Is the unconscious conscious?

[Nearly Sane]

I am reminded of epicycles and Swift's lines


"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller fleas to bite 'em.
And so proceeds Ad infinitum."



https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/consciousness-goes-deeper-than-you-think/

[Sriram]

Something we have known all along....   I have discussed this many times especially with torridon.

[Nearly Sane]

Something we have known all along....   I have discussed this many times especially with torridon.

and he disagrees with you on this, as he would argue we are not conscious when we dsleep. Given that there isn't a clear definition of consciousness, and given that no matter what we are dealing in a form of semantics here, stating 'We' (an attempt to create a argument from both authority, populum and begging the question in a single word) and 'have known' a further begging the question, is seeking to sweep away the discussion before it's begun.

Further it ignores the impact on any idea of unitary conscious which you also support. If you think the ideas are valid then your support there would be illogical.

[wigginhall]

It is interesting, although a bit technical.  I recall that Freud tried to grapple with some of this with his ideas of the preconscious, and also that the ego itself could have unconscious operations, and he also rejected the idea of the subconscious.   I expect neuroscience to investigate some of this, since presumably there are different indications of fully conscious, semi-conscious, and fully unconscious stuff, and intermediate operations.   The idea of re-representation seems very important, but it makes the notion of 'conscious' highly ambiguous.  As he says (I think), new born babies are conscious in that respect, but not conscious that they are conscious.   

[Walter]

I am reminded of epicycles and Swift's lines


"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller fleas to bite 'em.
And so proceeds Ad infinitum."



https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/consciousness-goes-deeper-than-you-think/

the article has the word philosophy in it, so I'm reminded not to read it . Thanks all the same .
e

[Sriram]

The fact that Consciousness and... Consciousness of consciousness... are different, is obvious. Infants are conscious, animals and birds are conscious. But they are not conscious of their consciousness. This latter (that the guy calls meta consciousness) is what is often taken as Consciousness...though it is only an extension.

The last para in the article is quite comprehensive.

"Consciousness may never arise...be it is babies, toddlers, children or adults...because it may always be there to begin with.  For all we know, what arises is merely a meta cognitive configuration of preexisting consciousness. If so, consciousness may be fundamental in nature...an inherent aspect of every mental process, not a property constituted  or somehow generated by particular physical arrangements of the brain." 

[wigginhall]

That last bit sounds circular to me.  If biological life forms have awareness, even bacteria, then it's not being super-bold to predict that some kind of nervous system produces that awareness.   Eventually, this evolved into brains in various animals.   

What would be bold would be to argue that energy itself (and matter) produce awareness, the so-called 'panpsychism' position, which seems to have revived in recent years, with the discussion of the 'hard problem'.   

[Nearly Sane]

That last bit sounds circular to me.  If biological life forms have awareness, even bacteria, then it's not being super-bold to predict that some kind of nervous system produces that awareness.   Eventually, this evolved into brains in various animals.   

What would be bold would be to argue that energy itself (and matter) produce awareness, the so-called 'panpsychism' position, which seems to have revived in recent years, with the discussion of the 'hard problem'.

In more basic terms it is almost as if it argues in that last part that any output caused/affected by input is an example of consciousness which is I think effective panpsychism.


Awareness also has the problem that it seems to create an infinite regress in that if we count metacognition as an awareness of knowing then to paraphrase the great philosopher of epistemology, Hylda Baker, she knows she knows she knows .....

[Sriram]

The OP article once again brings out the overlap between science and philosophy. It is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between them.

[Shaker]

The OP article once again brings out the overlap between science and philosophy. It is becoming more and more difficult to distinguish between them.

Not for those who know anything about science, it isn't.

[Udayana]

... Or philosophy for that matter.

[SteveH]

Is black white?
Is up down?
Is big small?
I'm reminded of George Orwell's quip that some beliefs are so silly that only an intellectual could hold them, and that applies to many other threads on here, as well.

[Shaker]

Is black white?
Is up down?
Is big small?
I'm reminded of George Orwell's quip that some beliefs are so silly that only an intellectual could hold them, and that applies to many other threads on here, as well.

I'm reminded of somebody else's quip that you can always spot those on a thread who have absolutely nothing to contribute to the subject at hand.

[SteveH]

I'm reminded of somebody else's quip that you can always spot those on a thread who have absolutely nothing to contribute to the subject at hand.

I'm reminded of the poster who said "don't forget your ball" on another thread.

[Shaker]

I'm reminded of the poster who said "don't forget your ball" on another thread.

Probably taking the piss out of somebody acting like a petulant child, I dare say.

[Nearly Sane]

Moderator play nicely, now and maybe,  just maybe,  talk about the subject of the thread.