What does "external" mean?

[Manfred Belheim]

I don't think it's really a question that philosophy could ever answer.

All empirical evidence we have is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Physical changes and damage to the brain have a demonstrable effect on it. Essentially everyone's experience of it (who isn't insane at any rate) is as an individual, and that it is tied to a specific body and sensory organs, and doesn't extend beyond this.

So yes, the suggestion that it is anything other than this kind of does require some evidence really. The burden of proof is definitely over in that direction.

 

[warpus]

I don't think it is (literally) "the only way"; otherwise there would be no such thing as full autism, or the ability to have mental states (even chronic) where the person doesn't seem really aware of the external world in a number of crucial ways (eg no input, or no input tied to actual examination of it which allows for usefulness; in such a case a tiger may be there but the person would not identify it as external, and be eaten).

I meant a successful way for a species to evolve. Obviously particular examples of members of our species can have problems with various things. Although I think you are incorrect that anyone on the autistic spectrum is unable to perceive the external world and understand that it is external.

I think that the concept of the external likely was not there to begin with (in earliest hominids) but developed out of some (very real, and obvious) need to deal with external dangers.

Even my roommate's dog has a concept of the external. So yeah, obviously in some species of animals such an understanding does not exist. I mean, you can take an ant. Does it understand what the external is? Maybe, maybe not.. but probably not? So obviously at some point this sort of understanding had to have emerged. I just think it happened a lot earlier than you think. Most mammals for instance need to have a concept of the external, otherwise they would suck at avoiding predators. With ants and viruses, it's all instict and programming to stimuli, but as soon as you get a comple nervous system the equation changes

 

[yung.carl.jung]

We do have evidence. Among all the things in the body you can mess with, the brain is the one that has apparent effects on a person's thoughts, behaviors, and actions.

That isn't perfect evidence, it doesn't even prove or define how consciousness works. But it is still evidence that our thoughts depend primarily on brain function.

Note that this same evidence does not offer any reason to conclude there is "freedom of choice". Brains can just as easily be directly responding to all stimuli in a causal and (in principle) predictable manner, just beyond the capacity of the brains themselves to predict.

Yes, while we're alive. What was before that and what comes after we genuinely know nothing. It is equally as stupid to assume that there is an afterlife w/o brain function as it is to assume that, with the death of the brain, everything just ends in a split second. Hence why I am agnostic on the subject, I can never be sure of either.

I agree on your last line regarding freedom of choice. Though I am no determinist (not soft nor hard) I have always thought the idea of free will(y) to be a romantic one, not a realistic one.

The precise workings of consciousness isn't something we completely understand. We make the external/internal cutoff because it has consistent practical applications, not because it carries any inherent meaning to the physical world beyond our cognition.

Good sentence, I agree wholeheardetly.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

I don't think it's really a question that philosophy could ever answer.

All empirical evidence we have is that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. Physical changes and damage to the brain have a demonstrable effect on it. Essentially everyone's experience of it (who isn't insane at any rate) is as an individual, and that it is tied to a specific body and sensory organs, and doesn't extend beyond this.

So yes, the suggestion that it is anything other than this kind of does require some evidence really. The burden of proof is definitely over in that direction.

Everything you say is correct, I think.

Is this true throughout time though? Because we really don't know whether it is. Is this true for all species or just for us, (assuming that animals that are capable of internal and external representation do have cosciousness). Or is the development of the individual consciousness a cultural/social one that allowed us simply to better fulfill the desires of the individual as civilization emerged?

I have no answers to these questions, mainly because I am not looking for easy answers, but rather I am constantly looking for the next question to chase.

 

[warpus]

Yes, while we're alive. What was before that and what comes after we genuinely know nothing.

We know what happens before we're alive - the sperm is in the dad's sack and the egg is in the mom's uterus. We also know what happens after you die - you lie down in the ground and people put flowers on your grave.

It's like saying we don't know what happens before a pizza is created, and what happens after it's eaten. There is nothing to say because it just doesn't exist, aside from the poop that's created after you eat it, and the ingredients you need to create it

 

[Kyriakos]

I meant a successful way for a species to evolve. Obviously particular examples of members of our species can have problems with various things. Although I think you are incorrect that anyone on the autistic spectrum is unable to perceive the external world and understand that it is external.



