Define Consiousness

[Dymanic]

Suppose a child is born deviod of all senses; he has no sight, no hearing, no touch, no smell, no taste -- nothing. There's no way whatsoever for him to recieve any sensations from the outside world. And suppose this child is fed intravenously and otherwise attended to and kept alive for eighteen years in this state of existence.

Does he have thoughts? Is he conscious?

 

[Mr. E]

Suppose a child is born deviod of all senses; he has no sight, no hearing, no touch, no smell, no taste -- nothing. There's no way whatsoever for him to recieve any sensations from the outside world. And suppose this child is fed intravenously and otherwise attended to and kept alive for eighteen years in this state of existence.

Does he have thoughts? Is he conscious?

By my definition: If this unhuman creature has a conscience, then it could be minimally sensate tho' it wouldn't likely have any objects of consciousness to stimulate its conscience. 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.

But I have no way of establishing that there is any meaningful synthesis of the two going on, so I'd be inclined to say it is not conscious.


Why the 18 year limit? 14 or so is a traditional "moral agent" deadline in many cases.


ME

 

[Jeff Corey]

Re: valuable "axioms" of consciousness

quote:Becoming is a handy basis element; 'Becoming' is a noun in my vocabulary. It's complementary to Being. IME

Oh no, now "being" is capitalized. I hate when that happens, because someone usually is trying to reify the unreifiable.
You still haven't defined "Becoming".
Please define these terms or I will have to larsen you. Either that or the comfy chair.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

If this unhuman creature has a conscience, then it could be minimally sensate tho' it wouldn't likely have any objects of consciousness to stimulate its conscience.

I'm sorry. Was that a "Yes" or a "No"?

If there is such a thing as genetic memory, [...] then there might be at least minimal grounds for awareness, tho' again not objects of consciousness in the usual sense/terms.

That answer also seems somewhat... tangential. I think how you answer this is important. It's a tricky question, but it's not a trick question.

 

[Mr. E]

I'm sorry. Was that a "Yes" or a "No"?

That answer also seems somewhat... tangential. I think how you answer this is important. It's a tricky question, but it's not a trick question.

That question seems rather ... obtuse. I have no idea what importance it or a black vs. white answer has for you, based on its placement.

It looks as if you didn't read the whole post, and maybe are misreading what you did quote but it's late here and I don't see the value in rambling further without more clues from you. Here's a part of my post you seem to have missed entirely:

"But I have no way of establishing that there is any meaningful synthesis of the two going on, so I'd be inclined to say it is not conscious."

I look forward to your entertaining and enlightening discussion of the important question and it's possible answers!


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Re: Re: valuable "axioms" of consciousness

Oh no, now "being" is capitalized. I hate when that happens, because someone usually is trying to reify the unreifiable.
You still haven't defined "Becoming".
Please define these terms or I will have to larsen you. Either that or the comfy chair.

Why hate it here? Maybe it's emphasis, more than hocus pocus. Please explain your fears in some detail. And cut out the threats, they aren't coming across funny.

Checking my handy dictionary, I don't find anything notably problematic about any of the entries, nor at odds with a reasonable reading of my posts:

"to become: to grow or come to be"
"becoming: To pass from one state to another; to enter into some state or condition, by a change from another state, or by assuming or receiving new properties or qualities, additional matter, or a new character."

Is this fun for you? It seems tedious to me.


ME

 

[Eleatic Stranger]

Mr E -

Those definitions are fairly standard, and are clearly defining "Become" as a verb, yet you said you took it as a noun. What sense can you make of "becoming" as a noun? Is it a transitive noun?

 

[BillHoyt]

Re: The other side of the Well....

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

Really, mystery? Ah, but you see, I just tested your mettle. You failed. Here is how it worked. I posted several posts, one of which with important questions that penetrated your total lack of understanding, the others being opportunities for you to evade the questions. You chose to evade the questions. Quel surprise!

So now I'll repeat the post you ignored. But now that you failed the test, I want answers:

"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."

