Define Consiousness

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

Someone might find it dim because they are relatively blind, another might have already been there and therefore finds it ["Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness"] almost trivial.

Since I can't seem to find the actual content of the statement, I can't evaluate it one way or the other.

If you find it without any merit, I apologize for wasting your time.

Don't worry about it, really. That horse was out of the barn the moment I first chose to click on the thread, I'm afraid. I don't know why I do it.

I don't want to make complex numbers the starting point here

I'm with you there. I think you've put your finger right on the problem: finding a good starting point. This obviously isn't the first time you've given this subject any thought, and I feel like I got dumped right into the middle somewhere. Tortured discussions have led some of us here to conclude (as suggested several places above) that this question is unresolvable, but not worth resolving anyway. Fresh approaches really are welcomed here, even if some of us could maybe work on how we do that. If you really do have a fresh approach (and so far, that at least looks promising) maybe you should start somewhere closer to your axioms.

 

[Just thinking]

OK, I'm a bit late in coming on board, but I'll take a stab at it.

As mamals, we have the ability to perceive things very acutely. We can study movement, shape, and a host of other properties. But we, unlike any other animal that I can think of, have the ability to perceive that we are perceiving. This gives us a third person's point-of-view towards ourselves. This ability gives rise (in my opinion) to what we define as consciousness; nothing more that a higher level of brain activity of something we (and other animals) already posess. In reflecting this perception back on ourselves we not only see a house as being a house (such as an animal may look upon it as its home, and head towards it) but we understand that we are looking at a house. We perceive that we are perceiving it.

I know, it gets very clumsy with the wording, but I think it's nothing new to anyone that the brain has different levels of awareness. On the totally subconscious level the brain is processing information it perceives via the body so that it can properly control the heart rate, breathing rate, body temperature, etc. We are certainly not always aware of these perceptions. On some higher level of perception, the brain processes visual and aural information, but this would make only minimal sense to us without the highest level of perception. The ability to realize (or perceive) that we are processing this information; the ability to not just recognize sounds or images when we again see them, but to realize that we are hearing/seeing them, and then use them as symbols for speach, music and language.

This may be all consciousness is, the ability to perceive ourselves.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Re: Re: Well...

If said accusation is offered inclusively, I'll take that as a friendly welcome of some obscure sort. There is room for playful irony in my notions, but if you don't mind, can we err on the side of being serious here about the topic? Also, I note that irony seen is often in the eye of the beholder... and thus more illusory than "real".

As for the overt question, since we are both following Dynamic's lead here (you per your other recent post), would you mind showing us how your questioning inference followed from what you quoted? While I might have some clues about what it means to you, the obvious terminlogical differences cry out for justification. I thought I had taken a particular aspect of a general matter and elaborated the semi-formal structure of the linguistic transformations I had previously presented.



Thanks!


ME

Okay, here goes. It was getting late last night so I didn't quite see what you did there but it is to my amazament even stranger than I thought, and apparently not ironical.

Anyway, as I see now, you've got that first equation which says consciousness is the vector product of sensation and awareness.
This already is an analogy that does not clarify anything to me, but you might persuade me.
Then you go on using some information operator on the whole equation, stating that the information-transformed of consciousness (Ci) equals the vector product of being informed and becoming informed, which clarifies even less for me.
Then with some mystery transformation, that I mislabeled multiplication, you end up with condsciousness again. This would mean that you have just back-transformed it to the initial equation, but in stead it now equals the vector product of becoming and being. But of course, this is allowed, since "the context is known explicitly".

You might ask: "Where is this going, dear H'ethetheth?" to which I'd say:"Nowhere, that's where."

The point is, you can use an analogy from math, or physics or whatever, as long as it clarifies your statement a great deal. An you certainly can not calculate things from an analogy.

regards,

H'ethetheth

Edited to correct spelling

 

[Mr. E]

Re: Re: Well...

Okay, I'll be the first one to call it. "Mystery," go play games elsewhere and don't waste our time with pure bullsh.

Hi Bill. Was that necessary? Perhaps my reply which caught your attention was overly wordy, but I'm aiming for formality for at least two reasons.


