Define Consiousness

[BillHoyt]

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

That one's easy: it ain't flowers Bill's smelling here...

 

[H'ethetheth]

That one's easy: it ain't flowers Bill's smelling here...

Wait! don't tell me. It's....









FART JOKES!!!!!!!

Is it?

 

[Mr. E]

About accepting the definition: I cannot accept it before I understand it.

Oh? Isn't that the way learning works? I'm not saying you have to bow down and pray to it, not that kind/degree of "accept". But if you don't accept it as a working tool, you must challenge it, ridicule it, or stay out of the conversation, yes? Are there other choices?

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

I might not. The following might look like an aside, and might be one, but humor the notion that it might prove to be informative, please.

You raise two good points, maybe three:

Desire (want)
The way of understanding
The what of understanding

The desire helps. Otherwise understanding tends to be accidental at best. The way depends on the one who desires to grasp the what. In other words, just declaring "I don't understand" is hardly helpful to a teacher in finding a way for the student. The best serious approach is always for the student to show what s/he sincerely misunderstands, not for the teacher to tell flowery tales, vulgar or otherwise. Accepting flowery tales is more indoctrination than the development of critical thinking skills and deeper understanding. So, please, show me what you sincerely don't understand about the topic. Keep it simple, at a 3 year old level, one step at a time.

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

Are you sure? You've explicitly told me not to invoke them here. But it strikes me that you have already, yourself, in this post if implicitly!!

ME

 

[Interesting Ian]

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


Does not look like a conscious position to me, but then what do I know about such things!

Not much it would seem.

Terms are definable.

Can you demonstrate this to be so? Consciousness sure can't be defined. Yet we all know perfectly what it is.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Oh? Isn't that the way learning works? I'm not saying you have to bow down and pray to it, not that kind/degree of "accept". But if you don't accept it as a working tool, you must challenge it, ridicule it, or stay out of the conversation, yes? Are there other choices?

No it isn't the way learning works. If I get a definition of a circle that I don't understand, I cannot use it as a tool. Maybe It should be presented to me in such a way that it appeals to me, and makes me accept it and use it as a tool.

Yes there are other choices: I don't understand your definition as a working tool.

Per your request:

I don't understand how to synthesise awareness and sensation.
I do not know how to multiply words, states or processes , this is not something I've been taught at school.
I do not understand what awareness constitutes in your model.
I do therefore not understand what consciousness is in your model.

So explain to me:

Bill sees a flower, and his raw sense data is synthesised such and such...

 

[Atlas]

What's the difference between a duck?

ME

More questions are raised here than I can keep up with but since no one else tackled this one....

It at first reminded me of my brother's favorite stupid joke.
Question: What is the difference between an Orange?
Answer: A motorcycle, because a telephone pole has no doors.

Maybe I need to get out more but this is the first time having it presented with the duck twist, which is obviously much more interesting to ponder. I googled around for a definitive answer.

One "correct" answer was given as - 'Both legs went to separate schools together'
But the best I saw was: 'One goes quack'

Also I found a link to a short discussion on the topic.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mr. E
What's the difference between a duck?

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


More questions are raised here than I can keep up with but since no one else tackled this one....

I didn't answer it because the question has no meaning. Between a duck and what?

 

[H'ethetheth]

I didn't answer it because the question has no meaning. Between a duck and what?

hehehehehehehe, that's funny.

 

[Mr. E]

Can you demonstrate this to be so?

To whom? See the Randi Challenge Form if you don't get the drift here. See my post to H'ethetheth about understanding if you're seriously in doubt.

Consciousness sure can't be defined.

Looks like empty denial, again. Can you give your statement some meaning here?

Yet we all know perfectly what it is.

Aren't you assuming the conclusion?

ME

 

[hammegk]

.... Aren't you assuming the conclusion?

ME

No, he's stating that he *is* conscious, and that all else is assumption.

Re mind/body interface: my take is "what a load of illogical bs".

 

[Atlas]

I didn't answer it because the question has no meaning. Between a duck and what?

Your appreciation of the absurd is stunted my friend. You are too Idealistic and need to be a pure subjectivist to explore your own question for an illogical answer. Be careful, we like to tease the English about their lack of a sense of humor. Take 3 episodes of Monty Python and call me in the morning.

 

[Mr. E]

No it isn't the way learning works.

Oh, how does learning work for you?

If I get a definition of a circle that I don't understand, I cannot use it as a tool.

Sorry to hear that. Other persons might. Ever hear of "experiment"? Not all definitions are petards, and thus understandably avoidable. You're just dogding here.

Maybe It should be presented to me in such a way that it appeals to me, and makes me accept it and use it as a tool.

Wouldn't that be nice, to have the world on a silver platter! How would that "make" you accept it anyway? Wouldn't a skeptic be able to deny even his or her own "appeals"?

Yes there are other choices: I don't understand your definition as a working tool.

