Define Consiousness

[Dancing David]

posted by Mister E.
Sensation does not provide information, it provides sense data if we are to say it provides anything. Information occurs at what might historically have been called the body-mind boundary.

As to self-perception: There are [at least] two kinds of self-perception in the same general way as I just posted re Dymanic and David (sorry about the scattered nature of this reply - still not up to speed conceptually since the crash). Conscience bridges what we historically tended to call mind and body in the inverse "direction" from normal sense data flow. It's a feedback mechanism. The value systems embodied in its functioning generate sense via what might be part of what we historically tend to call emotion. This is a core of "self" - [possibly software-modifiable] hard/wetware. To the extent that this function works well, one might sense what one believes at/in any moment. That would form a basis for "real" self-perception.

Trolls and the Troll Bane exist in the eye of the beholder.

Sensation does not provide information, it provides sense data if we are to say it provides anything. Information occurs at what might historically have been called the body-mind boundary.

That depends upon the nature of the slippery little bugger of 'information' does it not? In that sensation is the raw neurological data being sent by the sense organ to the rest of the brain, but it gets sent to many different areas for further processing, some like smell go to the lower and higher brain areas. But the point that I haven't made yet is that 'perception' requires a fair amount of processing by the brain itself. This is where things like the color red and shapes are contructed by our brain.

So I assume that when you use 'information' you mean cognitive labeling of the perceptions? I am not sure.


The value systems embodied in its functioning generate sense via what might be part of what we historically tend to call emotion.

What about the raw body sensations that comprise emotion, generaly the flow is from body to 'mind', in that we 'feel' an emotion and it usualy takes considerable time to then determine and understand the source of the emotion. I have found that humans are very poor at identifing emotions usualy they feel them and then need to process them.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

Sensation does not provide information, it provides sense data if we are to say it provides anything. Information occurs at what might historically have been called the body-mind boundary.

Welcome to the main quagmire. If this is your first visit, you can get a preview of some of the delights in store for you here.

A quick skim through Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason will also help to make this a more enjoyable experience. A word of caution: there are many well-established paths through the quagmire, but be aware that some of them do lead to rather nasty pits.

 

[Mr. E]

Trolls and the Troll Bane exist in the eye of the beholder.

So, "he" should properly be "it", right? Just checking. The kind of "exist" and "eye" here suggests that consciousness does exist. Did you mean it that way? I'm inclined to think that you were referring to the junk aspects of what BillHoyt posted, when you wrote "Troll bane". I wonder what happened to him. He wasn't all bad, just evidently confused.

Sensation does not provide information, it provides sense data if we are to say it provides anything. Information occurs at what might historically have been called the body-mind boundary.

That depends upon the nature of the slippery little bugger of 'information' does it not? In that sensation is the raw neurological data being sent by the sense organ to the rest of the brain, but it gets sent to many different areas for further processing, some like smell go to the lower and higher brain areas. But the point that I haven't made yet is that 'perception' requires a fair amount of processing by the brain itself. This is where things like the color red and shapes are contructed by our brain.

Does it? I recognize your first comments there as distraction from the topic. As for processing by the brain, maybe you didn't read my post to BillHoyt about Supposition Fields? It would seem to have anticipated what you call the point you didn't make yet.

So I assume that when you use 'information' you mean cognitive labeling of the perceptions? I am not sure.

I'm not sure how this goes to the various levels of the OP topic, either.

The value systems embodied in its functioning generate sense via what might be part of what we historically tend to call emotion.

What about the raw body sensations that comprise emotion, generaly the flow is from body to 'mind', in that we 'feel' an emotion and it usualy takes considerable time to then determine and understand the source of the emotion. I have found that humans are very poor at identifing emotions usualy they feel them and then need to process them.

I think you are agreeing with me here. There are forms or modes of sensation. I would like to distinguish emotions recognized via normal sense and those experienced more directly. I haven't thought much about it yet. I have found that I can label my own raw body sensations different things depending on my attitude.

From another post in re Dymanic, David wrote:
I agree that there are behaviors/events that we refer to as consciousness, and that it can be convinient to do so. My argument is mainly against the mytical elevation of such things to a plane out side of the material realm.

There are reasons that the label consciousness is useful, but in discussion with Mercutio I have become to wonder if there really is this 'general awareness' or if there is just specific awareness.

"mytical' -- I guess that's Found Art. 'mystical' or 'mythical'? I won't argue against Found Art!

