Define Consiousness

[BillHoyt]

Perhaps I'm just used to the idea but I'm not going to like it if I suddenly find out I'm not conscious.

How would anyone tell you?

 

[H'ethetheth]

It is a rubric under which many other things are attributed.


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.

Isn't this a definition?
The self may be an illusion but an illusion is also something that exists, something that is 'real' in a way, which you then name 'self'. Does it matter whether or not it's "different processes"?

Yay, my first post!

 

[Darat]

Re: Re: Define Consiousness

Isn't this a definition?
The self may be an illusion but an illusion is also something that exists, something that is 'real' in a way, which you then name 'self'. Does it matter whether or not it's "different processes"?

Yay, my first post!

Even if you are an unreal/not real/real/illusion, welcome to the board.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Thanks. I'll try to keep it real.

 

[Dymanic]

Mmmmm... fresh braaaaaiiiins....

Originally posted by H'ethetheth

The self may be an illusion but an illusion is also something that exists, something that is 'real' in a way, which you then name 'self'.

So... a thing can be considered to have consciousness if it is percieved as having consciousness. I've heard this idea before; it was called: 'the Turing test'. We needn't worry about the possibility of that perception being illusory, because even an illusion is real in a way.

Right?

We may be on to something here. Once such a consciousness (real or illusory, no meaningful distinction) came into existence, it could continue to exist as long as it percieved itself as existing (even if it was wrong). I've also heard this idea before: "I think, therefore I am", made even nicer (I think) by this slight modification: "I think I am, therefore I am... I think". The process could then be self-sustaining -- independent of physical reality since it didn't have to be 'real' in the first place. Reminiscent of the way electromagnetic energy propagates through empty space; a wave which can travel where there is no ocean, by becoming its own ocean as it goes.

This 'Midas touch' regarding self must come accompanied by an awesome responsibility; we may be unknowingly creating eternally conscious (though illusory) selves simply by percieving them as existing. Wow.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Mmmmm... fresh braaaaaiiiins....

So... a thing can be considered to have consciousness if it is percieved as having consciousness. I've heard this idea before; it was called: 'the Turing test'. We needn't worry about the possibility of that perception being illusory, because even an illusion is real in a way.

Right?

We may be on to something here. Once such a consciousness (real or illusory, no meaningful distinction) came into existence, it could continue to exist as long as it percieved itself as existing (even if it was wrong). I've also heard this idea before: "I think, therefore I am", made even nicer (I think) by this slight modification: "I think I am, therefore I am... I think". The process could then be self-sustaining -- independent of physical reality since it didn't have to be 'real' in the first place. Reminiscent of the way electromagnetic energy propagates through empty space; a wave which can travel where there is no ocean, by becoming its own ocean as it goes.

This 'Midas touch' regarding self must come accompanied by an awesome responsibility; we may be unknowingly creating eternally conscious (though illusory) selves simply by percieving them as existing. Wow.

hmmm, I'm not quite sure I understand this, in fact I'm not even sure if this post may be completely ironic, being new and all.

What I meant to say is, that when something is self-aware, it doesn't matter to this something wheter it's perception of itself is an illusion, resulting from an amount of processes, or some real perception of an inexplicable eternal soul that floats from party to party in the afterlife, or becomes an elderberry bush in another life.
So consciousness does not need a definition, it just needs to be explained.

 

[Dancing David]

Re: Re: Define Consiousness

Isn't this a definition?
The self may be an illusion but an illusion is also something that exists, something that is 'real' in a way, which you then name 'self'. Does it matter whether or not it's "different processes"?

Yay, my first post!

Welcome H'ethethheth.

In one sense no and in another sense yes.

If we recognise that there are a group of things that we call the slef, and understand that it is a heap of things, then okay, if we refer to a bunch of other things and call them consciousness and understand that they are really a bunch of different things , cool.
Just as we may refer to wind and air as the agregate action of atmosheric molecules.

Caveat: The self does not really exist from the evidence at hand, there is the body, the emotions, the thoughts, the perceptions and the habits and the memories. But I feel that there is no seer behind the sight, we have a sensation which becomes perception, we can then have thoughts and feelings and memories about the perception. But the self is really just all those things in a lump, there is no seer, thinker or feeler, there are the process but no self.

Same for the consciousness, many people want to ascribe it some mystical undefinable properties when it is a set of concrete processes.

 

[H'ethetheth]

But is not the self then defined by the result of these processes? I see this merely as a problem of definition. I mean there is that which you call 'you', right?
This self-perceived self is then by definition the seer. Illusionary or not. So it seems convenient to speak of a seer in normal life because everybody has this perception af a self.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth

I'm not even sure if this post may be completely ironic, being new and all.

It's not always easy to tell about that around here, even after you've been here a while. It's a good idea to keep one eye on the irony meter at all times.