 

[H'ethetheth]

Mr. E,

I think I sort of understand what you're saying, but I might still be wrong so feel free to correct me on your standpoints. (of course in simple wording like below)

Are you saying that consciousness is the product (no I don't mean mathematically) of information that has been stored and information that is coming in?
If this is what you're saying, you could have done without that great ball of crap you wrapped it in
If not, then please make forth with the explaining business.

And this definition doesn't seem to adress any kind of self-perception.

 

[Mr. E]

clarification of becoming's becoming status

Mr E -

Those definitions are fairly standard, and are clearly defining "Become" as a verb, yet you said you took it as a noun. What sense can you make of "becoming" as a noun? Is it a transitive noun?

I don't recall refering to "Become" explicitly as a noun, --"yet you said you took it as a noun"? "Becoming" is generally considerd a gerund form of 'to become'... But I could have said simply 'term' at that point, as your post points out. Sorry for any confusion and thanks for the chance to clarify.

As an aside: There is a perhaps metaphorical sense of movement to becoming, at least in my intuition, but it might better be called "transformative" than merely "transitive". When one becomes informed, any what we might call "knowledge structures" or perhaps simply "knowledge" evolve(s) in response - ie., memory is modified. While human memory may be medically and practically distinguishable at least into short and long term memory (interesting film - Memento), the general principle seems correct.


ME

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

Here's a part of my post you seem to have missed entirely:

"But I have no way of establishing that there is any meaningful synthesis of the two going on, so I'd be inclined to say it is not conscious."

You seemed to be kind of working things through there. Your answer(s) appear cautious; deliberately vague; as though you were afraid of answering incorrectly. It's not hard to see why you might be feeling a bit defensive at this point. The chances of this discussion being of any value were slim to begin with, and they seem to be getting worse rather than better. Maybe you'd like to ponder this privately, and we can get back together on it some other time. It looks like you're going to have your hands full addressing Bill's challenge anyway.

I have no idea what importance it or a black vs. white answer has for you, based on its placement.

That sensation and awareness may be regarded as two serarate things appears to be axiomatic for you. I'm suggesting that you examine that more closely.

 

[Mr. E]

H'ethetheth's interpretation of ME's notion

...Are you saying that consciousness is the product (no I don't mean mathematically) of information that has been stored and information that is coming in?
If this is what you're saying, you could have done without that great ball of crap you wrapped it in
If not, then please make forth with the explaining business.

And this definition doesn't seem to adress any kind of self-perception.

2nd item first: Not all consciousness is self-consciousness. What kind of addressing do you think is warranted which hasn't been mentioned explicitly in my posts? In my experience there is a pathology called "self-consciousness" and in my notion there is room for "self-awareness". Is that enough?

1st item: No I am not saying that, tho' that is a casual approximation which might fly for a bit. In terms of information theory, your interpretation is plausible. What is "product", that is, how do you mean it since your reject the math analogy? Consciousness isn't just about information, imnsho. Also, for me, 'information' doesn't "come in" except in a casual if widely used sense - we might say, in my view, that information is the act of being becoming informed but that might be tricky to parse correctly.

0th item: Like I said before, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". If it looks like crap, that doesn't make it crap except if one has crap for brains or crap in mind (looking too hard for vulgarity?)!


ME

PS - Did you post more about your notion somewhere else - I'm interested in reading about how your definition resolves the challenge of existence. And is Dutch your native language?

 

[Mr. E]

Dymanic rejects consciousness ala ME

You seemed to be kind of working things through there. Your answer(s) appear cautious; deliberately vague; as though you were afraid of answering incorrectly. It's not hard to see why you might be feeling a bit defensive at this point. The chances of this discussion being of any value were slim to begin with, and they seem to be getting worse rather than better. Maybe you'd like to ponder this privately, and we can get back together on it some other time. It looks like you're going to have your hands full addressing Bill's challenge anyway.

That sensation and awareness may be regarded as two serarate things appears to be axiomatic for you. I'm suggesting that you examine that more closely.

1st things first: LOL! I'm not interested in Bill's offensive vulgarity. Was there some other pertinent "challenge" it offered?