Do you dispute existence outside of the material realm, or are you against Found Art?

There is awareness in general, and there are particular awarenesses. Beyond that, in general and in particular, when two specifics are linked, what do you call that?




ME

 

[Mr. E]

Welcome to the main quagmire. If this is your first visit, you can get a preview of some of the delights in store for you here.

The quagmire I recognize in this context is a bunch of people yammering more or less unconsciously, to put it in vulgar terms. I'm trying to take this thread seriously.

A quick skim through Immanuel Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason will also help to make this a more enjoyable experience. A word of caution: there are many well-established paths through the quagmire, but be aware that some of them do lead to rather nasty pits. [/B]

Heh. If a lack of awareness of conscience/self amounts to the sticky pits of questions of human existence and experience... then I'm your inside man! If you are talking about stupid fart jokes, I'd rather be outside the room thanks anyway.

There are many worlds possible. The objects of consciousness are both imaginary and real. We make associations, and are prone to habit. We also make associations of associations with associated associations, that is we understand stuff whether real or imaginary or complex.

This thread is getting rather complicated what with Found Art, conflation, confusions passing for erudition, evasions, and the like.
Are we out to muddle like pigs or what?


ME

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

The quagmire I recognize in this context is a bunch of people yammering more or less unconsciously, to put it in vulgar terms

Maybe it just seems that way by comparison with the enlightening exchange of
carefully developed and concisely expressed ideas exemplified by this thread.

I'm trying to take this thread seriously.

It boggles the mind to think what might result from you just fooling around.

There are many worlds possible. The objects of consciousness are both imaginary and real. We make associations, and are prone to habit. We also make associations of associations with associated associations, that is we understand stuff whether real or imaginary or complex.

What struck me on reading that was the resemblance to the sort of thing often produced by random text generators, such as the (most excellent) one found here:
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/

Are we out to muddle like pigs or what?

Don't know about you. I'm just out. Maybe some other time.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Maybe it just seems that way by comparison with the enlightening exchange of
carefully developed and concisely expressed ideas exemplified by this thread.

It boggles the mind to think what might result from you just fooling around.

Don't know about you. I'm just out. Maybe some other time.

I would use a smiley, but they don't seem to work in this serious forum.

Mr. E, I'm going to give this one more try.
My interpretation of your awareness/sensation story is this.

- Sensation provides raw information.

- Awareness processes and interprets this raw information.

- Together they constitute concsiousness. (In which case a '+' would have been a great analogy).

- Consciousness cannot exist without either.

Good, that I can understand.
Now the questions that persist on my mind about this:

What is awareness?

What does this imply for the definition of consciousness as requested in the original post?

I'm only interested in answers nearly as concise as these questions. And of course, if I still am mistaken about your theory, correct me in the same manner.
Take your time.

 

[Mr. E]

I would use a smiley, but they don't seem to work in this serious forum.

Yeah, when I went to look at that other thread, these little icons were "all over" the place!

Mr. E, I'm going to give this one more try.

Promises, promises!

My interpretation of your awareness/sensation story is this.

- Sensation provides raw information.

- Awareness processes and interprets this raw information.

- Together they constitute concsiousness. (In which case a '+' would have been a great analogy).

Yay! but it's wrong. More righterly: Consciousness is a matter of the processes of information.

I've defined 'awareness' quite explicitly at least twice in this thread. In information theory: The state of being informed. Please don't ask me to repeat it.

Again: Sensation provides raw sense data, if it provides anything.

And no, a plus sign would strike me as misleading, but hey, this place isn't ENTIRELY serious, is it! Multiplication would be a relative improvement for some.

Pardon me if I presume: Are you trying to ask me how I account for *synthesis*??!

- Consciousness cannot exist without either.

It's a product not a simple sum. That's why I asked you how you meant "product" earlier. Zero times anything finite is still zero.

What is awareness?

See above.

What does this imply for the definition of consciousness as requested in the original post?

What does which "this" imply? I get the feeling this isn't the Critical Thinking forum after all. The OP mis-typed Consciousness, and implicitly called for a definition sufficient to determine whether it exists or not. The OP declared that the OP would argue one way or another. Subsequent discussion suggests that the OP is arguing against the possibility that consciousness exists in any meaningful way. Agreed?

One implication of having an agreed upon definition of terms would be to give focus to a discussion. It gives/lends/offers objectivity to an intersubjective venture. Then the discussants can quibble more meaningfully about the quagmire they are creating for themselves. Or they can use introspection and approach enlightenment without relying on mere vulgarity!


