence is impossible for a non-physical thing and there is no subjective evidence unless you can tell me how a physical subjective experience would differ from a non-physical one. Saying there is no such thing as a physical subjective experience fails as the reason is clearly 'because subjective experience is not physical'.

The argument is clearly tautological and so even by the rules of this particular parlour game worthless.

To put it another way you often repeat in response to this tack that consciousness IS subjective experience, in which case you are using subjective experience both as the evidence and the definition which is also clearly an error.

ARRRRGHHHHH!!!!!!!!

Do you know what a PRIVATE OSTENSIVE DEFINITION is yet, Andy?

Do not answer this question. Instead, I would like you to go back and read all of my posts in this thread. Read them carefully, think about them and try to understand them. At the moment you are not doing this, and the result is that I am wasting my time talking to you.

You asked me to show you what is wrong with the way you are thinking about this. You are not actually remotely interested in learning what is wrong with way you are thinking about this. You are interested only in defending your existing belief system, which is what brainwashed "true believers" everywhere do.

Have a nice day. I am not going to respond to you again in this thread today unless you actually post something which indicates you have been thinking about what I'm actually posting.

[AndySir]

To understand why I summarised your position as hinging on consciousness not being physical please refer to the argument from my previous post which took "All physical properties can be described objectively" and which you agreed with. Therefore a purely subjective experience is either non-physical or impossible. This is not misrepresenting what you are saying this is EXACTLY what you are saying. This is a purely rational argument which requires no further jargon, no private ostensive definitions (which I did answer BTW, quite clearly), no noumen and no qualia.

Fail to answer this and your argument fails. I suspect that it is this with which you are frustrated and not me.

[EDIT] I do know what an appeal to authority is. DO YOU KNOW WHAT A PRIVATE OSTESTIVE DEFINITION IS? Yes, it's a term that Wittgenstein coined. When I say that's not what it means, or is self contradicting you say "But that's how Wittgenstein uses it." Appeal to authority.

[UndercoverElephant]

To understand why I summarised your position as hinging on consciousness not being physical please refer to the argument from my previous post which took "All physical properties can be described objectively" and which you agreed with. Therefore a purely subjective experience is either non-physical or impossible. This is not misrepresenting what you are saying this is EXACTLY what you are saying.

You are mistaking my conclusion for a premise. You have convinced yourself that my argument starts with the premise:

P1) Subjective experience is either non-physical or impossible.

If this is what I was really doing then my argument would be "begging the question" - I would be assuming my conclusion is true before I'd offered any argument.

I am not actually doing this at all. I am starting with definitions, especially the definition of consciousness.

[EDIT] I do know what an appeal to authority is. DO YOU KNOW WHAT A PRIVATE OSTESTIVE DEFINITION IS? Yes, it's a term that Wittgenstein coined. When I say that's not what it means, or is self contradicting you say "But that's how Wittgenstein uses it." Appeal to authority.

You don't know what an appeal to authority is, Andy. I shall explain.

I have adopted a Wittgensteinian term for a procedure whereby a word could acquire a meaning - a procedure which Wittgenstein thinks is impossible and which I think is possible. It is not an appeal to authority to adopt terminology like this. All I'm doing is not inventing a new term for something which already has a name. It would only be an appeal to authority if I was also expecting you to accept the conclusion of Wittgenstein's arguments about POD's without examining those arguments. I am not doing this. Firstly, we haven't even discussed Wittgenstein's arguments. Secondly, I'm disagreeing with Wittgenstein's conclusions anyway.

To make this easier for you to understand, here is an analogy with Darwinism.

Let's say I want to discuss evolution. Natural selection, like a private ostensive definition, is a sort of activity - something which happens (or doesn't happen, if you don't believe in it.) Let's also say I'm a creationist and I don't believe that natural selection happens. Imagine I am offering you an argument which uses the term "natural selection" correctly - that I have correctly understood what the term "natural selection" means, even though I don't believe that it happens. Now imagine you come along and respond to this argument by saying "That's an argument from authority! You have appealled to the authority of Darwin!!"

