Defining Terms

[steve_bank]

Define

Mind
Perception
Awareness
Consciousness
Living vs non living maerial, define what alive means. Th difference between a cell, a rock, and a cat, and a plant.

Is a single cell aware of its surroundings?

 

[untermensche]

Mind is the thing that wrote your post.

 

[Politesse]

Mind is the thing that wrote your post.

Surely he used his fingers?

 

[untermensche]

No. His mind used his fingers.

 

[Politesse]

No. His mind used his fingers.

If "he" does not refer to a mind, to what does it refer?

 

[untermensche]

'He' refers to the entire animal.

 

[Tigers!]

Define

Mind
Perception
Awareness
Consciousness
Living vs non living maerial, define what alive means. Th difference between a cell, a rock, and a cat, and a plant.

Is a single cell aware of its surroundings?

Trying to simp0lify thousands of years of theology & philosophy?

What's the word limit?

 

[fromderinside]

My working response:

Mind. Human construct of thing that represents thought activity.

Perception. Field of study that examines how living things resolve stimulation through nervous activity in response to material input.

Awareness. Nervous system response to events around a living being.

Consciousness. Behavioral evidence a living being responds appropriately to material input in choice situations.

Living material That material that generates and uses its own sources of energy by chemical means.

Difference between a rock, cell, plant, cat. Hierarchical classification of groups of matter with respect to whether it makes its own energy then, if it does, by how the matter reacts to and uses that energy.

 

[untermensche]

What experiences this "thought activity"?

How do we know about it?

Why do researchers ask subjects to make guesses?

You are pretending to have a way to get rid of minds and experience.

It can't be done.

They are the reasons for everything we know.

All a person has access to are their experiences. There is nothing else.

A mind is that thing that experiences.

To deny it without any rational alternative is idiosyncratic belief. A strange faith.

 

[fromderinside]

We had a saying back in JC. Bucky unwinds.

untermenche demonstrate a Bucky unwinds.

 

[untermensche]

We had a saying back in JC. Bucky unwinds.

untermenche demonstrate a Bucky unwinds.

I have a saying for you.

Lost and deluded.

Unable to defend any of your nonsense.

A religious devotee.

No different from a Trump supporter. Equally as blind.

You think color is a property of energy for Pete's sake.

 

[fromderinside]

We had a saying back in JC. Bucky unwinds.

untermenche demonstrate a Bucky unwinds.

I have a saying for you.

Lost and deluded.

Unable to defend any of your nonsense.

A religious devotee.

No different from a Trump supporter. Equally as blind.

You think color is a property of energy for Pete's sake.

Thank you for fulfilling my prediction.

 

[skepticalbip]

Define

Mind
Perception
Awareness
Consciousness
Living vs non living maerial, define what alive means. Th difference between a cell, a rock, and a cat, and a plant.

Is a single cell aware of its surroundings?

It looks like you are trying to eliminate the field of philosophy.

Philosophers spend all their time using such terms (along with terms such as moral) in elaborate and convoluted argumentation without ever defining what the hell they mean by the terms. Define the terms and require all philosophers to use the definitions and they will no longer have any arguments to offer. They will have to look for something useful to do to earn a living. Maybe they will have to learn the phrase, "do you want fries with that".

 

[steve_bank]

Define

Mind
Perception
Awareness
Consciousness
Living vs non living maerial, define what alive means. Th difference between a cell, a rock, and a cat, and a plant.

Is a single cell aware of its surroundings?

It looks like you are trying to eliminate the field of philosophy.

Philosophers spend all their time using such terms (along with terms such as moral) in elaborate and convoluted argumentation without ever defining what the hell they mean by the terms. Define the terms and require all philosophers to use the definitions and they will no longer have any arguments to offer. They will have to look for something useful to do to earn a living. Maybe they will have to learn the phrase, "do you want fries with that".