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Maybe it just seems that way by comparison with the enlightening exchange of
carefully developed and concisely expressed ideas exemplified by this thread.
It boggles the mind to think what might result from you just fooling around.

What struck me on reading that was the resemblance to the sort of thing often produced by random text generators, such as the (most excellent) one found here:
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/
Don't know about you. I'm just out. Maybe some other time.

If you are reduced to ad hominem suggestions and pattern mis-recognition maybe you shouldn't post any more. Don't take that the wrong way, I appreciated your participation while it lasted and hope you change your *mind*.

ME

[edit - remove silly comma]

 

[H'ethetheth]

I've defined 'awareness' quite explicitly at least twice in this thread. In information theory: The state of being informed. Please don't ask me to repeat it.

Sorry, I'll try to find it. But this "being informed" definition just doesn't seem to explain anything other than the information having been stored. However, a computer can do that too.

Again: Sensation provides raw sense data, if it provides anything.

data = information in my head. Please don't confuse me any further.

And no, a plus sign would strike me as misleading, but hey, this place isn't ENTIRELY serious, is it! Multiplication would be a relative improvement for some.

Not for a beginner like me it wouldn't, seriously.

Pardon me if I presume: Are you trying to ask me how I account for *synthesis*??!

Isn't that what your entire story is about? Of course I'm trying to ask you to account for synthesis. Among other things that is.

Zero times anything finite is still zero.

Yeah and something plus nothing is still nothing but something, which also works in this case.

What does which "this" imply? I get the feeling this isn't the Critical Thinking forum after all. The OP mis-typed Consciousness, and implicitly called for a definition sufficient to determine whether it exists or not. The OP declared that the OP would argue one way or another. Subsequent discussion suggests that the OP is arguing against the possibility that consciousness exists in any meaningful way. Agreed?

Agreed, now my second question was this. Awareness is defined by you in some way that I have yet to grasp. What does this definition imply for the definition of consciousness?
Because it seems to me that Dancing David would now ask: Is awareness real in a meaningfull way, or is it just processes in the brain etc.?
This is what I meant earlier by the problem having been shifted inward, and not 'solved'.

One implication of having an agreed upon definition of terms would be to give focus to a discussion.

I think that's why BillyHoyt asked you about vector calculus.

It gives/lends/offers objectivity to an intersubjective venture. Then the discussants can quibble more meaningfully about the quagmire they are creating for themselves. Or they can use introspection and approach enlightenment without relying on mere vulgarity!

I've seen no participants in this discussion relying merely on vulgarity.

 

[H'ethetheth]

What kind of definition? Awareness is only metaphorically a place, otherwise it's a state of being informed as stated before. It doesn't "do" anything. Will, intentional and/or reflexive, does stuff, makes things happen.

Aha, found it. And it's very much like my view on the self, in that awareness is not real in a material way, but very real in a conceptual way. This is exactly the point in my previous post. This definition has just shifted the question.
So my definition af awareness would become:

Awareness is that part of consciousness, which allows things to perceive and contemplate itself and its surroundings.

Do you see what I'm driving at here?

 

[Mr. E]

But this "being informed" definition just doesn't seem to explain anything other than the information having been stored. However, a computer can do that too.

So what? Definitions define, they don't necessarily explain. The more formal, often the less content there is to explain.

data = information in my head. Please don't confuse me any further.

I'm trying to be clear and find the "3 year old Scotch" level at the same time. Thanks for your patience.

Of course I'm trying to ask you to account for synthesis. Among other things that is.

Sorry, all your issues seemed to be aimed at "awareness" and other things, based on my reading of your posts. That said: I thought the "product" thing had been settled. The synthesis I have in mind/body is more like multiplication than it is like simple arithmetic addition. I'd say more but you seem to chide me for being too wordy.

Yeah and something plus nothing is still nothing but something, which also works in this case.

You wrote, "Consciousness cannot exist without either." I would say instead, to match your construction: "Consciousness cannot exist without both." Okay?

Agreed, now my second question was this. Awareness is defined by you in some way that I have yet to grasp. What does this definition imply for the definition of consciousness?

I hear that you don't grasp the *way*, and thus infer that you do grasp the *what* of the definition. But I'm not using hocus pocus methods of definition here, so I don't see what's out of the ordinary about how I defined the term.

