Define Consiousness

[H'ethetheth]

Do you have a conscious position to share?

Psst, he already did on page 1.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It cannot be defined. Certainly it is not a physical process.

 

[Mr. E]

Illusions? You mean like the vector math illusion? Or the DNA one? You think your patter clarifies anything? Good, then prove it by:

o sticking with real definitions as opposed to privately concocted notions,

o justify your assertions about vectors and DNA and symmetry

I keep asking. You just get more shrill each time. No answers, just shrill blather.

No you don't. What answer does your nonsense require beside laughter? Don't mistake my generosity for anything other than humoring the readers of this thread with an eye to educating some of them.

You are chasing what have become red herrings as far as I can tell and petulantly demanding I waste my time doing your homework for you. Grow up, Mr. Boy Scout!

There's a definition on the table. It's for real. I'm sticking with it; whether I concocted it or not, it's now in the public domain. The OP allows me to post my definition. Get used to it, it's here to stay.

ME

PS - Again, I am not disclaiming the correctness of either analogy.

 

[Mr. E]

Psst, he already did on page 1.

Hey thanks!

Does not look like a conscious position to me, but then what do I know about such things! Terms are definable. When is a state a process? What is "it"?


What's the difference between a duck?

ME

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It cannot be defined. Certainly it is not a physical process.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Mr. E]

What on earth makes you think the other thread wasn't serious? And I have no idea what you mean by talking "unconsciously". How can one talk unconsciously?

No fart jokes were mentioned in that thread. Are you daft?

Are you here to fart around or what? "Garbage in, Ian out." Or take the "contrapositive" of that if you like... Don't get me wrong, despite my occasional wordiness I *do* have a sense of humor, dry or wet.

What on earth are you talking about "the other thread"? Where did the quoted excerpt reference some other thread? What does this have to do with this thread?? But if I did, it would be my earthy imagination which would "make" me think something like that, I suppose.

No idea? Good demo of showing that you lack conscious awareness in one particular instance. Since I assume you are talking, you've just demoed talking more or less unconsciously. Thanks for answering your own question quickly, and yes, I'll take an assist on it. I suppose, again, that this has something to do with the topic here.

Back atcha: Are you daft or (mis)reading for humor?

There is a definition on the table. What next?

ME

 

[hammegk]

My, my.

All this time & effort, and DD knows full well that in his worldview --- reality being a Turing machine -- Awareness=Input, Consciousness=Output. Dymanic, II, glad to see you're still around; we even have new blood.

To those re-contemplating the mind-body interface, good luck.

Quagmire, indeed!

 

[BillHoyt]

PS - Again, I am not disclaiming the correctness of either analogy.

Yet when asked to defend it, you back away. You're doing nothing but wasting the time of this thread's readers. You have three basic choices here:

o Defend your assertions
o Disclaim them
o State that you've no evidence with which to defend them

Right now you seem to be taking the McCarthy fourth choice, upholding your assertions, but refusing to deliver any details.

 

[Mr. E]

Right now you seem to be taking the McCarthy fourth choice, upholding your assertions, but refusing to deliver any details.

And you seem to be laboring under a delusion that you are exhibiting conscious critical thinking skills, in the critical thinking forum no less, which go beyond childish demands and nonsense.

Read my lips: Then was yesterday. Now is today. The red herrings you are currently offering were presented correctly at the time for a specific purpose at the time. That purpose is no longer in play, seriously speaking. If one rereads the context, one can see what I mean.

What details of the definition warrant further exposition at this time, Bill, besides your red herrings? Are you accepting the definition or challenging it publicly?

ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

No problem, as they say. Many of my sentences have more than one meaning-evocation possible, simple irony or not. But much of the problem you present seems to have rather been over the simplest constructions - "being informed" and the like, so your comment is rather odd here.

Be they simple or not. Every time I think I understand what you mean when you say something like "being informed", I find out that it's not what you mean, so it can't be that simple then.

That's a compound reference and thus evasive. It's primary mode reads to me as the equivalent of a confession on your part that you were not justified in rephrasing the OP's "question". So, please be clear on this. Which is it, your transformation or the OP's original challenge?