The science philosopher Popper said that with the demise of Natural Philosophy and the rise of modern empirical science as its own discipline philosophy was left with meaning and debate. Hegel argued there was more to philosophy than debate and meaning, there is a goal to be achieved. A spiritual quest with and end.

'Philosopher' is another one of those terms that never gets defined.

Philosophy, generally meaning love of knowledge, was always a catch all term.

Historically there was doctor of philosophy, doctor of laws, and doctor of medicine.

To me saying you are a philosopher has no meaning without providing context and qualification.

The OP was directed at those forum philosophers who in the past endlessly debated without any concrete meaning, a secular theology if you please. What is consciousness, is there a mind body duality?

 

[WAB]

Define

Mind
Perception
Awareness
Consciousness
Living vs non living maerial, define what alive means. Th difference between a cell, a rock, and a cat, and a plant.

Is a single cell aware of its surroundings?

It looks like you are trying to eliminate the field of philosophy.

Philosophers spend all their time using such terms (along with terms such as moral) in elaborate and convoluted argumentation without ever defining what the hell they mean by the terms. Define the terms and require all philosophers to use the definitions and they will no longer have any arguments to offer. They will have to look for something useful to do to earn a living. Maybe they will have to learn the phrase, "do you want fries with that".

I usually like your posts, skepticalbip, but I have to say that in this I just don't agree. I've read quite a lot from quite a lot of philosophers, and in fact I cannot recall a single one of any import who did not define their terms. I know for a fact that Spinoza went to great lengths explaining precisely what he meant by the terms he used, since I've read all of his philosophical works. This DOES NOT mean that one is forced to agree with those definitions, of course, and Spinoza is known for having some rather eccentric definitions of certain terms. I've read some Kant and Hegel, Berkeley, Hume, a lot of Thomas Reid (who I think levels Hume and Berkeley flat and was duly forgotten for his efforts), Descartes, Sartre, Nietzsche, Aristotle (though I will admit his Analytics are so far over my head it's ridiculous, though his ethics and metaphysics are approachable to a layman), some Plato, etc, etc...

I have read a lot of philosophy which I have found to be remarkably silly: pure castle building (castles in the air), a phrase/idea Thomas Reid used to refer to the Idealists.

I have also read some that I found utterly inscrutable, like some of Wittgenstein, most of Kant and Hegel, actually; and especially Derrida.

I have read some which is so inscrutable, so deliriously convoluted, it was more funny than anything else: lots of theology and cosmology appears funny to me, or a lot like science fiction.

But all that aside, I see no major philosopher who just tosses out terms without defining them. I see absurd definitions, or ones which I cannot grok at all, or ones that seem ridiculously simple, as in G.E. Moore and Searle, plus others.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Define

Mind
Perception
Awareness
Consciousness
Living vs non living maerial, define what alive means. Th difference between a cell, a rock, and a cat, and a plant.

Is a single cell aware of its surroundings?

Mind is the brain's experience of itself.
Perception is sensory data that mind organizes into a model of reality.
Consciousness is awareness.
Awareness, according to Michael Graziano's "Consciousness and the Social Brain" is a data set that tracks attention.

Matter behaves differently according to how it is organized.
1. Inanimate matter behaves passively in response to physical forces. Place a bowling ball on a slope and it will roll downhill, its behavior is governed by the force of gravity.
2. Living organisms behave purposefully, with biological drives to survive, thrive, and reproduce. Place a squirrel on a slope and he may go uphill, downhill, or in any other direction where he hopes to find his next acorn. While he is still affected by gravity, he is not governed by it.
3. Intelligent species have evolved a brain capable of imagination, evaluation, and choosing. They can behave deliberately, by reason and calculation. While still affected by gravity and biological drives, they are not governed by them. Instead, their behavior is deliberate.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Define

Mind
Perception
Awareness
Consciousness
Living vs non living maerial, define what alive means. Th difference between a cell, a rock, and a cat, and a plant.

Is a single cell aware of its surroundings?

