Define Consiousness

[Mr. E]

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.

The quiz was directed at Ian, the poster who expressed doubts (perhaps denial) about the meaning of that question, but thanks for sharing. So it has meaning for you, Atlas? I am not clear on how numbers signify units like millimeters. The number doesn't signify that, *we* "connect" units to some numbers, often for keeping track of the quantity of whatever in electromagnetic impulses, or goats, pigs, or..... ducks. What units are Pi ducks? No, I think there is some explaining to be done here.

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.

Well, analytic geometry could be what you are indirectly referring to, but I agree that Descartes didn't build Rome, Alexandria, or any other ancient civilization in a day, in any usual sense of the words.

~~

ME

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
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.

Huh?? What has Randi's challenge got to do with your unsubstantiated assertion that all terms can be defined??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consciousness sure can't be defined.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I mean what I say. I'm not sure how many differing ways it could be said. Not many though.

Now if you want to deny this then go ahead and give it shot. And cut the nonsensical drivel.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet we all know perfectly what it is.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aren't you assuming the conclusion?

What conclusion?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Mr. E,

When is it going to get through to that concrete head of yours that the utterance "What's the difference between a duck"? is not a question. It is wholly without any meaning. A lot of your utterances are likewise. Get it through your thick skull that I cannot answer a question which is devoid of any meaning.

I will not be responding to you again unless you have anything of remote intelligence to say.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Are you asking for a quick primer in set theory ala ME? I'd be happy to post a tiresome essay [...]

No, you missed the point of this part. I'm not asking you to pump me full of set theory. Read that part again but substitute the word "set" by "Gehoigefizzer". And don't give me stories about the essay you wrote on Gehoigefizzer theory.
Incidentally, do you see, that the "Gehoigefizzer" does not exist without either apple or pear?

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

Yay for me(!)
Seriously, what's with the paternal attitude all of a sudden?

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.

It is also still as unclear as it was in the beginning. And if awareness is not entirely unconscious, is consciousness then partially the product of itself? (This time the word product can be taken any way you like.) Doesn't that make for a very unpractical definition?

How does learning work for me. Let's see.
I have a set of axioms, I don't know all of them explicitly, but they all sort of agree with my experiences to date.
Then someone I'd like to believe, and who seems knowledgable on a subject I want to know more about, tells me about this subject.
I will then try to relate it to my experiences, and try to detect conflicts with my axioms. If I cannot relate it to my experiences I will be skeptical, and ask questions, and more questions if need be.
If I see a conflict my axioms, I will try to reconsider my axioms and when I've reconsidered them and found them inconsistent I will change my axioms.
If I don't see conflict with my (new) axioms and can relate it to my experience I hold it true.

In this discussion, I'm still trying to relate what you're saying to my experience. I have not succeeded quite yet, nor do I see the relevance of this, but here you go.

Effective enough?

P.S. This is not an invitation for a tangent on axioms.

 

[Mr. E]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr. E
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huh?? What has Randi's challenge got to do with your unsubstantiated assertion that all terms can be defined??

Evidently you have reading and/or thinking and/or imaginary difficulties the likes of which only you can deal with effectively. Good luck to you. I mean that.

The prior post stands otherwise unmarred by your reply.

I repeat: To whom? ...

ME

 

[Dancing David]

Posted by Mr. E
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.

I am not sure what Supposition Fields would be, there are a lot of studies about the areas of the brain which take sensation and create perception. I am concrete so I tend to be mechanistic.

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.

I would say there are no emotions that are not just cognitive labels applied to physical states of arousal. The contextual nature of emotions leads me to suppose that they are plastic labels applied cognitively after the fact.

"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?

I meant mythical but mytical will do!

I haven’t seen any evidence to support existence outside the material realm.

also posted by Mr. E.

The synthesis I have in mind/body is more like multiplication than it is like simple arithmetic addition.

What if I suggest that here is no mind either, there is only body?

 

[Dancing David]

Posted by H’ethetheth

Awareness processes and interprets this raw information.

