8 Answers

  1. God forbid anyone should try to prove anything until they have clear definitions.
    For physiologists, consciousness = the waking state, for phenomenologists, consciousness = qualia (subjective experience), in Freudianism, consciousness = ego, in the cultural-historical approach, consciousness = interiorized socio-cultural experience, etc.etc. Examples can be multiplied for quite a long time. And each approach implies its own method of verification, proof and argumentation, although they all speak about their own and each point of view is not reducible to another. There is only one conclusion: before (experimentally) proving the existence of consciousness (or subconsciousness/unconsciousness), it is necessary to understand WHAT we are looking for and WHERE we are looking.

    By the way, if you are interested in this topic, I recommend reading the works of V. M. Allakhverdov. Not only is he the author of an original concept of consciousness, but he also has a fairly well-developed concept of the cognitive unconscious, which is elegantly confirmed experimentally. The issue is not yet closed for science, but the position of Viktor Mikhailovich, at least, deserves attention.

  2. Depends on who =))

    To prove the existence of something, you must first understand what we call proof. And also, very preferably, existence.

    It doesn't hurt to define a supposedly existing object, although you can specify it in the process.

    You can prove the existence of your own consciousness to yourself; depending on the desired rigor, it can take years. For example, you can repeat Descartes ' meditation.

    Proving the existence of the unconscious is also relatively easy. It is more difficult to understand how much it belongs to you. Or what is yours and what is not (collective).

    Neurophysiology is not an assistant in this case, since the nervous system does not belong to the “I”. It exists as an ” extended object “(as opposed to consciousness and the unconscious) and belongs to the “material world”. Like a chair – which can only be yours in some aspects (legal, for example). That is, the dispute “between Freud and Jung” is experimentally unsolvable.

    As for the existence of the consciousness of others, this is a more complex question. Descartes, in particular, did not cope with it (but nothing prevents you from lowering the” bar ” of rigor).

    The existence of speech and the second signal system does not strictly prove that others have consciousness either. In the Turing test, which you probably know, it was assumed that in principle a person can distinguish a human conscious reaction from a deliberately unconscious reaction of a machine. However, this is not necessarily the case (moreover, John Searle proved that this is basically impossible – but we will fight again).

  3. That's not how it works. Consciousness, subconsciousness, and the collective unconscious are just words that we use to describe things that we can fully observe. Since we observe them, there is no need to prove their existence. And what to call them is a matter of agreements, that is, again, there is no place for evidence here.

    The nature of these phenomena is unclear to us. Here there is a place to prove that this or that hypothesis is true.

    It is also unclear whether there is no more convenient way to agree on what phenomena we see – because it is possible to divide what we observe into elements in different ways. But this is still a matter of agreement, not proof.

  4. Did you take up the development of the collective unconscious according to our Karl Gustav Jung and other Freudians?

    Then I can advise you to study the works of such a representative of Russian cosmism as Daniil Andreev.

    If you can prove the existence of the collective unconscious-write, it is interesting to get acquainted.


  5. By analyzing mental processes and behavior, identifying what manifests itself within and outside the boundaries of rules, formal structures, and laws.

  6. Proof of the existence of consciousness: 1) bioevolution to homo sapiens; 2)the history of mankind that we have studied; 3)the present state of human development and all aspects of human life and activity; 4) the aspiration of humanity to the future, prospects for human development. The other two terms are unprovable, since they are always special cases of consciousness itself.

  7. It is not necessary to prove the existence of consciousness to the carrier of this consciousness itself, because it is obvious. It is impossible to prove the existence of consciousness in another person on the one hand (see the topic “philosophical zombies”) on the other hand, it does not need to be proved, because the acceptance of the existence of consciousness in others is dictated by our fundamental habits and needs of everyday life.

  8. It's so simple, you need to take the original source. Someone introduced the same concepts, here is the one who introduced these concepts rather and proved, otherwise what did he (they) call then with these words:)).

Leave a Reply