I'm sorry, I should have re-read that before posting. I meant that the distinction was not completely justified. However implying that it is evasive is a bit quick on the trigger.

LOL! "now attributed to awareness" I think you must be reading some other thread. Where do you see that attribution in my posts? Haven't I been correcting you on that a number of times already?

Laugh all you want, but it doesn't help me to understand where the complicated part of consciousness takes place.

That's a tired old game of dead people. My consciousness allows for in and out, inward and outward, and [...]

Yes, that's what I mean by inward...

Let me say this: You split up consciousness into two parts. They are "inside" consciousness so to speak. The interesting things are not going on inside the raw sense data stream that is sensation. So the interesting things must be going on either within the awareness part or within the synthesis/multiplication part.
In the first case I can sort of imagine what your take on awareness is, in the second case I need to review my algebra books on how things interact when multiplied, and then conclude that I do not understand what you're saying.

Well, they will eventually have to be allowed for and probably discussed, as they are one of the key insights into the nature of consciousness, but we can leave them for later.

Alas, you'll have to deal with that without me then, because I don't really like to debate subjects I don't know anything about.

 

[BillHoyt]

PS - Again, I am not disclaiming the correctness of either analogy.

Were these not your words, Mystery? If so, you put the assertions back in play, netwit.

 

[Mr. E]

Quagmire, indeed!

Hi!

What quagmire, besides 52 pages of blather in search of meaning in some other thread?

Mind/body can be obfuscated or clarified. What's your poison in this context?


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Were these not your words, Mystery? If so, you put the assertions back in play, netwit.

They were Mr. E's words in a PS, Dirtbag. You're evidently been stuffed full of trash, so full you don't know the difference between making a claim and denying that one is disclaiming something.

Thanks for tacitly admitting my claim that the analogies are not relevant. Meanwhile, there has been a definition in play, tho' "people" seem to want to diddle themselves with other toys...

Have a dirty day, and do get back to us about the definition itself as presented when you are ready to do so.


ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

Mr. E

About accepting the definition: I cannot accept it before I understand it. Clearly I do not.
So I would like you to explain it to me in a way that I do understand, because I want to understand.
You might illustrate it with a story that begins with something like: Bill sees a flower, the sense data travels to his brain where... etc

edit: If supposition fields come into play somewhere here, could you fill me in on them first?

 

[BillHoyt]

They were Mr. E's words in a PS, Dirtbag. You're evidently been stuffed full of trash, so full you don't know the difference between making a claim and denying that one is disclaiming something.

Thanks for tacitly admitting my claim that the analogies are not relevant. Meanwhile, there has been a definition in play, tho' "people" seem to want to diddle themselves with other toys...

Have a dirty day, and do get back to us about the definition itself as presented when you are ready to do so.


ME

You're a waste of time.

 

[Mr. E]

Be they simple or not. Every time I think I understand what you mean when you say something like "being informed", I find out that it's not what you mean, so it can't be that simple then.

Nah, did I deny that there is a sense in which computers can be said to be informed? You brought it up, so I figured it meant something to you. It's not the last word, but if you want to start with it, fine. My pet topic is of course Synthetic Consciousness, human or otherwise.

I'm sorry, I should have re-read that before posting. I meant that the distinction was not completely justified. However implying that it is evasive is a bit quick on the trigger.

Well, if you mean something DD posted, let's let DD argue it.

Laugh all you want, but it doesn't help me to understand where the complicated part of consciousness takes place.

What complicated part?

Let me say this: You split up consciousness into two parts.

Three. Remember your good point about three dimensions?

They are "inside" consciousness so to speak.

No. Consciousness exists/occurs because of them, one might try that construction instead. btw, didn't you just agree that "inward" is the talk of dead people? Questions about the contents of consciousness might become relevant at some point. However, at that point they might also become irrelevant.

The interesting things are not going on inside the raw sense data stream that is sensation. So the interesting things must be going on either within the awareness part or within the synthesis/multiplication part.

All three are interesting to me.

In the first case I can sort of imagine what your take on awareness is, in the second case I need to review my algebra books on how things interact when multiplied, and then conclude that I do not understand what you're saying.