What I meant to say is, that when something is self-aware, it doesn't matter to this something wheter it's perception of itself is an illusion, resulting from an amount of processes, or some real perception of an inexplicable eternal soul that floats from party to party in the afterlife, or becomes an elderberry bush in another life.

To some of those somethings, it appears to matter a lot (though probably more when they are here than when they are busy working, or doing laundry or whatever). I don't think it would feel any different, if that's what you mean.

So consciousness does not need a definition, it just needs to be explained.

I was serious when I suggested a similarity between the concept 'consciousness' and the concept 'beauty'. As a concept it has utility; defining it is as simple as noting that it is completely subjective; explaining it is a fool's errand.

 

[H'ethetheth]

To some of those somethings, it appears to matter a lot (though probably more when they are here than when they are busy working, or doing laundry or whatever). I don't think it would feel any different, if that's what you mean.

I have noticed this on these boards. Come to think of it, this whole topic is probably a bait for this Ian I've been reading so much about. Alas he's already decided on the subject.

Anyway, my point is that it doesn't matter for the definition of consciousness. I just thought there was a lot of unnecessary side-tracking going on.

I was serious when I suggested a similarity between the concept 'consciousness' and the concept 'beauty'. As a concept it has utility; defining it is as simple as noting that it is completely subjective; explaining it is a fool's errand.

I agree completely.

So we can say that consciousness is that which allows something to perceive and contemplate itself and its surroundings to a certain extent.

And I think we can also safely say that we receive very little clarity from this definition, since even Interesting Ian, who adheres to undefinable consciousness, might agree with this definition.

Edited for punctuation & spelling

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth

And I think we can also safely say that we receive very little clarity from this definition, since even Interesting Ian, who adheres to undefinable consciousness, might agree with this definition

Odd, isn't it? We do seem to recieve more clarity from disagreeing. Seldom by virtue of anyone actually changing his position, though. You might expect that when two people with opposing viewpoints argue long enough and hard enough, one would eventually win the other over. Or perhaps they would reach a common middle ground. But this almost never happens. What happens instead is that they each become more deeply entrenched.

I sometimes worry that devoting too much time to this 'consciousness' business may cause my StarCraft skills to slip.

 

[Dancing David]

But is not the self then defined by the result of these processes? I see this merely as a problem of definition. I mean there is that which you call 'you', right?
This self-perceived self is then by definition the seer. Illusionary or not. So it seems convenient to speak of a seer in normal life because everybody has this perception af a self.

Absolutely I agree with that, we have the comonents of a self and the components of a consiousness.

Yet I feel that the distiction is still valid, there is a sight but no seer, unless you want to count the part of the frontal cortex that creates the visual image.

I am aimimng this mainly at the baggage associated with the idea of 'consciousness', such things as
-mysterious
-undefinable
-transcendant
-eternal
-immaterial

 

[H'ethetheth]

Absolutely I agree with that, we have the comonents of a self and the components of a consiousness.

Yet I feel that the distiction is still valid, there is a sight but no seer, unless you want to count the part of the frontal cortex that creates the visual image.

I am aimimng this mainly at the baggage associated with the idea of 'consciousness', such things as
-mysterious
-undefinable
-transcendant
-eternal
-immaterial

I see what you mean, but my opinion is that this baggage is not all unscientific or religious.
I think that when you find out how all these processes work, the work is done (yay!), and the seer remains a working convention for that which results from the processes.
This seer would then hardly be mysterious, certainly not undefinable or eternal, but nevertheless immaterial.
(Okay, so it's mostly unscientific and religious)

Originally posted by Dymanic
I sometimes worry that devoting too much time to this 'consciousness' business may cause my StarCraft skills to slip.

I feel your pain.

 

[Mr. E]

Synthetic Consciousness uncovered

Hi. I realize I'm coming in late to this discussion. Here's my take on the matter of Consciousness.

To meaningfully say whether something exists, we should know what "exists" means. But I'd like to focus on another aspect of the issue.

There is a lot of vague talk about consciousness, and people tend to borrow it to talk about many things which are mysterious to them. Others use the term as a foil for prattling on in fun or distraction. But let's look at a serious angle here, an attempt to formalize such discussions a bit.

My starting point is to offer a definition which is

Clear,
Compact, and
Complex,

and which collects the essence of the term from common usage while perhaps avoiding the vague abuses which some attempt.

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.

The definition says that without sensation, there is no consciousness even if there is awareness. And vice versa. Sure we could conflate awareness with consciousness in the special case of Zero Consciousness, but isn't that trivially silly? The different words are supposed to *mean* something, to help guide the mind to meaningful distinctions. The synonym trap should be obvious, and deftly avoided.

Let me add some meat to the spare bones here. After all, having unpacked 'consciousness' we need to give meaning to the terms used in its definition in order that it have more meaning. The first two key terms are 'sensation' and 'awareness'.

Let's consider these in a particular instantiation, or mode, of consciousness, the information theory aspect. In this view,

Sensation = becoming informed
Awareness = being informed

Neither of these definitive equations is a radical departure from common usage. For example: It is via knowing what we sense that we become informed of the world of sense perception.