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Since I can't seem to find the actual content of the statement, I can't evaluate it one way or the other.
[...] I feel like I got dumped right into the middle somewhere. Tortured discussions have led some of us here to conclude (as suggested several places above) that this question is unresolvable, but not worth resolving anyway. Fresh approaches really are welcomed here, even if some of us could maybe work on how we do that. If you really do have a fresh approach (and so far, that at least looks promising) maybe you should start somewhere closer to your axioms.

I'm not sure about 'actual content' as you use it but formal structures often seem to lack content at first glance. The actuality of consciousness seems to me to be found in both the Becoming aspect and the synthesis aspect. How consciousness relates to will is something I can't yet express well (so I'm putting it off for the time being). Besides that, my first post attempted to give some measure of meaning to the definition, so taking one sentence out of context might be part of what leaves it lacking in content. You said that it didn't have much "light", so I asked how much it did have for you. While I recognize 'light' jokes in the context of consciousness, I tried to take your question seriously, too.

I'm quite open to the possibility that this is a total waste of time ("not worth resolving anyway") but I don't start with that preference nor that assumption. At the very least it's exercise of the mind (and typing practice!) for me and maybe others.

As for axioms, I don't have a specific formal axiomatic system worked out. I start with language, common usage, and attempt to refine my vocabulary so that I can become confident of what the heck I'm saying whether or not other people immediately get it. I find that vocabulary refinement has a corollary effect on concepts too. That definition (re 'consciousness') is one result of my practice which I thought to share here.

I was asked to explain how I got from Sensation x Awareness to Being x Becoming. Did my symbolic attempt help at all, or maybe... the request was a red herring?

Maybe my "axioms" would be something like:

Reality is synthetic.
Being and Becoming are handy basis elements to start with.
Clarity is valuable.
The world is complex.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

You might ask: "Where is this going, dear H'ethetheth?" to which I'd say:"Nowhere, that's where."

The point is, you can use an analogy from math, or physics or whatever, as long as it clarifies your statement a great deal. An you certainly can not calculate things from an analogy.

Well, this seems to be getting a bit off topic, but... Can one calculate things to an analogy? Can one make "hyper-calculations" from/on an analogy? Why/not? Did you mean cannot?

I'll take your comments as feedback that the analogy didn't work for you. But I don't know whether to infer that the statement was pretty darn clear by itself (it is at least modestly clear to me but that's not the point) [and thus the analogy was not needed], or by contrast whether the whole notion of Synthetic Consciousness is practically opaque as presented [and thus the analogy is not nearly enough].


ME

 

[Jeff Corey]

...Maybe my "axioms" would be something like:

Reality is synthetic.
Being and Becoming are handy basis elements to start with.
Clarity is valuable.
The world is complex.

ME

That sure didn't clarify things for me.
Why is reality synthetic? Sounds like an oxymoron.
What is "Becoming" and why is it capitalized?
Clarity would be valuable, if it were.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

Well, this seems to be getting a bit off topic, but... Can one calculate things to an analogy? Can one make "hyper-calculations" from/on an analogy? Why/not? Did you mean cannot?

I'll take your comments as feedback that the analogy didn't work for you. But I don't know whether to infer that the statement was pretty darn clear by itself (it is at least modestly clear to me but that's not the point) [and thus the analogy was not needed], or by contrast whether the whole notion of Synthetic Consciousness is practically opaque as presented [and thus the analogy is not nearly enough].


ME

You've taken my comments the right way then. =)

What I'm driving at about the analogy business is twofold.
First of all an analogy should be simpler to grasp than the original issue. Something to the effect of: "consciousness is like anuses, everybody's got one"
I.e. something that appeals to a wider range of people and of experience. So from the world of language, which is widely shared, you take the problem to the world of vector calculus, which appeals to a very much narrower public.
Secondly you calculate, and conclude something by this analogy, and assume that language or psychology works like vector calculus. Which would be in my previous analogy: Activities of the anus generally concern things that pass through it, therefore consciousness generally concerns things that pass through it. The outcome may be true, but the argument is complete bunk.

So try to find an analogy that doesn't concern math, but appeals to me in a direct way, and I will try to understand.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Well...

Hi Bill. Was that necessary? Perhaps my reply which caught your attention was overly wordy, but I'm aiming for formality for at least two reasons.