Because it seems to me that Dancing David would now ask: Is awareness real in a meaningfull way, or is it just processes in the brain etc.?

Looks like a false distinction. Awareness is both, if you are careful about "real".

This is what I meant earlier by the problem having been shifted inward, and not 'solved'.

Fine. I didn't claim it had been solved. I claimed to have presented a useful tool for discussion, and so far my claim is holding up to the test. I don't know what you mean by "inward" in this context unless you are referring to the problems of other people - that the process of this thread is slowly and perhaps painfully excluding fart jokes and the like from the focus.[/quote]

I think that's why BillyHoyt asked you about vector calculus.

I'd rather not debate your guesses on this matter.

I've seen no participants in this discussion relying merely on vulgarity.

Glad to hear it.

ME

[edit - adding reply to another post here just noticed]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr. E
What kind of definition? Awareness is only metaphorically a place, otherwise it's a state of being informed as stated before. It doesn't "do" anything. Will, intentional and/or reflexive, does stuff, makes things happen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aha, found it. And it's very much like my view on the self, in that awareness is not real in a material way, but very real in a conceptual way. This is exactly the point in my previous post. This definition has just shifted the question.
So my definition af awareness would become:

Awareness is that part of consciousness, which allows things to perceive and contemplate itself and its surroundings.

Do you see what I'm driving at here?

:end quote

Well, if you like, Awareness is Ideal in a conceptual way. I don't see the shift you seem so clear about, but I suspect it's not that important. And no, you keep attributing more to awareness than warranted. Consciousness is nothing without sensation. And all I see is that you are distorting my words over and over again. Well, not literally "all" but that's the overall impression. Maybe you are trying to argue that your definition is the same as mine?

ME2

 

[H'ethetheth]

Fine. I didn't claim it had been solved. I claimed to have presented a useful tool for discussion, and so far my claim is holding up to the test. I don't know what you mean by "inward" in this context unless you are referring to the problems of other people - that the process of this thread is slowly and perhaps painfully excluding fart jokes and the like from the focus.

And discuss we did.
Look, I'm sorry if I seem like a bonehead to you, but I seriously have trouble reading most of your sentences, and I'm only now at a level where I can begin to consider the implications of what you argue.
About the false distinction. I just rephrased the original question, which made this distinction and in my opinion this was not completely justified. But that has been settled and I believe we agree on that.
However, I think the dissection of consciousness into its constituents in this way adds little clarity, because all the things that are unique to consciousness are still unaddressed in the same way, but are now attributed to awareness. This is what I mean by "shifted inward".
And other than that, I'm not even sure if I agree with the inclusion of sensation into consciousness. But maybe that's because I don't understand exactly what you mean by "becoming informed".
And I assure you: I don't mind you being a little wordy, as long as you don't bring up supposition fields and the like.

 

[BillHoyt]

Mystery,

You appear to be unravelling before our eyes. That's sad, but the basic complaints you're hearing from several quarters are sound:

o you can't twist words to mean whatever you want them to mean,

o you certainly can't use private definitions and expect understanding,

o you can't present hollow, pseudoscientific analogies to bolster your "authority," particularly if you have absolutely nothing to back them up,

o you can't get away with this Interesting Ian nonsense of shifting to subjective definitions. This is a transparently dualist attempt to escape the weight of evidence.

Dude, you're on a skeptic's forum and need to remember the boy scout's motto.

 

[Mr. E]

Mystery, You appear to be unravelling before our eyes.

If consciousness is becoming less mysterious to you, BillHoyt, that's the point here - demystifying consciousness. Good for you! It's a little odd to personify Mystery the way you do, but I can accept your expression of faith, even if it seems odd coming from a skeptic.

That's sad,

What's sad about losing illusions, gaining better understanding of the topic, and the like? I thought that was one of the goals of skepticism, dispelling illusions. Not to make this personal, but ARE you a skeptic in these matters?

you can't twist words to mean whatever you want them to mean,

Sez who? Why not? Are you claiming that that is Mr. E's MO or the MO of some Paranormalist Nuts you've encountered before? What is a scientific revolution if not the desires of the leaders of the revolution re-spinning the very grounds of science into a new orientation in the manifold of what is possible? Bill, you sure have/present an authoritarian attitude for a skeptic!?

