Define Consiousness

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Re: Re: H'ethetheth's interpretation of ME's notion

Heh.

re vulgarity: I see that your post has many flowers of distraction, and little if any seeds of the topic.

True, but I still think there is a lesson to be learned.

On topic. Dancing David proposed that the "seer behind the sight" is illusory and that there is nothing but the processes that create this illusion (correct me if I'm wrong David).
My view on that is basically that it is irrelevant whether there is a real seer behind the sight. An illusory seer, in this case the 'self' is just as well defined, even though it is an illusion. (or as some believe an eternal, seperate entity)
So my answer to the original question was:
Consciousness is whatever it is that enables beings to perceive and contemplate themselves and their surroundings. Then I added "to a certain extent" because no being can preceive or contemplate itself or its surroundings completely.

PS -". What is "product", that is, how do you mean it since your reject the math analogy? "

The product I mean is the one you can look up in a dictionary. My dusty old Websters 'new' collegiate dictionary from 1961 says
1. anything produced, as by generation, growth, labor, or thought.
2. The amount, quantity, or total produced
etc. ...something from chemistry
...something from math

I mean number 1.

re "complicated language": There is a big difference between 'complicated' and 'complex', for me. Since, in my view, consciousness is complex, a good definition should reflect that.

I agree that complicated matters do sometimes require detailed and clear definitions that are otherwise unnecessary. However you seem to have gone out of your way to supply us with confusing analogies, tangents, answers to questions nobody asked and the like.
So I stand by my statement that starting out with a somewhat simplified statement is better than starting by getting people to think about what vector calculus has to do with consciousness.

What is unduly complicated about the language of
"Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness."?

What's complicated is that from normal language there is no way to know how to synthesise awareness and sensation. I cannot relate this statement to anything I know in my world.
You could have started out with stored information and information on its way to become stored or something to that effect.

Sorry if it's not my nature to pander to three-year-old mentalities. It's been quite a while since I was around kids of that age.

For me too, but I find way to imagine myself in the position, and I suggest you try this. I think you'll find it works on old people too.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

Psychological projection is more a pathology of consciousness than a path to self-enlightenment.

Whatever it is, I still say it's all we've got. Since it runs on automatic, I'm not sure it's meaningful to refer to it as a 'path', exactly. Any motives it has are evolution's motives. Self-enlightenment, if it occurs at all, is a by-product. The primary purpose is a working approximation another person's internal processes. Toward this end, it is necessary to be sensitive to errors, and to make adjustments where necessary. Inability or refusal to do this is what is pathological (which for me ultimately means behaviorally non-functional within a specific context). Performing this important reconfiguration often involves making distinctions between information supplied through observation and information supplied by intuition. The latter type has a way of creeping unnoticed into our calculations, coming under scrutiny only when we have been forced by an unacceptably high rate of observable error to be thorough in our search for unexamined assumptions. The nature of this process is introspective, and therefore these discoveries are, as you put it, self-enlightening.

An empathy organ?

Precisely.

I'm still waiting for your standards please.

What if anything remains unclear about the definition, after my recent reply to your test case?

Is all knowledge derived entirely from the senses, or does this 'being informed' allow for the possibility of a priori knowledge?

If we don't both have the same goal in mind, we may end up getting in each other's way(s) or worse.

I'm not even sure we both have a 'goal' in the same sense. I have so often found that I ended up somewhere other than where I thought I was going that I usually just figure I won't know where I'm going till I get there. I'm lucky if I can remember where I've been.

 

[Mr. E]

conscience

I am politely maintaining that that awareness is actualy many different processes which we define as 'awareness' but i feel there is no transubstantial self to be 'aware'. We might choose to label many different things as 'awareness' but they are still just a myriad of seperate things.

And again awareness of self would be what?

The visual perception of yourself in a mirror?
The cognitive recognition that that reflection is similar to the last time you looked in a mirror?

If conscious people are equipped with a built-in monitor by which they might know what they believe, how would this function not qualify in some part as the basis for building an "awareness of self"? We don't have to equate self = beliefs, only recognize some proximal relationship.

It's traditional to use 'conscience' in the context of moral issues, but isn't it more than that?