Oh. I recall seeing a "Yes!" or some such from you in this regard some posts back. Maybe I misread an obvious sign of agreement?

I don't understand how to synthesise awareness and sensation.

I hear ya. We're getting to that, sooner or later. But do you agree that you are doing it already even if you don't yet understand how you are doing it?

I do not know how to multiply words, states or processes , this is not something I've been taught at school.

Maybe you just don't recognize that you do know how, or that the "know how" is latent in your brain etc. if not highly activated. Do you know how to add words etc? You suggested a '+' sign at one point. Didn't you mean it?

I do not understand what awareness constitutes in your model.

If it's a model, awareness is what is synthesized with sensation. I realize that's not adding much, but it is adding something. See the fairy tale below for more.

I do therefore not understand what consciousness is in your model.

It's your "model", kind sir, but we might share it. Let's see... as a model, consciousness is that which is being modelled, and that which is becoming modelled in this very thread. It's a matter of the synthesis of sensastion with awareness, as we've already noted too often.

So explain to me:

Bill sees a flower, and his raw sense data is synthesised such and such...

Well, given the above disclaimer about fairy tales and understanding, okay but don't blame me if you don't like it:

There are two important things necessary for consciousness as humans "have" it. In order to see the classically real flower, our friendly Troll must open his eyes so that photons might strike his retina and so on. Casually speaking, sense data in the form or nerual impulses propogate up his optic nerve, whether he understands this or not. Meanwhile various processes in the brain are excited including what we call memory. An image forms up "in" Bill's subjective visual field based on a synthesis of the sense stream being processed semi-automatically by sub and non conscious processes in coordination with what we call memory (eg, perceptual prejudice); if Bill is informed as to flowers what forms up is different than if he is clueless. But Bill still doesn't recognize the flower, to him its just a vague disturbance at this point. Meanwhile, whether because of or alongside of the image, construction, processes are engaged to further match the pattern initiated partly by sense data. These processes in effect scan memory to see if it contains anything which conforms to the sense stream. To the extent that a fit is found, Bill might cognize what he's looking at, as say, a daisy or a turd. But he's still short of full consciousness at this point, and it's arguable whether he has recognized it or is still simply experiencing more or less raw stuff.

How's that so far? I've pointed out a role for sensation and awareness, and outlined how they "work" together. Is this helping?

ME

>>>edit note: Found Art alert re "dogding". Serious readers might want to treat that as a typo of a dyslexia sort. My proofreading skills aren't perfect.

 

[Mr. E]

No, he's stating that he *is* conscious, and that all else is assumption.

No, put his words next to yours in very close proximity, and get back to us with how the text strings are manifestly not different even to a word processor. Or are you his attorney here, speaking for him??

Re mind/body interface: my take is "what a load of illogical bs".

Hmmm, well, humor has its better and worse sides. But if you are a serious student of consciousness, please see the fairy tale in my recent reply to H'ethetheth, for maybe it will at least tease your humor into an utterance, if not all that excited a one!

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Your appreciation of the absurd is stunted my friend. You are too Idealistic and need to be a pure subjectivist to explore your own question for an illogical answer. Be careful, we like to tease the English about their lack of a sense of humor. Take 3 episodes of Monty Python and call me in the morning.

Hi. I don't believe we've met yet.

Your point may be well taken, but this is not to deny meaning to the placement of that text string in that context.

Thanks for joining in! Or re-joining, since I don't claim to be all knowing here in the usually fallacious manner!!

ME

 

[Mr. E]

ooops, try again.

 

[Mr. E]

I didn't answer it because the question has no meaning. Between a duck and what?

Pop quiz:

What is the meaning of that which the symbol 0 is commonly taken to refer to?

ME

PS - Still waiting on that other post...

 

[H'ethetheth]

Oh. I recall seeing a "Yes!" or some such from you in this regard some posts back. Maybe I misread an obvious sign of agreement?

Like I said, everytime I think I understand, you tell me I'm wrong.

I hear ya. We're getting to that, sooner or later. But do you agree that you are doing it already even if you don't yet understand how you are doing it?
Maybe you just don't recognize that you do know how, or that the "know how" is latent in your brain etc. if not highly activated. Do you know how to add words etc? You suggested a '+' sign at one point. Didn't you mean it?

Yes, Incidentally I'm also copying my DNA on a regular basis, yet I've no idea how. That has nothing to do with this definition, since it's meant a construct to make me understand something. I don't just want to synthesise awareness and sensation all my life without understanding how. You claim to understand, and I'm curious.
And about the adding business. Let me give you an analogy. I have an apple and a pear. I add them, and the result I dub for some reason: a 'set'. What is the definition af a 'set'? apple+pear.
Hmmmmm, fruity.