you certainly can't use private definitions and expect understanding,

LOL!! Of course one can. But in *dialog*, or *public* discourse your point is correct enough - if you mean *common* understanding. That's what learning and true communciation is about, right? That's why I started my participation here with a compact clear and complex definition of THE term ostensibly at issue, 'consciousness'. You guys, the forums at large, have a thread I see of 52 pages of "quagmire" -- maybe it's past time to put pastimes to bed and get serious about the truth. Then we can be skeptical from a new orientation. I mean, a skeptic CAN learn, right? Can you?

you can't present hollow, pseudoscientific analogies to bolster your "authority," particularly if you have absolutely nothing to back them up,

What's this problem you have with authority, Bill? Still sore about misreading plain English? One may have assumed that was the purpose of the analogy, but that assumption is only good for "bullsh" from "moroons" and the like, speaking of abusive nonsense parading as meaningful private language.

you can't get away with this Interesting Ian nonsense of shifting to subjective definitions. This is a transparently dualist attempt to escape the weight of evidence.

Can you resolve the liar's paradox? Can you deal effectively with cognitive dissonance?

Are you sure that Mr. E REALLY is Mystery? Where's the weight of evidence? And stop posting as tho' I am trying to "get away". I'm right here, in your virtual face, despite the cr*p you have previously posted.

There's a difference between nonsense and non-sense. Please show that you understand it.

Dude, you're on a skeptic's forum and need to remember the boy scout's motto. [/B]

Dude, I hope you do better at heeding your advice in the future. Also, you might do well to learn the difference between prudent paranoia and being locked up in a padded cell or left out of the game entirely. Come to think of it, someone here referred to the relative age of posters here as 3 years old, so maybe you ARE a child prodigy in the Boy Scouts! [shrug]

To Review Where We Are: We are "on" Randi's website, an EDUCATIONAL Forum, in the CRITICAL THINKING Forum, in a thread on Consiousness(sic) and its definition. Got that?

So, are you prepared to accept the definition so we can move on? I don't want to rush you, in fact that's the last thing I want here.

ME

Irrelevant PS - That said, I am quite well prepared for another similar act of "Zeus" such as what occured last week or so in the collapse of the forum wavefunction in the form of a "disk failure".

 

[Interesting Ian]

Welcome to the main quagmire. If this is your first visit, you can get a preview of some of the delights in store for you here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The quagmire I recognize in this context is a bunch of people yammering more or less unconsciously, to put it in vulgar terms. I'm trying to take this thread seriously.

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?

Heh. If a lack of awareness of conscience/self amounts to the sticky pits of questions of human existence and experience... then I'm your inside man! If you are talking about stupid fart jokes, I'd rather be outside the room thanks anyway.

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

 

[H'ethetheth]

Ooh Boy, I think I'm going to hide for a while, and view the spectacle from a little distance. X)

 

[Interesting Ian]

Mr E
I'm trying to take this thread seriously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dymanic
It boggles the mind to think what might result from you just fooling around.[/B]

LMAO

 

[BillHoyt]

If consciousness is becoming less mysterious to you, BillHoyt, that's the point here - demystifying consciousness...

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.

 

[Mr. E]

Look, I'm sorry if I seem like a bonehead to you, but I seriously have trouble reading most of your sentences, and I'm only now at a level where I can begin to consider the implications of what you argue.

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.

About the false distinction. I just rephrased the original question, which made this distinction and in my opinion this was not completely justified. But that has been settled and I believe we agree on that.

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?

However, I think the dissection of consciousness into its constituents in this way adds little clarity, because all the things that are unique to consciousness are still unaddressed in the same way, but are now attributed to awareness.

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?

This is what I mean by "shifted inward".

That's a tired old game of dead people. My consciousness allows for in and out, inward and outward, and the like as simple failure modes of uninformed or confused thinking. Information occurs. Period. If it doesn't occur there can be no learning and arguably no knowledge worth speaking of.

And other than that, I'm not even sure if I agree with the inclusion of sensation into consciousness. But maybe that's because I don't understand exactly what you mean by "becoming informed".

Sensation is not included into consciousness. Where did I say it was? Maybe you don't understand but let's stick with one thing at a time here to keep it relatively simple. Sensation is required for consciousness, not included into it. If you like, 'sensation' is included into the definition of 'consciousness'. Is that what you meant?

And I assure you: I don't mind you being a little wordy, as long as you don't bring up supposition fields and the like.

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.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

LMAO

Hi Ian!! I hear that you and I seem to have something in common. Welcome to the thread, either way.
Do you have a conscious position to share?

ME