How do you know what you believe? I postulate that all such knowledge has an emotional component.

The "mirror" here is nothing like what hangs on the wall.

ME

PS - As I've indicated elsewhere, awareness and consciousness are distinguishable in principle.

 

[Mr. E]

Whatever it is, I still say it's all we've got. Since it runs on automatic, I'm not sure it's meaningful to refer to it as a 'path', exactly.

Deterministic systems are not said to follow paths? Evolution might not be strictly meaningful (as tho' the universe had meaning in everything), but other than that I don't see your point.

Any motives it has are evolution's motives. Self-enlightenment, if it occurs at all, is a by-product. The primary purpose is a working approximation another person's internal processes. Toward this end, it is necessary to be sensitive to errors, and to make adjustments where necessary. Inability or refusal to do this is what is pathological (which for me ultimately means behaviorally non-functional within a specific context).

Fair enough. The other aspect of the pathology is more conversational.

The nature of this process is introspective, and therefore these discoveries are, as you put it, self-enlightening.

Trial and error isn't strictly introspective, especially re behavior of other people.

Is all knowledge derived entirely from the senses, or does this 'being informed' allow for the possibility of a priori knowledge?

Since we haven't got an agreed upon definition of 'knowledge' and I'm not clear on how you are using 'a priori', I'm not sure. If you mean it in the sense of 'innate' then I think my reply to your hypothetical answered Yes to the latter. Empirical knowledge would seem to be a product of the senses in combination with prior awareness. As mature individuals we might backtrack conceptually, in effect trying to subtract out a posteriori effects, towards a grasp of the a priori which we might then postulate as a necessary basis.

I'm not even sure we both have a 'goal' in the same sense. I have so often found that I ended up somewhere other than where I thought I was going that I usually just figure I won't know where I'm going till I get there. I'm lucky if I can remember where I've been.

purpose = goal in mind

If your contributions to this thread are purposeless, I think we are done. Thanks for the exercise.


ME

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

Deterministic systems are not said to follow paths?

Wait, wait. Who said anything about deterministic? One can of worms at a time, please.

Evolution might not be strictly meaningful (as tho' the universe had meaning in everything), but other than that I don't see your point.

That was my point.

Trial and error isn't strictly introspective, especially re behavior of other people.

I say that all our attempts to understand others are extrapolations from our own qualities, whether we have examined those or not. If we have not, they are used implicitly (whether this qualifies as 'strictly introspective' is a point I am willing to concede).

Since we haven't got an agreed upon definition of 'knowledge'

I was thinking we could maybe use 'knowledge' and 'information' more or less interchangeably. Of course, we haven't got an agreed upon definition of 'information' either.

and I'm not clear on how you are using 'a priori', I'm not sure.

I mean synthetic (as opposed to analytic) a priori knowledge; that which preceeds experience.

If you mean it in the sense of 'innate' then I think my reply to your hypothetical answered Yes to the latter.

Let's review your answer:

"If there is such a thing as genetic memory, that is that people are born with minimal memories which are implanted genetically, perhaps like a kernel (in contrast to the "tabula rasa" notion), then there might be at least minimal grounds for awareness, tho' again not objects of consciousness in the usual sense/terms."

Is that what you're calling a 'yes'?

Empirical knowledge would seem to be a product of the senses in combination with prior awareness.

Uh... no. 'Empirical' refers to that which is known through use of the senses, in contrast to that which is known a priori.

As mature individuals we might backtrack conceptually, in effect trying to subtract out a posteriori effects, towards a grasp of the a priori which we might then postulate as a necessary basis.

That may be the most interesting thing you've said so far.

purpose = goal in mind

That is an extremely limited view. I think of it as an exploration of unknown territory.

 

[BillHoyt]

Mystery,

Stop evading questions. You put forth your "formal" math definition using vector cross products. So answer the questions if you can:

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]

Crank Oil Countdown : 2 Days

On 4 September, at 2:09pm, this crank oil was spilled on the JREF forum:

Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness.

If you know vector math you might consider the cross-product, for a beginners analogy. If you know the common usage and muddled dictionary definitions which attempt to reflect and guide such usages, you will see some truth in this definition relative to those vague and ambiguous standards.