Can you see how crass and moronic this is? In this example, I most certainly have not appealled to the authority of Darwin. I am claiming Darwin was wrong! All I have adopted from Darwin is a technical term, which I am using correctly. My argument may be a load of rubbish, but it is NOT an appeal to authority.

Do you have a better understanding of what "appeal to authority" means now?

[AndySir]

I am not actually doing this at all. I am starting with definitions, especially the definition of consciousness.

Yes - do we have to do this again?

[1] Consciousness is subjective experience. (Yours)
[2] All physical things can be described objectively (Mine, but you accepted it)

Therefore

1. Consciousness is not physical.

Are you rejecting the conclusion or the application of logic or what?

P.S. It looks like it is you that doesn't understand an appeal to authority. By refusing to debate in any terms other than the ones you have selected, who's meaning cannot be questioned you are appealing to authority. Your Darwinism example fails since the term 'natural selection' can be altered based on argument. It is not 'what Darwin says it is'.

[UndercoverElephant]

I am not actually doing this at all. I am starting with definitions, especially the definition of consciousness.

Yes - do we have to do this again?

[1] Consciousness is subjective experience. (Yours)

No, Andy. Does my argument start with the premise/definition "consciousness is subjective experience"? Nope. I have quite explicitly stated that this is entirely circular and pointless. You might just as well write. "Subjective experience is consciousness" or "qualia are subjective experiences." There is no way of using words like this to establish a non-circular definition of consciousness. Therefore you either have to use a POD or not define it at all.

[2] All physical things can be described objectively (Mine, but you accepted it)

Therefore

1. Consciousness is not physical.

Are you rejecting the conclusion or the application of logic or what?

I'm rejecting your mis-interpretation of my position. I start with the possibility or non-possibility of a Private Ostensive Definition. You have (I think) stated that a POD is not possible. There isn't much left to discuss at this point, because you have effectively denied that what most people mean by the word "consciousness" exists.

P.S. It looks like it is you that doesn't understand an appeal to authority. By refusing to debate in any terms other than the ones you have selected, who's meaning cannot be questioned you are appealing to authority. Your Darwinism example fails since the term 'natural selection' can be altered based on argument. It is not 'what Darwin says it is'.

Natural selection is still precisely what Darwin said it was, and I am getting a bit bored of being told by a philosophy newbie that I don't understand basic philosophical terminology. I did actually pass my degree, Andy.

Just to make this crystal clear, since you still don't understand it, let us drop the term "Private Ostensive Definition." Instead, let's call it a "florbleglock." A florbleglock is when you mentally associate your own consciousness with the term "consciousness". A florbleglock is not a definition, but a procedure whereby words acquire a meaning.

Now...all I have done is changed the name. The argument remains precisely the same. Do you still think it is an argument from authority? If so, whose authority am I appealling to?

[AndySir]

A flobdeglock is meaningless. If you are only willing to debate in terms of flobdeglocks as you define them then the debate is meaningless.

Also...

In other words, there is no such thing as "objective consciousness" - all consciousness is, by its nature, subjective.

And...

"Qualia", "subjective experiences" and "consciousness" are all synonyms as far as I am concerned

Then...

Does my argument start with the premise/definition "consciousness is subjective experience"? Nope.

Yes. How silly of me to come to that conclusion based only on what you said.

[UndercoverElephant]

A flobdeglock is meaningless.

How can it be meaningless? I just defined it for you!!!!!

If you are only willing to debate in terms of flobdeglocks as you define them then the debate is meaningless.

Right. So if I want to describe a procedure and give it a name then this makes the debate meaningless. If I use the name already given by somebody else to this procedure then I'm offering an argument from authority.

