What we see, hear, feel or otherwise perceive is (technically) not on our extensional maps. "Don't we respond' only the electrical and chemical events that occur in the brain and nerves, and not to the alleged real object?" For example, what we see as "red" is not the same as what a person with colorblindness sees as "red." Thus, do we not experience the actual object?
Assuming that based off of cogito ergo sum, we exist, how does that translate to consciousness? We express our consciousness to other people/"consciousnesses" by using language. If language is always prone to bias and false statements, how do we know we are not alone in a world of imaginary things/"people"?
**NB Don't read on unless you want to be even more confused by my rambling.
One more thought. How do we know babies are conscious human beings if they cannot express themselves through definitive language? (And to just make it more confusing. My sister and I could communicate before we knew how to speak. Does that define our consciousness to each other or to everyone?)
Cogito Ergo Sum what I believe to be,
Grace Yuan
NB again. The quote is from http://www.trans4mind.com/personal_development/Philos/indexReality.html It's wonderfully confusing though I haven't read far enough to establish that for sure.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
To answer your last question, Grace: well, there are other ways of communicating besides language, or rather, there are less complex noises than language that are used to communicate. Babies use these noises (crying, laughing, etc.) to get their points across.
(Yay, I'm the first comment!)
-Paige Walker-
I think this goes back to what was discussed over the summer with the whole 'taking away words, but still being able to understand the concept' thing. I don't want to have to go through that entire discussion again so I'm just going to lay it out straight. As long as there is some sort of extensional meaning to the word, then there it is possible to communicate about something, even if (as stated by Paige) it needs to be done through another method other than actually speaking.
Well, everyone responds to events/things they see differently since nothing 'stays the same' or no two people have the same nerve system, etc...
Plus I don't think that there can be an extensional map if we start to separate how we see(literally, through your eyes..the whole instantaneous process in which, you know, image goes through the nerve system..and all that bio stuff) and what we see(the image itself). I know I don't make a lot of sense here but I don't understand how people see something without all that electrical and chemical events in their brains. My point is that what is exactly the extensional map and how can one define/distinguish it if he assumes his brain and nerves do not transfer the right image? People are responding to the real objects but their semantic background cause them to think differently. I think people see the same picture but they just interpret it differently. And my idea about the colorblind person is that the colorblind person sees the right image but his nerve or something is disfunctioning, therefore he responds differently to the received info.
Ask me in person if I confused you. My brain and my fingers had hard time communicating today -_-
(Jennifer Park)
What is meant by the word "consciousness"? That, I believe, is the basis of the argument at hand. Is a baby considered conscious merely because its eyes are open and its heart is beating, or is a baby considered conscious only when it speaks intelligibly using what we call "language" in order to communicate itself to the rest of the world?
(Emily Thompson)
Perhaps one definition could be awareness but not necessarily (almost) full understanding of language and other symbols. Thus, we differentiate between baby puppies and human babies without recognizing a baby as on par with a fully developed adult.
Grace Yuan
Post a Comment