It is my belief that most of this is done in the neurological networks, and that the raw data is already very interpreted by the brain, but if what you mean is meaning, then that is still something other than what most people label as awareness.

also posted by H’ethetheth

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

Now there is a sentence that can be chewed on by a reduction:
That which allows us to perceive is the brain and in fact it makes the constructions of perception.
Contemplation sounds like memory and cognition.

 

[Mr. E]

No, you missed the point of this part. I'm not asking you to pump me full of set theory

Of course, but that's my point, and your charcertization is ludicrous, plus the essay is topical. But I won't insist.

Yay for me(!) Seriously, what's with the paternal attitude all of a sudden?

Are you imagining things?? But I agree with y/our point that attitude is an important player in the unfolding drama of consciousness.

It is also still as unclear as it was in the beginning. And if awareness is not entirely unconscious, is consciousness then partially the product of itself? (This time the word product can be taken any way you like.) Doesn't that make for a very unpractical definition?

A good definition has to allow for a wide range of "things", practical or not.

The first question has a good part. My definition is a partial solution to the dilemma I guess you reference. It proposes a "solid" ground for limited consciousness on "top" of which other more challenging consciousness aspects might occur/exist (and be modelled too). Thus the fairy tale stopped after Chapter 1, for us to clear up things like this. Since you like stories, let me offer some examples of conscious control of perception which may make the notion more concrete for you.

You close your eyes in fright. Trivial?
You look at an old hag and see a young lady;
You look at the same picture, and can switch back and forth from one "view" to the other;
Whether consciousness "exists" or not, many people are capable of doing these *experiments*.

Did that little story help concretize it?

How does learning work for me. Let's see.

Yeah I get that, but how does it *work* *for* you, beneath all that vague post facto rationalization? Do you have a theory about how all that axiom stuff is possible in the first place, which theory proves your claim that "No it isn't the way learning works."? That's what I'm asking you for. How do you know that the learning I pointed at isn't in fact at the base of what we might call "your" learning (as described).



ME

 

[Mr. E]

Mr. E,

When is it going to get through to that concrete head of yours that the utterance "What's the difference between a duck"? is not a question. It is wholly without any meaning.

Nice typo, but totally bogus as usual. Even so, your very reply here shows the prior post with the true text string in it had meaning. It had purpose, intention, and consequence. If you had not replied it would have had at most weak meaning, being apparently inconsequential between us (tho Atlas also gave it meaning). Maybe you had some now dead definition of 'meaning' to which you might give meaning in/via text form here?

I will not be responding to you again unless you have anything of remote intelligence to say.

LOL! Remote control, Ian.

[Hey, BillHoyt, are you catching any symmetry breaking here?]

ME

 

[Mr. E]

I am not sure what Supposition Fields would be, there are a lot of studies about the areas of the brain which take sensation and create perception. I am concrete so I tend to be mechanistic.

Can you handle abstraction concretely, and abstract from the concrete?

Supposition fields are created by making the mind ready. I am prepared to discuss this more elsewhere but it seems perhap not the right time, except to give a hint: In math, "Let X...." is one incantation. Effective desire and prejudice are two other aspects. The null set is another.

I would say there are no emotions that are not just cognitive labels applied to physical states of arousal. The contextual nature of emotions leads me to suppose that they are plastic labels applied cognitively after the fact.

Emotions are not labels. We might apply labels to stuff, and label some stuff "anger-feeling" etc. But the general existence of emotion as a body-thing/process is undeniable to most human beings, as you admit. And since people recognize physical states with some if plastic consistency, we must accept those states as at least vague and indefinite candidates as objects of consciousness.

I meant mythical but mytical will do!

Non-sense is what it is, but that's no reason to wallow in it.

I haven’t seen any evidence to support existence outside the material realm.

Well, looks like you're headed to the question of the definition of "exist". When you close your eyes and picture something, say a shiny copper penny, is your imaging of it material? Or do you lack imagination sufficient to that test? If you see it even vaguely then it exists if only vaguely, else you lack imagination. Mind you, I'm not quibbling about whether brain function is responsible for the image.