Why do you want to make this about me, personally? Would you rather that I be more offensive at this point? Are you projecting defensiveness of your own onto me? I ask this because you still have avoided dealing directly with my challenge to your early comment about my notion being "dim" (lacking in light).

I proposed a definition. If you want to call my replies to posts about my definition a "defense", well... it seems pointless but, whatever. If nuance = deliberately vague, fine, whatever, that reply to you WAS nuanced and I'd ask you to read it again as such.

2nd item: Uh, perhaps you are kind to be thinking of my welfare, but really, I don't get it. My definition calls for *you* (everyone here) to consider them as two "serarate things". Empty denial/rejection is neither evidence of critical thinking nor productive to discussion on topic. May I in return respectfully suggest that you follow the flip side of your own advice, privately or publicly?

Does a coin have two "serarate" sides?


ME

 

[Dancing David]

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

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

The point i am trying to make is that there is no awareness, there are a bunch of other things that we call awareness.

I see a red apple,
-the sensation of the colors and form.
-the perception of the apple
-thoughts about the apple
-memories about apples
-memories about colors and forms and perceptions

But no where is there a little me that is 'aware' of the apple, just a series of discrete events.

 

[Mr. E]

Bill's Hardware

Really, mystery? Ah, but you see, I just tested your mettle. You failed.

Okay, in your estimation "I failed" some test you cooked up in secret for yourself, if it makes you feel good. I can live with that in this context. BTW - do you think it's funny to keep writing "mystery" in such contexts? There ARE higher forms of humor availabe... and this is not a quiz show last I checked, rather a discussion forum.

It seems you are interested in emulations of human internal behavior (eg., modern computers running pixel processing software and the like) rather than trying to talk about consciousness itself. Synthetic Consciousness won't run on any extant computer I know of except in weak emulation mode. While Supposition Fields might be required for Synthetic Consciousness, it seems a bit arcane to just jump into that aspect here even if you are not just interested in emulations.

Maybe you have some hardware advances to share with us which will help with topic of this thread, the existence of consciousness?


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Back to basics

The point i am trying to make is that there is no awareness, there are a bunch of other things that we call awareness.

I see a red apple,
-the sensation of the colors and form.
-the perception of the apple
-thoughts about the apple
-memories about apples
-memories about colors and forms and perceptions

But no where is there a little me that is 'aware' of the apple, just a series of discrete events.

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

 

[H'ethetheth]

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

2nd item first: Not all consciousness is self-consciousness. What kind of addressing do you think is warranted which hasn't been mentioned explicitly in my posts? In my experience there is a pathology called "self-consciousness" and in my notion there is room for "self-awareness". Is that enough?

1st item: No I am not saying that, tho' that is a casual approximation which might fly for a bit. In terms of information theory, your interpretation is plausible. What is "product", that is, how do you mean it since your reject the math analogy? Consciousness isn't just about information, imnsho. Also, for me, 'information' doesn't "come in" except in a casual if widely used sense - we might say, in my view, that information is the act of being becoming informed but that might be tricky to parse correctly.

0th item: Like I said before, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". If it looks like crap, that doesn't make it crap except if one has crap for brains or crap in mind (looking too hard for vulgarity?)!


ME

PS - Did you post more about your notion somewhere else - I'm interested in reading about how your definition resolves the challenge of existence. And is Dutch your native language?

I personally am allways looking for vulgarity, it is to me as sweet as the scent of roses. Which brings me to the following point.
You speak somewhat derisively about informal use of language in this case. But in my opinion, complicated language does not increase the authority or clarity of that which is said, if anything, it clouds the facts and provides a lot of food for discussion about unimportant matter that is far beside the argument.
For me, and the three year old, it's better if you first formulate your thoughts as "a casual approximation which might fly for a bit." and then, when people start poking holes in it, you go on to fortify your theory with smart arguments.
Yet this is not what I observe in this discussion, and I know I am not the only one here who was confused. Take BillyHoyt, he's still wrestling with your first analogy, he hasn't even started on the double helix nonsense.
But luckily I also see that with the help of your last few posts, I'm getting there, which is nice.

On the P.S.-es: I can't answer that question yet as I don't know what you mean by the "challenge of existence". The existence of what?
And my native language is indeed Dutch.