Mind et al are processes. Matter on its own is not concious. It needs matter in an ordered system that supports a process that we call mind. Living things have processes we call metabolism. Life is a process.
Processes are emergent qualities, phenomena.

 

[skepticalbip]

Define

Mind
Perception
Awareness
Consciousness
Living vs non living maerial, define what alive means. Th difference between a cell, a rock, and a cat, and a plant.

Is a single cell aware of its surroundings?

It looks like you are trying to eliminate the field of philosophy.

Philosophers spend all their time using such terms (along with terms such as moral) in elaborate and convoluted argumentation without ever defining what the hell they mean by the terms. Define the terms and require all philosophers to use the definitions and they will no longer have any arguments to offer. They will have to look for something useful to do to earn a living. Maybe they will have to learn the phrase, "do you want fries with that".

I usually like your posts, skepticalbip, but I have to say that in this I just don't agree.

... snip ...

But all that aside, I see no major philosopher who just tosses out terms without defining them. I see absurd definitions, or ones which I cannot grok at all, or ones that seem ridiculously simple, as in G.E. Moore and Searle, plus others.

You have obviously read quite a bit of philosophical thinking. This means that you have undoubtedly read much on one of the big argument topics, morality. The problem and reason for so much argument is that there is not one definition for the word... This means that there should either several different words or universal agreement on what the word means (its definition). Everyone seems to have their own definition and their convoluted arguments are simply examining what their particular meaning of "morality" is. If someone else who makes their impassioned argument in disagreement with the first argument had accepted the first definition of the word then there would be no philosophical argument against it.

Such "philosophical" arguments then amount to nothing more than about the definition of some word.

To take it further, assuming that everyone agrees to one definition of morality, such a definition will generally include something about harm to others. Now, what is the definition of "harm" being used? Physically damaging them? Not helping someone in need? etc. etc. Define and everyone agree with what the word "harm" means and many arguments vanish.

 

[WAB]

I usually like your posts, skepticalbip, but I have to say that in this I just don't agree.

... snip ...

But all that aside, I see no major philosopher who just tosses out terms without defining them. I see absurd definitions, or ones which I cannot grok at all, or ones that seem ridiculously simple, as in G.E. Moore and Searle, plus others.

You have obviously read quite a bit of philosophical thinking. This means that you have undoubtedly read much on one of the big argument topics, morality. The problem and reason for so much argument is that there is not one definition for the word... This means that there should either several different words or universal agreement on what the word means (its definition). Everyone seems to have their own definition and their convoluted arguments are simply examining what their particular meaning of "morality" is. If someone else who makes their impassioned argument in disagreement with the first argument had accepted the first definition of the word then there would be no philosophical argument against it.

Such "philosophical" arguments then amount to nothing more than about the definition of some word.

To take it further, assuming that everyone agrees to one definition of morality, such a definition will generally include something about harm to others. Now, what is the definition of "harm" being used? Physically damaging them? Not helping someone in need? etc. etc. Define and everyone agree with what the word "harm" means and many arguments vanish.

Yes, I did see your overall point. I was just saying that the major philosophers do define their terms (though it is not incumbent on anyone else to uncritically accept those definitions).

You did write: Philosophers spend all their time using such terms (along with terms such as moral) in elaborate and convoluted argumentation without ever defining what the hell they mean by the terms.

But now, as I re-read that, I see that maybe you meant it not to refer to any individual philosopher, but philosophers as a group? Aha! Is that it? Then I did misunderstand you. ?

i.e. You mean that philosophers, collectively, as in a discussion, do not collectively define their terms? As in, do not come to any real agreement about their respective definitions? Have I got it? Or no?

Perhaps not. I won't be surprised if I have mucked it all up. Methinks I need a break from all this excitement...

Ah, Calgon, take me away...

 

[skepticalbip]

You hit it on the nose....

If two people in arguments and/or discussions don't accept the same definition for the terms they are using then they are talking, arguing, or discussing two very different things and not communicating at all.