Even my roommate's dog has a concept of the external. So yeah, obviously in some species of animals such an understanding does not exist. I mean, you can take an ant. Does it understand what the external is? Maybe, maybe not.. but probably not? So obviously at some point this sort of understanding had to have emerged. I just think it happened a lot earlier than you think. Most mammals for instance need to have a concept of the external, otherwise they would suck at avoiding predators. With ants and viruses, it's all instict and programming to stimuli, but as soon as you get a comple nervous system the equation changes

I am not sure if a dog even now has a concept sense of the external, tbh. I mean... does a dog sense its own inner life as something distinct from the stuff going on around it? I don't know.
I think that it is argued that even toddlers don't have a sense of the external. I sort of recall i did not (eg i recall looking at my parents while inside my safe space, before being of an age where i could walk or say a word, and 'thinking' those forms, along with the whole room, were part of myself).

 

[Lexicus]

Essentially everyone's experience of it (who isn't insane at any rate)

Isn't this kind of a way of preemptively dismissing counterexamples?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes, while we're alive. What was before that and what comes after we genuinely know nothing. It is equally as stupid to assume that there is an afterlife w/o brain function as it is to assume that, with the death of the brain, everything just ends in a split second. Hence why I am agnostic on the subject, I can never be sure of either.

It's really not. One option is congruent with everything we know, the other is completely made up and has no supporting evidence at all, beyond a handful of anecdotal stories about memories of past lives.

 

[warpus]

I am not sure if a dog even now has a concept sense of the external, tbh. I mean... does a dog sense its own inner life as something distinct from the stuff going on around it? I don't know.

If I throw a ball and a dog goes chasing it, it understands that the ball is not just a figment of its imagination - it understands that it is an external object that it can pick up and interact with. It understands that the object thrown behaves according to the laws of gravity, and calculates the trajectory based on its past experiences, so that it can anticipate where it's going to end up, much like predators anticipate where an antelope is going to end up when it jumps or whatever

 

[Kyriakos]

If I throw a ball and a dog goes chasing it, it understands that the ball is not just a figment of its imagination - it understands that it is an external object that it can pick up and interact with. It understands that the object thrown behaves according to the laws of gravity, and calculates the trajectory based on its past experiences, so that it can anticipate where it's going to end up, much like predators anticipate where an antelope is going to end up when it jumps or whatever

The dog certainly understands the ball is there; that doesn't have to mean it is aware of a dichotomy of internal-external. Eg i also note there is distinctness between thought a and thought b, while both are in an internal space.
I am not sure if a dog actually has an 'imagination', and even if it does, i am not sure if it can sense it as being in a different (internal) space than the space where the ball is.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Everything you say is correct, I think.

Is this true throughout time though? Because we really don't know whether it is. Is this true for all species or just for us, (assuming that animals that are capable of internal and external representation do have cosciousness). Or is the development of the individual consciousness a cultural/social one that allowed us simply to better fulfill the desires of the individual as civilization emerged?

I have no answers to these questions, mainly because I am not looking for easy answers, but rather I am constantly looking for the next question to chase.

What does chasing a question mean if not trying to answer it? Do questions serve any purpose without answers?

Obviously I can't rule out anything you're saying, I'm just saying there doesn't appear to be any hints at all that what you're saying is true, or could even be possible. So I disagree that's it's a 50/50 split either way just because "we don't know". The same as I don't think it's 50/50 for the existence of God.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The dog certainly understands the ball is there; that doesn't have to mean it is aware of a dichotomy of internal-external. Eg i also note there is distinctness between thought a and thought b, while both are in an internal space.
I am not sure if a dog actually has an 'imagination', and even if it does, i am not sure if it can sense it as being in a different (internal) space than the space where the ball is.

Surely in the case of the dog it might be better to ask if it has a concept of the internal. It's obviously aware of the external world because it reacts to it. It may not be aware of its own thought processes of have a sense of self as such though.

 

[Kyriakos]

Surely in the case of the dog it might be better to ask if it has a concept of the internal. It's obviously aware of the external world because it reacts to it. It may not be aware of its own thought processes of have a sense of self as such though.

It connotes the same thing, yes. Point is that the dog likely doesn't sense any dichotomy, so for the dog there is no external and internal, but one space.
Although, again, i am not really in the know about dogs. Afaik they can get something like psychological illness, but even that alone doesn't have to mean they identify a dichotomy of such spaces.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

To be honest I don't really notice much of a dichotomy myself.

I also like chasing balls if that's relevant.

 

[Kyriakos]

To be honest I don't really notice much of a dichotomy myself.

I also like chasing balls if that's relevant.

You do sound like a cynic ^^ (speaking of dogs)

 

[yung.carl.jung]

What does chasing a question mean if not trying to answer it? Do questions serve any purpose without answers?

Obviously I can't rule out anything you're saying, I'm just saying there doesn't appear to be any hints at all that what you're saying is true, or could even be possible. So I disagree that's it's a 50/50 split either way just because "we don't know". The same as I don't think it's 50/50 for the existence of God.