What if I suggest that here is no mind either, there is only body?

I would say you were being silly, sneaky, or careless. Old story: What if someone suggests that there is no body either, there is only mind? Anyway, I'm voting for carelessness here.

ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

It is my belief that most of this is done in the neurological networks, and that the raw data is already very interpreted by the brain, but if what you mean is meaning, then that is still something other than what most people label as awareness.


Now there is a sentence that can be chewed on by a reduction:
That which allows us to perceive is the brain and in fact it makes the constructions of perception.
Contemplation sounds like memory and cognition.

I agree with you completely, I already did at the beginning of the thread. I have a feeling even Mr. E agrees with you there.
But I just want to find out exactly what Mr. E thinks about this, and to find out, I want to relate his nomenclature to my experience and then be able to say something useful about it.
Unfortunately without much succes.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Of course, but that's my point, and your charcertization is ludicrous, plus the essay is topical. But I won't insist.

My characterisation is not nearly as ludicrous as your vector analogy, not by a long shot.

The first question has a good part. My definition is a partial solution to the dilemma I guess you reference. It proposes a "solid" ground for limited consciousness on "top" of which other more challenging consciousness aspects might occur/exist (and be modelled too).

[...]

Did that little story help concretize it?

I get a feeling your definition wil solve anything you want it to solve, even global warming.

By "conscious control of perception". Do you mean control of sensation? If not, then this story concretises nothing. Otherwise little.

Yeah I get that, but how does it *work* *for* you, beneath all that vague post facto rationalization?[...]

Isn't that what we're doing here al the time? post facto rationalising?

Okay , you said. I can...
- accept definitions as tools
- challenge them
- ridicule them
- do nothing.

Bottom line is: I need to learn and understand the definition completely before I can do any of these things except "do nothing"

A good definition has to allow for a wide range of "things", practical or not.

And this, my friend, is the silliest thing you've said since you brought up vector calculus.
A good definition must exclude everything that is not the thing it defines, and above all it needs to be practical as a tool, for the reason above. (the bottom line:...)
A definition that allows anything you might come up with later in this discussion is not useful. It's bogus.

I'm out of this thread for while, I've had it. Maybe BillyHoyt has some soothing words for me.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
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.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Huh?? What has Randi's challenge got to do with your unsubstantiated assertion that all terms can be defined??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evidently you have reading and/or thinking and/or imaginary difficulties the likes of which only you can deal with effectively. Good luck to you. I mean that.

The prior post stands otherwise unmarred by your reply.

I repeat: To whom? ...

WTF?? I cannot make head or tail of what you are saying. To whom what? What the f*ck are you talking about you complete tit?? Could you please answer my question?? I repeat:


What has Randi's challenge got to do with your unsubstantiated assertion that all terms can be defined??

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Mr. E,

When is it going to get through to that concrete head of yours that the utterance "What's the difference between a duck"? is not a question. It is wholly without any meaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice typo, but totally bogus as usual.

I'm afraid not tithead.

Even so, your very reply here shows the prior post with the true text string in it had meaning.

"Text string"?? You mean your meaningless string of words. When the f*ck are you going to start talking in English??And how could it conceivably be deemed that this string of words has meaning due to the fact I am enquiring as to what it might mean??

What an unbelievable stupid tithead you are.

It had purpose, intention, and consequence.

No it didn't. A meaningless string of words only tells me that you're a moron. It serves no purpose whatsoever.

If you had not replied it would have had at most weak meaning, being apparently inconsequential between us (tho Atlas also gave it meaning).

I cannot recall him giving it a meaning.

Maybe you had some now dead definition of 'meaning' to which you might give meaning in/via text form here?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will not be responding to you again unless you have anything of remote intelligence to say.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL! Remote control, Ian.

Remote control?? What the hell are you talking about?? I'm sorry, I'm basically understanding zero of your utterances. You're using English words, but they are strung together in a meaningless fashion which convey zero meaning.