Now I shall try to multiply them, what do I get?
And I shall synthesise them, what do I get?
Some sort of fruity anomaly I imagine, but that's where my intuition stops.
I could ask myself how to synthesise them.
Literally? As the greek would. Just put them somewhere together?
Maybe.
Put them both in a vice and squish them, and then sculpt a cube out of the result?
Maybe.

If it's a model, awareness is what is synthesized with sensation. I realize that's not adding much, but it is adding something. See the fairy tale below for more.

Hmm, no. Circular reasoning adds nothing, but hurray for fairy tales.

There are [...] An image forms up "in" Bill's subjective visual field based on a synthesis of the sense stream being processed semi-automatically by sub and non conscious processes in coordination with what we call memory (eg, perceptual prejudice); if Bill is informed as to flowers what forms up is different than if he is clueless. But Bill still doesn't recognize the flower, to him its just a vague disturbance at this point. Meanwhile, whether because of or alongside of the image, construction, processes are engaged to further match the pattern initiated partly by sense data.[...]

How's that so far? I've pointed out a role for sensation and awareness, and outlined how they "work" together. Is this helping?

Yes, I think it is. If I read this right, awareness is essentially the unconscious (automatic) processing of the sense data. But I don't understand why you say at the end that Bill is "still short of full consciousness"?
But again, yes. Thank you, this is helping. And I might add: Finally.

 

[Mr. E]

That one's easy: it ain't flowers Bill's smelling here...

Ah.. that Advanced Degree in CR*Pology might be lurking yet behind the facade. Hmmm... could be vermin I guess. As one of your pals said, Speak English, and please use complete sentences. And make it clearly topical if you want a serious reply.

The Management Thanks You!

ME

 

[Atlas]

Pop quiz:

What is the meaning of that which the symbol 0 is commonly taken to refer to?

ME

Hello Mr E, I tried my own thoughts out on this subject earlier and didn't get much traction. Then I got distracted in the Politics forum.

For me, the symbol 0 refers to a number of units. It is shaped like an empty corral. It signifies something like No Goats. Some believe it signifies "nothing". But it is a number and numbers refer to units.

I think we thank the Arabs for it. The Romans didn't have it. I've always marvelled at the thought of great architecture happening without a mathematics that included the number 0. But thankfully, a lot of the concepts of geometry are not dependent on it.

 

[Mr. E]

Like I said, everytime I think I understand, you tell me I'm wrong.

How rude we must seem to work in the gutter of consciousness. Just keeping working at it. I recommend you let logic be your guide, but don't get dogmatically entrenched in it.

Yes, Incidentally I'm also copying my DNA on a regular basis, yet I've no idea how. That has nothing to do with this definition, since it's meant a construct to make me understand something.

Oh, is it? But, okay, being conscious of the unconscious is definitely a weird notion, huh! That's one reason I prefer focus, we could end up rambling for years without it.

I don't just want to synthesise awareness and sensation all my life without understanding how. You claim to understand, and I'm curious.

Something like that.

And about the adding business. Let me give you an analogy. I have an apple and a pear. I add them, and the result I dub for some reason: a 'set'. What is the definition af a 'set'? apple+pear. Hmmmmm, fruity.

Are you asking for a quick primer in set theory ala ME? I'd be happy to post a tiresome essay I wrote about it some years ago. Well, maybe not all that tedious a read... Seriously, it's quite topical and probably at your professed reading level. Defines "set" and other goodies. It ain't short... but then it's not as long as this thread seems to be at this point. Let me know definitively.

Now I shall try to multiply them, what do I get?
And I shall synthesise them, what do I get?
Some sort of fruity anomaly I imagine, but that's where my intuition stops.
I could ask myself how to synthesise them.
Literally? As the greek would. Just put them somewhere together?
Maybe.
Put them both in a vice and squish them, and then sculpt a cube out of the result?
Maybe.

Excellent beginning. Yay for you, Duuude! Your text strings suggest that you have a basic grasp of the scientific method, and are able to put it into casual words. Yes, trial and error IS part of the SM and also part of human experience in general.

Hmm, no. Circular reasoning adds nothing, but hurray for fairy tales.

Reasoning? Let me guess. You "know" you do it, but you don't quite know "how" you do it all.

Yes, I think it is. If I read this right, awareness is essentially the unconscious (automatic) processing of the sense data.

Sigh... like in horseshoes, does sorta close count? The synthesis is the processing, or vice versa. And it's "semi-automatic"and not entirely unconscious, please. Awareness is simply the state of being informed, as it was in the beginning.

But I don't understand why you say at the end that Bill is "still short of full consciousness"?
But again, yes. Thank you, this is helping. And I might add: Finally.

Well, let's clear up things to this point before I launch into Chapter 2 of How The Friendly Troll Became Self-Conscious.

First, there are a number of perhaps minor points above. Please respond effectively.

Second, you had denied something about learning. I asked. You didn't respond. It's not irrelevant here.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by H'ethetheth
No it isn't the way learning works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh, how does learning work for you?

:endquote

How does learning work for you?

ME