The Student Room Group

Is consciousness innate or a social product?

“Without the help of a verbal community all behavior would be unconscious. Consciousness is a social product. It is not only not the special field of autonomous man, it is not within the range of a solitary man.”

~ B.F. Skinner

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1
Original post by Iamyourfather
“Without the help of a verbal community all behavior would be unconscious. Consciousness is a social product. It is not only not the special field of autonomous man, it is not within the range of a solitary man.”

~ B.F. Skinner


Consciousness is innate and derives from the spirit.
The famous quote: "I think therefore I am" is incorrect,
it should be: "I am therefore I think".

Consciousness comes before everything .. in fact the Universe is itself one Consciousness.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by demx9
Consciousness is innate and derives from the spirit.


What do you mean by spirit?

Consciousness comes before everything .. in fact the Universe is itself one Consciousness.


How exactly is the universe a consciousness?
Original post by demx9
Consciousness is innate and derives from the spirit.
The famous quote: "I think therefore I am" is incorrect,
it should be: "I am therefore I think".

Consciousness comes before everything .. in fact the Universe is itself one Consciousness.

"I am therefore I think" is incorrect. Many things "are" yet do not "think" (at least, in our observations we have little reason to assume they do). Therefore it is not our "being" that is the cause of our thinking. "Being" does not universally cause "thinking" - so something else is the unique factor. From something being we cannot deduce that they think (as an intuitive argument it just doesn't work) - there are many counter-examples.

Descartes' point was not that thinking causes being. He meant that from the fact that we can think, we can deduce that we exist, which seems plausible and satisfactory to most minds. Though, likewise with the first point, I don't think he intends the thought that our "thinking" causes our "being".

As for the thread, I don't know - it depends what he means by "consciousness". I think it'd be quite hard to think without language, and hard to form an identity without other people (per Charles Taylor, I think we gain our identities dialogically - people are a mirror that help form our identities). Though this all seems to be a very narrow definition of what it is to be conscious. I think language (gained through the attempt to express to other people) is crucial to self-awareness though, for which I think there is a prior as well as empirical evidence.
Language is just an expression of consciousness.
Original post by Protagoras
Language is just an expression of consciousness.

It surely hinges on what you mean by "consciousness".

You're only able to think, speak and use language because you're "awake" or "alive"; but a better awareness of yourself is gained, I would suggest, through language. So our broader understanding of consciousness is innate, but our narrower understanding of consciousness is arguably a social product.
Original post by Iamyourfather
“Without the help of a verbal community all behavior would be unconscious. Consciousness is a social product. It is not only not the special field of autonomous man, it is not within the range of a solitary man.”

~ B.F. Skinner


Skinner also thought language was a learned behaviour, like driving. I am wary to trust anything he said.
Original post by Protagoras
Language is just an expression of consciousness.


What on Earth does that mean?
Reply 8
If by "consciousness" you mean "awareness", then I find it hard to see how language/social interaction is necessary.
Reply 9
Well philosophy is useless in the first place.. its all mental speculation without evidence, so I don't know what you're complaining about tbh.
Original post by Kurraiyo
If by "consciousness" you mean "awareness", then I find it hard to see how language/social interaction is necessary.


Doesn't consciousness (in the relevant sense) mean 'self-awareness'? I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think it goes beyond mere awareness.
Original post by demx9
Well philosophy is useless in the first place.. its all mental speculation without evidence, so I don't know what you're complaining about tbh.


Because all mental speculation is useless... Enjoy your life as a useful drone.
Reply 12
Original post by TurboCretin
Because all mental speculation is useless... Enjoy your life as a useful drone.


useful drone.. to who ?
Original post by demx9
useful drone.. to who ?


Well, if your only object of learning is utility then I'd presume you'd aim to be useful to somebody.
Reply 14
Original post by TurboCretin
Well, if your only object of learning is utility then I'd presume you'd aim to be useful to somebody.


Well then first read my first quote in the thread and the reply of thereistoomuchlove to get a context.
Original post by demx9
Well then first read my first quote in the thread and the reply of thereistoomuchlove to get a context.


I just gave it a read and it was enlightening. I may have misinterpreted, but are you agreeing with thereistoomuchlove that your contributions are worse than useless?
Reply 16
Original post by TurboCretin
I just gave it a read and it was enlightening. I may have misinterpreted, but are you agreeing with thereistoomuchlove that your contributions are worse than useless?


Fundamentally I do agree they are useless as not verifiable. But calling my ideas stupid is funny on a philosophy forum where all the ideas could be consequently called stupid.
Original post by demx9
Fundamentally I do agree they are useless as not verifiable. But calling my ideas stupid is funny on a philosophy forum where all the ideas could be consequently called stupid.


They weren't useless because they weren't verifiable - plenty of things are useful simply because there is consensus over them. They were useless because they weren't meaningful.
Reply 18
If the quote refers to consciousness as "awareness", then as pointed above, I would strongly disagree this is a social construct. However I would prefer to look at the quote from a "nature versus nurture" perspective, in which Skinner is arguing for the extreme nurture side, by stating that our consciousness, in this case defined in terms of behaviour, language, and perhaps knowledge (shared knowledge) is a product of society and therefore of the way we were raised. Interpreted in this way it might not appear as outrageous of a statement as the first interpretation.

Regarding the computer network example above, it is an interesting point to make, and it becomes very difficult to pin exactly what is meant by consciousness, I think we only really know that we are conscious, as pointed out by Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" I think therefore I am, and by induction we assume that other people, given they act, speak and react similarly to us, must have a consciousness as well, however this assumption cannot be proven logically, it is taken upon faith and "common sense". It becomes even more interesting when we consider the computer system "consciousness" possibility, and more importantly the "Zombie" possibility, where people around us act, speak, and do the same actions as us, but do not in fact have a consciousness, it is impossible to distinguish from a "zombie" and a normal human being (this is a mental exercise, I am not realistically suggesting zombies). However zombies require the acceptance of something known as "Cartesian dualism", the belief that mind and body are separate things, it would be impossible to have a zombie with an identical body but a different mind, if the mind was present physically in the body, the difference would be observable.
(I had a longer message, but for some reason TSR failed to send the bastard thing)

He's making the same mistakes solipsists make when saying this; he claims that he knows the minds of others, when only the individual can really give an honest answer as to their condition. There's no necessary link between consciousness and language; although without expression you could claim we'd be without civilisation and subsequently little other than animals, that doesn't preclude the idea of conciousness in man.

Quick Reply

Latest