Does anyone out there have any more clue than me??

[Hey, BillHoyt, are you catching any symmetry breaking here?]

ME [/B]

BillHoyt has a tendency to lump people together whom he dislikes. Let me assure you that we have nothing remotely in common. At least he might afford us the courtesy of disliking us both for differing reasons.

I'm pleased though that I've actually understood something you've said (or at least I think I have).

 

[Upchurch]

[modu]Interesting Ian has been suspended for incivility.[/modu]

 

[Atlas]

Pardon my intrusion. I cannot keep up and have not read all the recent posts but I keep coming back trying to come to my own definition of consciousness. I write a bit and then my computer crashes and I lose it all. It makes me wonder if hanging around this board I have started to develop the Randiesque capability of causing failure in the presence of woo thinking.

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that thought, though caused by the brain meets a loose definition of beyond physical (ie. metaphysical. ) I don't generally think about it those terms though because it is a naturally experienced phenomenon.

This "thought" comes in many flavors. The conscious and unconscious being two of the distinctions. I think a jungle cat is conscious, I think a spider is too but in more of a behavioral, that is, observed way.

I analyze the thought functions something like this. The conscious and unconscious brain pumps awareness past instinct and volition. That needs some expansion.

The actions driven by volition and instinct, our behavior, relate to the output side of consciousness and unconsciousness respectively. Awareness is the input side. It enters the unconscious and passes through the a priori filters of survival, pleasure, pain, and memory and condenses into consciousness (based on a subjective standard of situational importance) where choice and volition can override any instinctual motor control. In the consciousness language and again memory also come to bear in a complex feedback that incorporates old concepts and new sensational awarenesses that collide in apprehension and comprehension.

To me this analytical breakdown robs the concept of consciousness of it's synthetic existence. It is clearly to my mind more than the sum of it's parts. It is not dependent on the language of man and these many words are merely shorthand for the force of nature that consciousness is.

Meaning is also a related word. Without language there is a clear implication that can be drawn that there would be no Meaning. These are in a sense foolish word games. The brain is responsible for a rainbow of processes. We can argue about whether it can be talked about as a single phenomenon, or as a makeup of many colors, or in terms of of a manifestation of the mind and the electromagnetic spectrum that is more perceived than real. Unless there is agreement on the level of synthesis of the subject all parties will continue to talk past each other.

What I'm saying is, in it's analysis consciousness can be viewed as many underlying processes. But it is also valid to discuss it in terms of it's synthesis which enables man to construct skyscrapers and symphonies, as well as ponder itself and the universe. I may analyze it and synthesize it differently than you all but I cannot escape the notion that it is one of those things that is larger than the sum of it's parts.

 

[Mr. E]

[modu]Interesting Ian has been suspended for incivility.[/modu]

I'd just like to say, for what little it might mean, that while Ian's style can clearly be labelled "aggressive" it is not entirely without merit, imho. There might be a method behind the madness more than just mindless game playing. The visible result(s) of the practice of denial as an art form or as a method of inquiry is/are highly subject to misunderstanding. But mere denial is clearly insufficient as a method in this context, something more must be present, in mind or not.

I am not arguing for or against your action, or future counteraction, in this post.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Pardon my intrusion.

No.

Ahem, that is, I for one welcome your post, intrusion or not!

Your eloquence falls nicely on my ears. Do you offer it as a target for critical analysis despite your declamation about how analysis fails to correctly account for Synthetic (or other) Consciousness?

I would maintain that awareness is not best considered an "input side", while I also agree that most discussions of consciousness I've seen fail to discuss openly and properly the role of Will. Perhaps that's my limited background more than an effective critique of the discourse on/in consciousness at large. I don't pretend to be well-read, only to offer a definition and discussion towards the topic of the thread. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that your notion, as I vaguely grasp it, of "sides" applies (I don't think it will hold up in any final analysis, but it's a common notion).

I think we must agree that if there are sides to consciousness at all like you propose, that sensation is on the input team and volition is on the output team. Please agree or disagree explicitly, and if disagree, say why, including correcting my terminology to "correct" standards.

