Is my spinal cord conscious?

[pErvinalia]

The toenail is obviously not likely to have consciousness. It would seem reasonable to assume that neurons are necessary for it. So that brings the spinal cord (and stomach and heart, on a smaller scale) into it.

[Jason]

It's what experiences the redness of a red balloon. It's a concept, an abstraction. It doesn't really matter what it is, in the context of this specific OP. You only have to accept the scenario that my spinal cord is a conscious "self" to comment on the OP. If you won't accept that, then you can't really comment on the OP.

That's rather apt, actually, seeing as the belief in a Self is based on a conventional abstraction. There's no more Self in the spinal cord than in a toenail, as far as I can tell. The belief in the Self is the ultimate religious belief to be overcome, imo.

Sounds a bit Buddhist to me.

[JimC]

A penis may have a certain degree of consciousness, although rather a one-track one...

[mistermack]

I think you're talking about the soul. It suffers if you commit a sin. Even if you don't give a toss.

Anyway, it's chord, not cord.

We are chordates. Except for Americans, who are obviously spineless, and can't spel.

[FBM]

The toenail is obviously not likely to have consciousness. It would seem reasonable to assume that neurons are necessary for it. So that brings the spinal cord (and stomach and heart, on a smaller scale) into it.

Are you equating Self with consciousness?

[FBM]

It's what experiences the redness of a red balloon. It's a concept, an abstraction. It doesn't really matter what it is, in the context of this specific OP. You only have to accept the scenario that my spinal cord is a conscious "self" to comment on the OP. If you won't accept that, then you can't really comment on the OP.

That's rather apt, actually, seeing as the belief in a Self is based on a conventional abstraction. There's no more Self in the spinal cord than in a toenail, as far as I can tell. The belief in the Self is the ultimate religious belief to be overcome, imo.

Sounds a bit Buddhist to me.

[pErvinalia]

I think you're talking about the soul. It suffers if you commit a sin. Even if you don't give a toss.

Anyway, it's chord, not cord.

We are chordates. Except for Americans, who are obviously spineless, and can't spel.

Damnit! That's what I had originally, but Hermit made me second guess myself.

[pErvinalia]

The toenail is obviously not likely to have consciousness. It would seem reasonable to assume that neurons are necessary for it. So that brings the spinal cord (and stomach and heart, on a smaller scale) into it.

Are you equating Self with consciousness?

In this case, yes. And I've been through this already. To talk of a subjective experience requires a self. Otherwise it's a nonsensical idea.

[pErvinalia]

A penis may have a certain degree of consciousness, although rather a one-track one...

actually, you don't have to play along, because if you did, we'd just end up agreeing and we'd turn this into a typical ratz thread and soon we'd be discussing conscious tits and dicks and the like...

[pErvinalia]

I think you're talking about the soul.

I'm not talking about the soul. I'm talking about the subjective experience of pain.

[Hermit]

I think you're talking about the soul. It suffers if you commit a sin. Even if you don't give a toss.

Anyway, it's chord, not cord.

We are chordates. Except for Americans, who are obviously spineless, and can't spel.

Damnit! That's what I had originally, but Hermit made me second guess myself.

The second-guess is the right one. Google for "spinal chord" and see what you get.

[FBM]

The toenail is obviously not likely to have consciousness. It would seem reasonable to assume that neurons are necessary for it. So that brings the spinal cord (and stomach and heart, on a smaller scale) into it.

Are you equating Self with consciousness?

In this case, yes. And I've been through this already. To talk of a subjective experience requires a self. Otherwise it's a nonsensical idea.

And how do you decide based on empirical evidence that it's not a nonsensical idea?

[pErvinalia]

Sheesh, you are becoming a pain in the arse. It's got nothing to do with empiricism or science. It's in the bloody definitions. What do you think "subjective" means?

[FBM]

Alright. Back to reading John Stuart Mill it is.

[pErvinalia]

I just get the feeling you are trying to walk me to an unexpected revelation that I am really a dualist. But I'm most definitely not. The problem with talking about consciousness is that it has a broad definition. You can go from "awake" and "simple awareness" at one end, to qualia at the other end. Essentially I'm talking about the "hard problem" of consciousness (i.e. qualia, subjective experience etc), whereas you seem to be using the "easy problem" definition of consciousness. Now, I know that it's apparently cool to consider that there is no "hard problem" of consciousness, but until we have more empirical evidence, suggestions that there's not subjective experience based around a feeling of "self" are simply speculation. Remember, "self" is a concept/abstraction. It doesn't have to be a real thing that we can isolate and poke and prod. And the reason why it is a valid concept is why us atheists and existentialists adopt ethics and morals.

In my mind, consciousness makes no sense without the concept of "self". Everything living has "awareness", and if that's your basis for what is conscious, then you either need to stop eating plants, or keep eating them and accept that it's morally ok to kill humans as well.

So, like I intimated before, this is really a topic about ethics, hidden in a strange sounding thought experiment. What is consciousness, and what is the difference between the human brain and the spinal cord? What is the difference between the human brain and the brain of an ant? What about a cow, or what about a liver fluke?