On 5 September, at 9:34am, I challenged the false erudition in the crank's use of vector cross products. In my post above, I have repeated the questions for, now, the third time. They have been evaded each and every time.

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Back to basics

Good to hear from you.

Your post as I read it seems to confuse awareness with consciousness, the latter being the original topic.

You admit activated memories, but deny awareness. What is awarness if it isn't largely a matter of being informed, having memories, whether active or latent?

Discrete? What fills the gaps between "them"?

I think what you are getting at is the rejection of the notion of a little person inside the person, a "homunculus". If so, I'm pretty much okay with that (but not 100.00000%). I'm not arguing against that point. But I don't get that those things are entirely separable from each other in practice. You make it sound as if the items you list are pieces in a jigsaw puzzle each of which exists independently, discretely, of the others. Is that how you meant "discrete"?


ME

I will ask you what I have asked others, give me an example of awareness or consciousness and it can most likely be reduced to seperate events.

I agree that the neural network is interdependant upon itself, and that it can be synergistic.

However, I will continue to maintain that there is no special event that is awareness, there is no special event that is consciousness.

Activated memories are awareness how? They are memories and they are reverie and they are partly made up 'consciously' and mostly made up 'unconsiously'. They are an experience of the brain (I believe), we can cogitate about them and describe them, but they are not on the plane that immaterialists would like to ascribe to the vacuos 'consciousness'.

 

[BillHoyt]

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.

"Think about" what? The only property you've analogized here is the intertwining. But what else do you want to suggest with the choice of a double helix? Surely you don't mean that being and becoming are perfectly complementary. Are you unaware that complementarity in the double-helix means that one strand is a kind of mirror image of the other?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

How do you know what you believe?

So far, I like some of your questions better than most of your answers. This one I overlooked earlier.

How do I know what I believe? My first response is: I don't. I can't. That is, unless I have some special reason to look for it, I am not likely to notice what I believe; my implicit inference engines work their magic with complete transparency, and (usually) I act on their results without realizing I have done so. I can try to deconstruct their results, searching for clues as to their axioms, methods, etc -- but any such search is itself tainted from the start; subject to the very same limitation that inspired it to begin with: the parameters of any search I perform come predetermined by what I already believe! The things my implicit inference engines consider least important are not handed up labeled: "unimportant"; they aren't handed up at all! This is WICKEDLY recursive. Time constraints alone will prevent me from selecting for examination more that a pitiful few of these intuitive insights for closer examination, and the process of selecting those important enough to warrant that will be performed by... the implicit inference engines themselves, of course. Which are subject to, if anything, even tighter time constraints. Which means they would need inference engines of their own...

"Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into, Ollie."*






*Celebrity voice impersonated

 

[Mr. E]

Wait, wait. Who said anything about deterministic? One can of worms at a time, please.

You disputed "path" on account of something being automatic. I raised the stakes to see if you had meant anything. Apparently you didn't. That said, I am sympathetic to the notion of limiting the scope of our inquiry for the time being as you will see below.

That was my point.I say that all our attempts to understand others are extrapolations from our own qualities, whether we have examined those or not.

Interpolations, too, if I get "extrapolation". We come to understand "other" and others via observation, experiment, and introspection - reflecting on our own values for instance.

I was thinking we could maybe use 'knowledge' and 'information' more or less interchangeably.

Some people think we can use 'conscious' and 'aware' more or less interchangeably, too, when they mean something else entirely. We can have pillow fights in which fluff is batted around, or we can have fencing matches wherein the knife of distinction is wielded artfully, with an eye to engaging in critical thinking. Both can be paths to clarity. My personal process is more a matter of formalizing the informal.

Of course, we haven't got an agreed upon definition of 'information' either.

To quote an eminent authority: "Precisely." How many unknowns do we need to juggle (postulate) here at once in order to coherently explore the relatively unknown (that IS your purpose here?)? Does the added term muddle or clarify? I don't yet see the serious light it offers here. Occam's razor, please.

I mean synthetic (as opposed to analytic) a priori knowledge; that which preceeds experience.