ME

Yeah, it was, "Mystery." You're spouting crank oil, here. Let's first disabuse you of your "false erudition" notion that you've got anything that can be called "formal" in this pap. How arrogant, you sot. I'll help you spell out the two reasons for your "formality" in an equally "formal" and equally "mathematical" fashion.

U = IQ( Roasted Peanut)

You do the "math."

Either grow up or go away, netcompoop.

 

[BillHoyt]

Do tell us, Mystery, all about the vector terms in your cross product:

o What is the meaning of length for these particular vectors?

o What is the meaning of direction for these particular vectors?

o If consciousness is the cross product, then what is the dot product?

o Why?

o What is the basis set here?

o Is it an orthogonal basis set? Why or why not?

o Is it a linearly independent basis set?

o If not, what is the meaning on the non-independence for this basis set?

o Please show us the basis set and how it can be Gramm-Schmidt orthogonalized.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

"hyper-calculations"

I just go orgasmic when you whisper that pseudocrankjargon in my ear. "Hypercalculation." Oooo, that tickles. Tee hee hee.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

I just go orgasmic when you whisper that pseudocrankjargon in my ear. "Hypercalculation." Oooo, that tickles. Tee hee hee.

Now now, let's hear him out on either an analogy involving obscene bodily functions or vector calculus, and then burn him.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

Now now, let's hear him out on either an analogy involving obscene bodily functions or vector calculus, and then burn him.

How about obscenely bodacious abuse of vector math? (By the way, this netwit has not gone into vector calculus yet. It would be intriguing to watch the contorted effort that would surely result.)

 

[Mr. E]

The other side of the Well....

Either grow up or go away, netcompoop.

Hi Bill. Thanks for making your preference for vulgar humor crystal clear to me quickly. It's trivially easy to make fun of ones own (mis)conceptions, but I frankly don't see the serious aspect of your posts in this subthread on the topic nor do I see quality critical thinking evident in your replies to me. For instance, I offered an optional math-based analogy. Hey dude, it's an analogy, don't go nuts treating it as anything else! I said I was aiming for formality, and you get a big laugh by ignoring the "aiming for" part. And so on. Whatever. Have a fun day!

Maybe it's my lack that I can't see the serious side of your posts here, so don't take it personally please. They only look like trivial distractions to me, but I didn't want to rudely ignore them from the outset.


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well...

You've taken my comments the right way then. =)
[...] So try to find an analogy that doesn't concern math, but appeals to me in a direct way, and I will try to understand.

I'll keep that in mind, thanks.

As for "garbage in, garbage out" and the like I don't have a problem with that notion in general but offer in response, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", something I already suggested.

As for analogies, I'd rather stick with the core idea that 'consciousness' be understood synthetically at this time, and to continue with the notion that sensation and awareness be taken not as relatively synonymous as they often seem to be, but to be taken as relatively complementary.


ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Well...

Well, on with the synthesis then.

What does systhesis of consciousness imply?

How is your final definition of consciousness any different from the several definitions already proposed? In fact, what is your definition in plain English? Keep in mind that I'm not a native speaker, so keep it simple.

e.g. my own (cough) proposal was : [...]consciousness is that which allows something to perceive and contemplate itself and its surroundings to a certain extent.

When you say: "synthesis of being and becoming" do you mean being and becoming in the general sense?
If so, or not so: What does that mean, and why did you choose to use it that way?

I don't think I ever thought of awareness and sensation as synonyms, why do you think many people do? quote if you have to.

These are just some of the questions I have when I try to understand your argument. So I guess you know at what level of confusion I find myself.
And let's keep away from analogies for a while, just to be on the safe side.
And finally: I in fact agree with most things BillyHoyt has said, but being new to these boards I still have a lot of patience, which, I could imagine, would wear off after a certain amount of bunk.
Then again, you might not want to spend too much time on these forums either, due to the decline of Starcraft skills mentioned elsewhere.

 

[Mr. E]

valuable "axioms" of consciousness

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reality is synthetic.
Being and Becoming are handy basis elements to start with.
Clarity is valuable.
The world is complex.