That leaves awareness and something else.

Under my "axioms" (as hinted or stated earlier) we have a 2x2 matrix of sorts:

being informed which I have called awareness
becoming informed which I called sensation
being expressed
becoming expressed

Care to fill in the blanks?

ME

PS - I'd like to further discuss Atlas' post, but currently have real-time constraints in addition to my extant discussions already in progress here.

 

[BillHoyt]

Under my "axioms" (as hinted or stated earlier) we have a 2x2 matrix of sorts:

being informed which I have called awareness
becoming informed which I called sensation
being expressed
becoming expressed

Care to fill in the blanks?

First blank, of course, is the disconnect between R² and the vector cross-product. Which, of course, was the thrust of some of my original and still unanswered questions.

You've now made abundantly clear your analogy is bunk. The cross-product demands R³ So how do you resolve this "small" problem?

[Edited to add: Grrrr. They still have HTML off in this area.]

 

[Mr. E]

I'm afraid not tithead.

I'm not afraid of you or your distractions, but as I said re Bill earlier, don't take this as anything more than possibly misplaced generosity on my part. And get some new manners to go with your vulgar probes, please. Thz.

"Text string"?? You mean your meaningless string of words.

That would be Ian's meaningless strings of words, to you, if you had a self to call "you". But let's not talk more about you directly here, for several reasons.

When the f*ck are you going to start talking in English??

Is that a complaint that you were not able to parse some text string of mine? For a student you sure seem arrogant. May I recommend a dash of 'humility', in case you can read that much with meaning? As a teacher you are worse than abrasive, just FYI, no personal attack intended.

And how could it conceivably be deemed that this string of words has meaning due to the fact I am enquiring as to what it might mean??

Maybe you didn't read my response carefully. Care in reading can have something to do with deriving meaning from a mere text string. After all, this whole discussion might pivot on the very question of how non-sense comes to be taken to make sense, right? Well, at least from one point of view I think that's a serious side of it.

What an unbelievable stupid tithead you are.

Maybe I was wrong about their being a method in the apparent madness here. That's something I could live with, too.

No it didn't. A meaningless string of words only tells me that you're a moron. It serves no purpose whatsoever.

Stop denying the evidence which you yourself are generating into what is supposed to be a Critical Thinking Discussion Forum, Grasshopper. You are fixated on the past, we are creating the future, if the future can be said to be creatable (I have theories on this, but not for here).

I cannot recall him giving it a meaning.

Possible. Maybe you don't recall what you, or he, did in public. That happens to most human beings from time to time if not all the time. Or maybe you just aren't following the flow of meaning developing in this thread very closely. It's up to you.

Remote control?? What the hell are you talking about??

You said, "remote intelligence". What in heav*n's name were you talking about??

I'm sorry, I'm basically understanding zero of your utterances. You're using English words, but they are strung together in a meaningless fashion which convey zero meaning.

Sorry to hear that. It's amazing you can write what look like English phrases, and even clauses, rude or otherwise, considering you seem to have so little in the way of reading comprehension skills.

Does anyone out there have any more clue than me??

Seems I do. Would you like to become my student?

BillHoyt has a tendency to lump people together whom he dislikes. Let me assure you that we have nothing remotely in common.

Based on prior usage on your part, it's reasonable to infer from "nothing remotely" that you are intimate with Bill, possibly even running a simlar operating system with a slight twist to the subroutines. Based on the forum evidence I have scanned (not much beyond parts of two threads, I confess) and rules, either you are apparently breaking the rules in the fashion of "sock puppets" or you just about never mean what you seem to say.

At least he might afford us the courtesy of disliking us both for differing reasons.

Was that a conversational aside?

I'm pleased though that I've actually understood something you've said (or at least I think I have). [/B]

Why don't you cite exactly what part was understandable to you, and show what you take to be your understanding of it so that I might learn whether you misunderstood in your sincere attempts to find meaning in what I post.

Have a nice suspension!


ME