Which first case?

Alas, you'll have to deal with that without me then, because I don't really like to debate subjects I don't know anything about. [/B]

That's what learning is for. If you've never taken an ordinary high school math class, "suppose" might seem unreal to you. Let's deal with that later.

ME

 

[BillHoyt]

Three. Remember your good point about three dimensions?

...

That's what learning is for. If you've never taken an ordinary high school math class, "suppose" might seem unreal to you. Let's deal with that later.

ME

Oh, my, mystery, you're back on the math thing again. Oh, my, mystery, you fail to recognize the relevance of my basis set questions, and the tie-in to the dimensions question here.

You raised it again, mystery. Now how about answering? Or do you need me to define the relevance for you?

 

[Mr. E]

You're a waste of time.

I've been waiting for you to "say" that again ever since your first rude post in re my posts in this thread.

Now that you got over that, how about a nice cup of tea while we talk about the definition of interest here so as to set the ground to test whether it exists or not, the ostensible point of the thread. If you think Define Consiousness is a waste of time, enjoy your waste of time.

And you've completely ignored the post about emulations and supposition fields, while YOU were the one who brought up those topics if implicitly. That's what I get for trying to take your posts seriously, huh!


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Oh, my, mystery, you're back on the math thing again

Didn't you just state something about a waste of time??

ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

Nah, did I deny that there is a sense in which computers can be said to be informed? You brought it up, so I figured it meant something to you. It's not the last word, but if you want to start with it, fine. My pet topic is of course Synthetic Consciousness, human or otherwise.

Anything I bring up is in the hope of finding some common ground. And it just doesn't seem to happen.

Three. Remember your good point about three dimensions?

No no no! We're not going back to vector math again!

(1)awareness
(2)sensation

That makes two.

btw, didn't you just agree that "inward" is the talk of dead people?

No I didn't, I was too dumbfounded by that particular piece of proza. I couldn't even imagine what you thought I mean by shifting the question inward, but enough of that now, let's leave that behind, because it's confusing you so it's not helping me either.

Questions about the contents of consciousness might become relevant at some point. However, at that point they might also become irrelevant.

err...yes? no? ...maybe? ...please don't hurt me if I'm wrong.

Which first case?

The 'either' case of either and or

Now please tell me about Bill from my previous post, please.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Are you here to fart around or what?

No, I was asking you a couple of questions. I'm certainly not here to "fart around". Nor have I any idea why you should think I am.

"Garbage in, Ian out."

What are you referring to??

Or take the "contrapositive" of that if you like...

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Don't get me wrong, despite my occasional wordiness I *do* have a sense of humor, dry or wet.

I have no interest whether you have or not.

What on earth are you talking about "the other thread"? Where did the quoted excerpt reference some other thread?

It is difficult to know what you are talking about, but since immediately preceding that you were referring to that thread that Dymanic linked to - a thread which refers to farts, and then you talk about not liking fart jokes, it seems reasonable for me to infer that this was what you were referring to.

What does this have to do with this thread?? But if I did, it would be my earthy imagination which would "make" me think something like that, I suppose.

This conveys nothing to me. It is nonsensical (as the majority of your posts appear to be).

No idea? Good demo of showing that you lack conscious awareness in one particular instance.

If I lack conscious awareness I wouldn't be able to type on this keyboard. However, if this is your way of saying I'm stupid then please save your insults. If you have any problems with any arguments I have provided eg that other thread you disparaged, then please specify what they might be.

Since I assume you are talking, you've just demoed talking more or less unconsciously.

It seems that you fail to understand what the word unconscious means, and, by implication, fail to understand what consciousness means. Which rather makes your contributions to this thread a total waste of time.

Thanks for answering your own question quickly, and yes, I'll take an assist on it. I suppose, again, that this has something to do with the topic here.

Back atcha: Are you daft or (mis)reading for humor?

There is a definition on the table. What next?

Try to communicate in English; then I might be able to respond.

 

[BillHoyt]

Didn't you just state something about a waste of time??

ME

Answer the questions you can no longer pretend to be irrelevant since you raised them again.