ME
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That sure didn't clarify things for me.
Why is reality synthetic? Sounds like an oxymoron.
What is "Becoming" and why is it capitalized?
Clarity would be valuable, if it were.

Hi Jeff.

Reality is synthetic because that's the way it works for me. Apparent oxymorons might be resolvable paradoxes in disguise. What is your concept of reality which suggests the notion is oxymoronic?

Becoming is a handy basis element; 'Becoming' is a noun in my vocabulary. It's complementary to Being. I didn't have much luck with my previous attempt at analogy, but let me offer a notion of the world as a double helix, with Being and Becoming wrapping around each other as time passes. The analogy isn't meant formally as a definition, only as something to think about in context. Things are and things change.

It's one of the "axioms" that Clarity is valuable. You may take it or leave it at that - if you don't accept it your thinking contributes as that of an outsider.

The point here is to try to get at a definition of consciousness which addresses the question of whether (and perhaps how) consciousness exists, per the Original Post. While I'm not against divulging more of my related thinking, I'd prefer not to go far off on tangents in that process.


ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: valuable "axioms" of consciousness

[...] Becoming is a handy basis element; 'Becoming' is a noun in my vocabulary. It's complementary to Being. I didn't have much luck with my previous attempt at analogy, but let me offer a notion of the world [...]

I'd prefer not to go far off on tangents in that process.

Hmmm, can't help it, but every time you say something that appears to convey some of your thoughts I find myself not having a clue to what it is you want to argue.
However, superficially I'd say that being and becoming need 'having been' as a complement for the world, regardless of what they have to do with consciousness. But that's all beside the point.

And this new analogy is as informative to me as the last one. So please, explain it to me like you would explain it to a three year old with an extraordinary interest in philosophy.

 

[Mr. E]

Re: Re: Well...

Well, on with the synthesis then.

What does systhesis of consciousness imply?

How is your final definition of consciousness any different from the several definitions already proposed? In fact, what is your definition in plain English? Keep in mind that I'm not a native speaker, so keep it simple.

e.g. my own (cough) proposal was : [...]consciousness is that which allows something to perceive and contemplate itself and its surroundings to a certain extent.

When you say: "synthesis of being and becoming" do you mean being and becoming in the general sense?
If so, or not so: What does that mean, and why did you choose to use it that way?

I don't think I ever thought of awareness and sensation as synonyms, why do you think many people do? quote if you have to.

You mean Starcraft the game? I don't work for Starcraft. Is this an "in joke" of some kind?

re RFQ: I recall reading in this thread something like

"sensation = awareness of body"

and I've seen similar constructions elsewhere. That could be taken to make sensation a particular subset of awareness in general. But then you simply end up with a pointless recursive understanding, a sort of Ouroborous swallowing its own tail...

re Being x Becoming: I meant that Awareness is a matter of being informed (traditional usage) and Sensation is a matter of becoming informed, as I thought I stated. It is via the senses that we might learn of the world, become informed of it. So while that isn't quite a traditional usage, I find it works well. I'm aiming for clear distinctions which border on but do not cross into the line of failed dichotomies. I also allow for other meanings of those two terms, but let's not muddy the waters here just yet.

re your own proposal: I don't see any important and necessary contradiction between yours and mine, but I value mine more! I find yours vague, informal, and indirect, no offense intended. How do you think your definition helps deal with the OP topic? (I may have missed your initial post here in my enthusiasm to post my own ideas. Got link?)

What is your native language? You use of English seems flawless to me.

re "different": I value clarity and compact complex definitions, that's one thing my notion might offer which I don't find immediately in other proposals. It's also manifestly different as a definition just by examing the terms!

re "sy[n]sthesis of consciousness": I don't quite know what you are asking. Synthesis of consciousness with what? Which synthesis within consciousness? My definition implies that consciousness is synthetic, that the "existence" of consciousness in the world relies on bringing together two complementary factors. It implies that consciousness is not something which has an independent and real "existence" of it's own, as tho' it were some undefinable necessity of the Universe. But it does not rule out the possibility that consciousness does exist.

What follows for you, from your definition, in this context?


ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

I'm going to sleep on this for a night. See if I understand it tomorrow.

Don't worry about the starcraft thing. It was something Dymanic mentioned somewhere up in this thread.
By the way, I'm dutch.