 

[Mr. E]

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

I personally am allways looking for vulgarity, it is to me as sweet as the scent of roses. Which brings me to the following point.
You speak somewhat derisively about informal use of language in this case. But in my opinion, complicated language does not increase the authority or clarity of that which is said, if anything, it clouds the facts and provides a lot of food for discussion about unimportant matter that is far beside the argument.
For me, and the three year old, it's better if you first formulate your thoughts as "a casual approximation which might fly for a bit." and then, when people start poking holes in it, you go on to fortify your theory with smart arguments.
Yet this is not what I observe in this discussion, and I know I am not the only one here who was confused. Take BillyHoyt, he's still wrestling with your first analogy, he hasn't even started on the double helix nonsense.
But luckily I also see that with the help of your last few posts, I'm getting there, which is nice.

On the P.S.-es: I can't answer that question yet as I don't know what you mean by the "challenge of existence". The existence of what?
And my native language is indeed Dutch.

Heh.

re vulgarity: I see that your post has many flowers of distraction, and little if any seeds of the topic. Frankly, I'm not under any particularly restrictive real-time constraints here, so I don't mind if we explore a few side alleys along the way.

"challenge of existence" of Consciousness, as posed by the OP here! The OP asked for a definition and took a position that it doesn't exist, yes? I aimed to bring my perhaps idiosyncraticly twisted thinking to the thread in a clear straightforward manner by first offering a definition, waiting for comments, and then at some appropriate point considering what "exists" means, so at to perhaps resolve the issue. Okay? You say you posted a definition, and I asked how/where that enlightened the thread. I'm still hoping you will share your further insights.

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. What is unduly complicated about the language of

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

?

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.


ME

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

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

Why do you want to make this about me, personally?

I think this is about all of us, personally.

Are you projecting defensiveness of your own onto me?

To that I plead guilty, but with an excuse: it is the only possible basis I have for understanding others. I am in fact convinced that, as an evolved organ, the human brain's single most important function is to serve as a platform on which this type of 'simulation' can be run.

I ask this because you still have avoided dealing directly with my challenge to your early comment about my notion being "dim" (lacking in light).

Directness seems to be largely a matter of personal taste. I used to have a girlfriend who had the most delightful way of being able to gently insult me in some subtle way, so that it wouldn't hit me until sometimes much later. I've always enjoyed that sort of thing, but I suppose I'm not very good at it myself.

I thought it was actually rather obvious that I found "Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness" devoid of content because, as you said yourself: "Neither of these definitive equations [Sensation = becoming informed] [Awareness = being informed] is a radical departure from common usage". My hypothetical scenario was just an attempt at clarification. If there is still any hope for constructive discourse here I think it lies along those lines, though I'm afraid it may end up in an all too familiar quagmire -- what's funny is that at this point that's the optimistic scenario!

 

[Mr. E]

bold partsOriginally posted by Dymanic
I think this is about all of us, personally.

I think it's good to have focus (short of dogmatic blindness). When we pay attention to the poster rather than the post, we risk the ad hominem fallacy in one form or another. I try to post with self-attention and topical-attention foremost, whether playfully or seriously, with marginal other-attention.

To that I plead guilty, but with an excuse: it is the only possible basis I have for understanding others.

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

I am in fact convinced that, as an evolved organ, the human brain's single most important function is to serve as a platform on which this type of 'simulation' can be run.

An empathy organ?

I thought it was actually rather obvious that I found "Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness" devoid of content because, as you said yourself: "Neither of these definitive equations [Sensation = becoming informed] [Awareness = being informed] is a radical departure from common usage".

I'm still waiting for your standards please.

My hypothetical scenario was just an attempt at clarification. If there is still any hope for constructive discourse here I think it lies along those lines, though I'm afraid it may end up in an all too familiar quagmire -- what's funny is that at this point that's the optimistic scenario!

You definitely present a funny pessimistic attitude, if ironicly so. Please define "constructive discourse" - what would you build in this thread? If we don't both have the same goal in mind, we may end up getting in each other's way(s) or worse.

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

ME