That's odd. As I pointed out there are two "preceeds" here. And you seem to be equating 'propositions' with 'knowledge', too.

Let's review your answer: "If there is such a thing as genetic memory, that is that people are born with minimal memories which are implanted genetically, perhaps like a kernel (in contrast to the "tabula rasa" notion), then there might be at least minimal grounds for awareness, tho' again not objects of consciousness in the usual sense/terms."

Is that what you're calling a 'yes'?

I believe that is a/the possibility you asked about, yes.

Uh... no. 'Empirical' refers to that which is known through use of the senses, in contrast to that which is known a priori.

Why do you say 'no' when you seem to be restating what I meant as I meant it? Did you mean "preceeds" in the sense of 'innate' (eg., chronologically) or in the other way?

That may be the most interesting thing you've said so far.

Besides a pathetic pat on the back (thanks, I guess), I don't see you showing any interest in it at all here. What interested you about it, what can you make of it that you can share publicly?

[re: definition of 'purpose' as 'goal in mind'] That is an extremely limited view. I think of it as an exploration of unknown territory.

"That" was simply a definition of a term to help clarify a point. Without purpose, meaning is weak. Is there clarity without focus? Accidents might be how evolution proceeds, but is that the best we have here?

ME

PS - I hope this isn't what you meant by "the usual quagmire" -- I realize that our replies are becoming a bit choppy...

 

[BillHoyt]

Stop evading questions, Mystery Oil. The list is growing:


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.

o Are these vectors complementary in the same way the strands of the double-helix are complementary?

 

[BillHoyt]

Caught you looking, Mystery. Now how about answering?

 

[Mr. E]

How to know what you believe

So far, I like some of your questions better than most of your answers. This one [ME: How does one know what one believes?] I overlooked earlier. [...]

"Here's another fine mess you've gotten us into, Ollie."*

Yes, relying solely on inference engines as currently conceived could well be overly limiting. And yes, the mechanism tends to be self-guiding in its effects, witness the power of prejudice and the like. But many agents working on a problem can change the practical matter of time constraints (and I think this goes beyond mere empathy as the role of the brain). And I believe that many people do indeed overcome the narrowing effects of conscience, for better (as well as for worse).

My introspection, guided by feedback from others, as led me to ask the question of whether the self does have a core basis in physiological parameters -- one might say an NCC for the self. Not the *notion* 'self', but something which exists materially as part of a brain which functions as conscience. If there is such, then then answer to "does the self exist as more than an illusion" is clearly, Yes.

While this thread is nominally about 'consciousness' and its putative existence, it's now clear to me from more careful reading of the OP's replies that the OP is challenging the existence of the self.

I argue, Yes, it exists (tho' I don't have physiological data to prove it, so it's speculation and is introspective).


ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

Stop evading questions, Mystery Oil. The list is growing:


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.

o Are these vectors complementary in the same way the strands of the double-helix are complementary?

If I recall correctly, the vector product is only possible in three dimensions. You might ask him why three dimensions.

That is, if you insist on having him admit that he hadn't quite considered the details surrounding this analogy.

 

[Mr. E]

Re: Re: Back to basics

I will ask you what I have asked others, give me an example of awareness or consciousness and it can most likely be reduced to seperate events.

First: Do you believe anything? How do you know that you believe it?

However, I will continue to maintain that there is no special event that is awareness, there is no special event that is consciousness.

Irrelevant and immaterial, but there is an undeniable (except pathologically) core. Let's read your responses to the above questions before proceeding here.

Activated memories are awareness how? They are memories and they are reverie and they are partly made up 'consciously' and mostly made up 'unconsiously'. They are an experience of the brain (I believe), we can cogitate about them and describe them, but they are not on the plane that immaterialists would like to ascribe to the vacuos 'consciousness'.

Awareness is a matter of being informed, don't try to make it into what it isn't. Memories are *formed*. They may be latent (inactive) or active (engaged). I have no idea what an "experience of the brain" is supposed to mean, unless you mean it in the sense that an electron accelerates when it *experiences* an external force. Please draw the line clearly between material and immaterial if you are going to attack one side or the other.