There is no point in continuing this. You have demonstrated to this board in no uncertain terms that Dawkinsians are no more capable of rationally thinking about the flaws in the foundations of their own belief system than creationists are. For most of the last three pages, you have been talking total crap. But instead of there being a little alarm bell that goes off in your head ("Oops, I'm talking total crap, maybe it is time to start trying to learn instead of trying to teach, or at least I'd better stop posting"), you simply repeat the same crap or make additional statements that even more ridiculous. This is what brainwashed people do, Andy. You are brainwashed.



First rule of philosophy: learn how to recognise and admit it when you've lost an argument. Do not compound the problem by digging in your heels and refusing to back down, because this means you lose credibility and respect. Recognising when you've lost an argument is how you become a better philosopher. It is how you learn. This debate is taking place in public. Other people are reading what you're posting, and they are making their own minds up about who is making sense and who is posting total crap. This is a bit like being in a philosophy class, where there are other students listening to your arguments. If you continue to make basic errors about, say, the meaning of basic philosophical terminology, even after you've been corrected several times, then you just end up looking like a total twat. It is much better to take the hit quickly, back down, save your credibility for another day and go away and try to figure out where it all went wrong.

[AndySir]

A flobdeglock is meaningless.

How can it be meaningless? I just defined it for you!!!!!

Yes and I just rejected your definition on the grounds that it carries no meaning.

Since I'm learning though I may as well ask what you call the fallacy "I have a degree so I know this better". Or "you are brainwashed"? Or "this is what most people mean by this"? Or you are talking "total crap"?

Yes we're done. It looks like you just want to wriggle and obfuscate rather than debate.

[UndercoverElephant]

A flobdeglock is meaningless.

How can it be meaningless? I just defined it for you!!!!!

Yes and I just rejected your definition on the grounds that it carries no meaning.

Which bit of it had no meaning?

Since I'm learning though I may as well ask what you call the fallacy "I have a degree so I know this better".

That would be an argument from authority, Andy. However, it's not the argument I'm depending on. I'm just reminding you you are talking to a person who had to pass a load of exams where not knowing the meaning of terms like "argument from authority" would lead to failure. Would you, as a newbie to physics, consider telling a physics graduate that they didn't understand what "gravity" means?

Yes, people with degrees in academic subjects do, on the whole, have a far better grasp of those subjects than total newbies.

[AndySir]

Which bit of it had no meaning?

Okay...

A florbleglock is when you mentally associate your own consciousness with the term "consciousness". A florbleglock is not a definition, but a procedure whereby words acquire a meaning.

A FOG (my new acronym) fails to tell me what I should be associating with the term 'consciousness'. How do I associate my consciousness with the word consciousness before you have told me what it means?

[UndercoverElephant]

Which bit of it had no meaning?

Okay...

A florbleglock is when you mentally associate your own consciousness with the term "consciousness". A florbleglock is not a definition, but a procedure whereby words acquire a meaning.

A FOG (my new acronym) fails to tell me what I should be associating with the term 'consciousness'.

You have not explained what FOG is supposed to mean. All you've done is told me what it fails to tell you, which doesn't help me to understand what it is supposed to mean.

Here's another example: A YIP (my new acronym) fails to tell me whether Greece will or will not default this year.

It's no use defining something in terms of what it is not or does not do.

How do I associate my consciousness with the word consciousness before you have told me what it means?

OK. You'll need to think about the following set of questions very carefully. Please take them one at a time and stop as soon as you don't understand something or disagree with something I've posted, and then explain to me exactly what it is that you don't understand.

Q1) Are you aware of anything at all? Do you experience a world?

I presume you are going to answer "yes" to this.

Q2) Are you aware that this world contains other humans like you? Are you rejecting solipsism (the belief that only the contents of your own mind is real)?

I presume you are going to answer "yes" to this too.

Q3) Do you agree that your experiences of other human beings are not the human beings themselves?

I presume you are going to answer "yes" to this also. If you're tempted to say "no" then I have to ask you whether you think that if you're drunk, and seeing double, that this means you now have two identical wives instead of the one you had before you got drunk.