So the information theory notion of consciousness can be restated as: Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of becoming with being.

Now we might be ready to examine the OP question of existence.

Any questions or comments first?


ME

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

I realize I'm coming in late to this discussion

If you make the first page, I don't think it really counts as late anyway -- unless you are referring to the ongoing discussion that takes place here in various threads. Hey, you get here when you get here. One of those threads set a forum record at 52 pages, and left some of us a little numb for a while, but it seems to be wearing off. But never mind about that. Welcome to the forum!

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

I hope you will forgive my saying so, but that really doesn't seem to shine much light.

If you know vector math you might consider the cross-product, for a beginners analogy.

Yeah, you definitely want to stick with the beginners analogy wherever possible. Some of us are just as dumb as dirt when it comes to this stuff.

Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of becoming with being.

Can you clarify that a little? I don't see how it follows from what you said above (probably no big surprise, since I don't have a clue what it means).

 

[Mr. E]

Well...

Hi. Glad to know my post was noted. I was hoping for serious engagement of my ideas and their expressions. I'm not clear on how this quoting function works, so bear with me if the format is a bit rocky.

"Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness."
I hope you will forgive my saying so, but that really doesn't seem to shine much light.

Well, before I spew out more dim text strings, it would help to know if you find it dim because it seems to go over your head or under your knees. That is, I don't know what your standards are, and don't have time to research your posting history. Someone might find it dim because they are relatively blind, another might have already been there and therefore finds it almost trivial. How I proceed might well be rather different for the two cases, don't you agree? If you find it without any merit, I apologize for wasting your time.

Yeah, you definitely want to stick with the beginners analogy wherever possible. Some of us are just as dumb as dirt when it comes to this stuff.

I don't know whether that's sarcasm or something else. Some people are more hip to math than others, so I don't want to make complex numbers the starting point here. Could you please show your understanding of the analogy so I could figure out how to try to shine more light your way? Thanks.

"[in the context of information theory] Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of becoming with being."

Can you clarify that a little? I don't see how it follows from what you said above (probably no big surprise, since I don't have a clue what it means).

How it follows:

General case: C = S x A

Particular case (Information):

S = I(becoming), A = I(being)

Therefore Ci = I(becoming) x I(being), or since the context is known explicity, simplifying to C = becoming x being.


It means that we have a complex, compact, clear definition of one aspect of the state of being conscious - being concious is a matter of both being and becoming! It's hardly the end in itself, merely a stepping stone.


ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Synthetic Consciousness uncovered

[...]My starting point is to offer a definition which is

Clear,
Compact, and
Complex,

and which collects the essence of the term from common usage while perhaps avoiding the vague abuses which some attempt. [...]

Yeah, I have a comment on the vagueness issue. This to me is the first post in the thread I almost completely didn't understand.
I guess I'm stuck with about the same questions as Dymanic though, so I'll stick with those.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Well...

...]How it follows:

General case: C = S x A

Particular case (Information):

S = I(becoming), A = I(being)

Therefore Ci = I(becoming) x I(being), or since the context is known explicity, simplifying to C = becoming x being.


It means that we have a complex, compact, clear definition of one aspect of the state of being conscious - being concious is a matter of both being and becoming! It's hardly the end in itself, merely a stepping stone.


ME

Did you just premultiply the vector product of two analogies with the inverse of information, and draw a conclusion pertaining to the real world?
Sir, I accuse you of being ironic.

 

[Mr. E]

Re: Re: Well...

Did you just premultiply the vector product of two analogies with the inverse of information, and draw a conclusion pertaining to the real world?
Sir, I accuse you of being ironic.

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

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: Well...

Hi. Glad to know my post was noted. I was hoping for serious engagement of my ideas and their expressions. I'm not clear on how this quoting function works, so bear with me if the format is a bit rocky.



Well, before I spew out more dim text strings, it would help to know if you find it dim because it seems to go over your head or under your knees. That is, I don't know what your standards are, and don't have time to research your posting history. Someone might find it dim because they are relatively blind, another might have already been there and therefore finds it almost trivial. How I proceed might well be rather different for the two cases, don't you agree? If you find it without any merit, I apologize for wasting your time.



I don't know whether that's sarcasm or something else. Some people are more hip to math than others, so I don't want to make complex numbers the starting point here. Could you please show your understanding of the analogy so I could figure out how to try to shine more light your way? Thanks.

"[in the context of information theory] Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of becoming with being."



How it follows:

General case: C = S x A

Particular case (Information):

S = I(becoming), A = I(being)

Therefore Ci = I(becoming) x I(being), or since the context is known explicity, simplifying to C = becoming x being.


It means that we have a complex, compact, clear definition of one aspect of the state of being conscious - being concious is a matter of both being and becoming! It's hardly the end in itself, merely a stepping stone.


ME

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