ME

 

[BillHoyt]

Stop evading questions, Mystery Oil. The list is growing:


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.

o Are these vectors complementary in the same way the strands of the double-helix are complementary?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

I mean synthetic (as opposed to analytic) a priori knowledge; that which preceeds experience.
------------------------------------------

That's odd

Actually, it's pretty standard philosophical jargon.

Why do you say 'no' when you seem to be restating what I meant as I meant it?

I guess my mistake was in addressing what you said, rather than what you meant. Must be a glitch in my DWIM module.

I realize that our replies are becoming a bit choppy

I've seen worse. We do seem to be finding some common ground.

many agents working on a problem can change the practical matter of time constraints

But that I can't agree with at all, I'm afraid. When regarding any phenomenon, there are an inifinite number of possible 'facts' which might be observed (or ignored).

I hope this isn't what you meant by "the usual quagmire"

No. This is just sort of a pre-quagmire quagmire. We won't be in the main quagmire until we start talking about Qualia (I was tempted to use asterisks when typing the word). Which I'm not even sure I'm up for. If we do end up there, and I decide to extricate myself, you are welcome to keep my boots as trophies, should you care to pry them out of the mud.

Do you believe anything? How do you know that you believe it?

My answer would be: the same way I know someone else believes something; by observing my behavior.

 

[Mr. E]

Fun with Bill and Consciousness

Caught you looking, Mystery. Now how about answering?

Hi Mr. Crank Oil. How's it hanging? What, directly pertinent to the topic and my original contribution to the thread, is causing your tired old engine to have apoplectic posting fits? Perhaps you misread something I posted, or my words confused you. My apologies for any such contribution to your difficulties. Since you are a major contributor to these forums, I would have thought you might like to show some critical thinking skills. Sadly, I don't see much evidence from you of such abilities.

Following the suggestion of another poster here: How may I dumb it down for you? As I recall you jumped in part way through a discussion to laugh at your ability to leave out "aiming for". Maybe you also misunderstood "formality" in one context as applying in the same way in another context? YOU're the one to answer such things, not ME. And more recently maybe you missed the post re Supposition Fields and the difference between an emulation and the real thing?

In the meantime, might I suggest you disengage the "cr*p" filter, or at least open up an additional subroutine?

Best regards,

ME

PS - "mirroring" is a symmetry operation, so sure, why not? Not the same mirror, as I believe I already posted in this thread somewhere in the past couple of days. I'm not equating DNA to reality nor to consciousness.

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Fun with Bill and Consciousness

Hi Mr. Crank Oil. How's it hanging? What, directly pertinent to the topic and my original contribution to the thread, is causing your tired old engine to have apoplectic posting fits? Perhaps you misread something I posted, or my words confused you. My apologies for any such contribution to your difficulties. Since you are a major contributor to these forums, I would have thought you might like to show some critical thinking skills. Sadly, I don't see much evidence from you of such abilities.

Following the suggestion of another poster here: How may I dumb it down for you? As I recall you jumped in part way through a discussion to laugh at your ability to leave out "aiming for". Maybe you also misunderstood "formality" in one context as applying in the same way in another context? YOU're the one to answer such things, not ME. And more recently maybe you missed the post re Supposition Fields and the difference between an emulation and the real thing?

In the meantime, might I suggest you disengage the "cr*p" filter, or at least open up an additional subroutine?

Best regards,

ME

PS - "mirroring" is a symmetry operation, so sure, why not? Not the same mirror, as I believe I already posted in this thread somewhere in the past couple of days. I'm not equating DNA to reality nor to consciousness.

Yep. You can't answer the questions. How shocking. So, the summation for you here is you just keep tossing out crap as an exercize in false erudition. You inject mathematical and scientific-sounding analogies as candy for unsophisticated minds.

You can't back up the vector cross-product nonsense. You can't back up the double helix nonsense. Ah, but now, you stub your toe again on "mirroring." The double helix is not a mirror in this sense.

Why do you insist on tossing out nonsense that you can't even back up for more than a post or two? Nonsense so patent you can't defend it past the first question?

Newsflash, bozo. Part of critical thinking is the ability to defend assertions, not this lame game of backing away from every question. What a moroon.