I hope that is a rhetorical question, because otherwise it's pretty stupid. Asking questions makes you think critically. You might not come up with a satisfying answer, but you now have a better grasp, a better knowledge, a better understanding of your subject.

I do get your argument though and I see where you are coming from, there really is no evidence for anything I'm saying so you should feel free to dismiss it.

The dog certainly understands the ball is there; that doesn't have to mean it is aware of a dichotomy of internal-external. Eg i also note there is distinctness between thought a and thought b, while both are in an internal space.
I am not sure if a dog actually has an 'imagination', and even if it does, i am not sure if it can sense it as being in a different (internal) space than the space where the ball is.

This is very true. An interesting question is whether or not an animal recognizes itself in a mirror. Humans don't, actually, until I think half a year or even 10 months. There are many tests like the mirror test and they just reveal that concepts of "self" and "other" differ, if even slightly, between all species that are able to make that distinction.

We know what happens before we're alive - the sperm is in the dad's sack and the egg is in the mom's uterus. We also know what happens after you die - you lie down in the ground and people put flowers on your grave.

It's like saying we don't know what happens before a pizza is created, and what happens after it's eaten. There is nothing to say because it just doesn't exist, aside from the poop that's created after you eat it, and the ingredients you need to create it

At which exact stage of fetal development does consciousness arise? At which exact point does it vanish? What about people in a coma? We don't know jack squat about consciousness other than some stray assumptions thrown in the room because they seem coherent, but really are not

 

[warpus]

At which exact stage of fetal development does consciousness arise? At which exact point does it vanish? What about people in a coma? We don't know jack squat about consciousness other than some stray assumptions thrown in the room because they seem coherent, but really are not

We do know certain things about consciousness, neuroscience is an exciting field and there other scientific fields out there that help us understand consciousness as well.

None (i.e. zero) of the data so far suggests that there is something special that happens before you're born or after you die. All signs point to - we know exactly what happens during those times - nothing.

So it's not fair to say that "we don't know what happens" during those times. Like I said it's like saying that we don't know what happens before a pizza is baked. We do! The ingredients are assembled (mom and dad and a bottle of wine) and once the prep is complete the baking can commence. After some awkward kneading and rolling the baby is in the oven

Surely in the case of the dog it might be better to ask if it has a concept of the internal. It's obviously aware of the external world because it reacts to it. It may not be aware of its own thought processes of have a sense of self as such though.

That is a good point. Do dogs pass the mirror test? Some animals do, but I can't remember if some species of dog do or not.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You do sound like a cynic ^^ (speaking of dogs)

Well actually it's more that I don't percieve my inner thoughts or internal "self" as existing in any sort of physical space. So there's no real conflict there as they're not even the same thing. It's not like the inside and outside of a house.

Unless you're talking about purely physical "internal" sensations like pain or discomfort originating from different parts of the body. In that sense I'd expect a dog to have just as much notion that those sensations are "internal" as we do.

 

[Kyriakos]

We do know certain things about consciousness, neuroscience is an exciting field and there other scientific fields out there that help us understand consciousness as well.

None (i.e. zero) of the data so far suggests that there is something special that happens before you're born or after you die. All signs point to - we know exactly what happens during those times - nothing.

So it's not fair to say that "we don't know what happens" during those times. Like I said it's like saying that we don't know what happens before a pizza is baked. We do! The ingredients are assembled (mom and dad and a bottle of wine) and once the prep is complete the baking can commence. After some awkward kneading and rolling the baby is in the oven

Ok, but just imagine if someone wanted to claim something similar for a math issue, and say things like "well, we don't have to examine what [x] means, cause we already can speak of some tangent of it". Consciousness itself is not explained by external stuff, unless you set out to define it specifically in such a context. And this isn't what the current question/issue set to discuss

'of relevant': there is a reason why (since ancient times) philosophy was divided into parts, one of which was Physics (ie about external stuff), and the other was Dialectics (internal) (to be very general in what each dealt with) (also there was the Ethics, but that isn't 'of relevant' here)

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I hope that is a rhetorical question, because otherwise it's pretty stupid. Asking questions makes you think critically. You might not come up with a satisfying answer, but you now have a better grasp, a better knowledge, a better understanding of your subject.

Well, thank you very much. But failing to come up with a satisfying answer is not at all the same thing as not being interested in looking for answers. I still don't know what you mean by "chasing questions" if it isn't looking for answers in some way. If you have a better grasp/knowledge/understanding then that means you've found answers. Maybe not definitive answers, and maybe not to the same questions, but answers all the same.