Q4) Do you also agree that this means there must be something we might call "reality as it is in itself"? This is thing is not your experiences of a world, but whatever exists independently of those experiences and can be presumed to be their source.

I'm going to leave that there for the moment, and will continue if you can agree with everything up to this point.

[AndySir]

You have not explained what FOG is supposed to mean. All you've done is told me what it fails to tell you, which doesn't help me to understand what it is supposed to mean.

Yes. It was you that was trying to define the term. I don't need to provide a counter definition to say that your definition is meaningless. I'm quite happy in a world where a flobdeglock (FOG) doesn't exist.

The four thingumies seem reasonable. There is an external, objective reality. Now quit spoonfeeding, you tease.

[UndercoverElephant]

You have not explained what FOG is supposed to mean. All you've done is told me what it fails to tell you, which doesn't help me to understand what it is supposed to mean.

Yes. It was you that was trying to define the term. I don't need to provide a counter definition to say that your definition is meaningless. I'm quite happy in a world where a flobdeglock (FOG) doesn't exist.

Fine. Then there is nothing left to argue about. Most people believe themselves to be conscious. You deny that you understand what they even mean when they say this.

The four thingumies seem reasonable. There is an external, objective reality. Now quit spoonfeeding, you tease.

Spoonfeeding is best.

So we can agree on the following:

Phenomena: reality as I experience it.
Noumena: reality as it is in itself, independent of any experience of it.

I just want to make sure you understand that this is not an argument from the authority of Kant. We're using terms he made famous, but we followed an agreed line of reasoning to decide what they mean.

If you can agree to this, we can proceed.

[AndySir]

Most people believe themselves to be conscious. You deny that you understand what they even mean when they say this.

Yes, and here's the problem. As I understand it I should be able to turn my eyes inward, as it were, and see something which I recognise at consciousness. But when I try to examine my thoughts I am aware of half a dozen voices worrying about my daughter (suspiciously quiet), the state of the house, formulating arguments and counter arguments etc. etc. I can't tell you whether these thoughts are consecutive or concurrent, I can't tell you whether there's a dominant voice, or I am a gestalt of many smaller voices and I can't tell you if there's a guiding voice, or soul at the back of it. I am not aware of my heart beating. I am aware from my memory that sometimes there are no voices (I am alseep or unconscious) or they are not recorded.

I know, but am not aware of a subconscious.

So what bit of this is my consciousness? If you can delinate its limits in terms of other things why are we not using that as a definition of consciousness?

Okay, to the next spoonful. We'll take those two terms as you define them.

[UndercoverElephant]

Most people believe themselves to be conscious. You deny that you understand what they even mean when they say this.

Yes, and here's the problem. As I understand it I should be able to turn my eyes inward, as it were, and see something which I recognise at consciousness.

No, that's not what you are supposed to be doing. I'm saying you should be able to know that you are aware of something, and that you can call all of this consciousness.

But when I try to examine my thoughts I am aware of half a dozen voices worrying about my daughter (suspiciously quiet), the state of the house, formulating arguments and counter arguments etc. etc. I can't tell you whether these thoughts are consecutive or concurrent, I can't tell you whether there's a dominant voice, or I am a gestalt of many smaller voices and I can't tell you if there's a guiding voice, or soul at the back of it. I am not aware of my heart beating. I am aware from my memory that sometimes there are no voices (I am alseep or unconscious) or they are not recorded.

You're trying too hard. All I'm asking you to do is give a name to everything you've described above. I want you to call it "consciousness". I don't understand why anyone would find this difficult.

So what bit of this is my consciousness?

All of it.

If you can delinate its limits in terms of other things why are we not using that as a definition of consciousness?

It's limits are everything you've ever experienced.

Okay, to the next spoonful. We'll take those two terms as you define them.

Good. In that case try this:

"Consciousness" is synonymous with "phenomena." You know what "phenomena" means. So now you know what "consciousness" means.

Got a problem with that?