Define Consiousness

[Mr. E]

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??

Try re-reading what I posted, please. Your text string seems to show evidence of creative writing abilities.

Don't make head or tail of it. There's too much of such excesses around anyway, imho. Just respond to it or admit you've caught yourself where you don't want to be, and can't find any other way out. That's logic for you, huh!

Anyway my question supercedes your "red faced" question on sufficient grounds for me to restate it:

"To whom?..." I believe the Search function here might lead a sincere student to the original text quite easily. Then if you still don't get it, show your work and someone might help you out of where you say you are stuck!

Have a nice vacation, too!

ME

 

[Mr. E]

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.]

Yeah, life isn't perfect yet, even if Ian says so, huh! (don't answer that please)

What is R² or R-squared to you here? If it's shorthand for something I wrote or necessarily implied, how about connecting them explicitly for us? Like maybe

R2 is Bill's shortand for [blahblahblah]

if you get what I mean.

Funny how you take so much interest in bunk, Bill. BTW, smell any more rats recently? Can't you please stop whining, and state some kind of coherent argument please? Otherwise people might get the impression that the definition is rock solid as well as more fluid than most might care to suppose.


ME

PS - I'm going to take a wild guess here that Bill is denying that the cross product produces a vector orthogonal to the plane of the unconscious. Close?

 

[Mr. E]

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.

So, rate of success can be slow, or not - depends where you're coming from and going to, usually. Sometimes insight hits in a "blinding flash" sometimes it's taken for granted.

I didn't quite catch which "this" demands your "exact" attention, speaking of "exactly". Is it important to you?

BTW, did I miss your response to my "humor me" section of a prior post? It's neither funny nor an indication of learning to ignore such stuff. While you might be training me in how to be a better teacher in a narrow field, my understanding was that you were studying my definition. Almost *nothing* I say to you in response to what I take to be a serious question is irrelevant to that process. Sometimes its too wordy, and thanks for pointing that out earlier.

Do we have any meaningful understanding in common at all, as you understand things? If not, we should establish some or give up and admit that the intersubjective assumption fails for us.

ME

 

[Atlas]

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...

Always. Though I consider myself a slow thinker. That is, it may take me sometime to respond, as other poster's input festers in my brain like poisons infecting a great boil on the butt of God's own creative orifice. I never know what'll pop out or when. (Dang it. Sometimes when I push eloquence it goes right over the cliff.)

Still, feel free to press me for clarification. Perhaps an intellijent burst will strike you.

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.

I Agree.

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?

How did you put it earlier, oh yah... NO. You are thinking square. You are inviting me to be the box. You are using math.

I'm a computer programmer. We triangulate. Input -> Process -> Output. (It's hard for me to depict triangulation linearly - Ponder it comprehensively against the number 3.)
I would combine your two "becoming" legs and equate it to my "Process". By example I submit the Eureka experience. Here there is a Process of intuition that occurs around a simultaneity of becoming informed and expressing it. More viscerally expressed, Culpepper back to pass, The ball is in the air, (wait for it - becoming, becoming), Moss in the Endzone... TOUCHDOWN! YAY!!

We input the TV images. There is a lot of processing, we may move to the edge of our seat. Then we hit the conscious realization stage and celebrate. Interestingly, we do a lot of processing unconsciously. We are being flooded with emotions during the feedback stage where the fan hits onslaught of images of the unfolding play. I think much of consciousness involves the feedback of information against emotions. Perhaps that's already been talked about. But as I move to the edge of my seat, the "input/process/output", "sensation/anticipation/hifivin" whirls in a vortex of feedback.

You use the word awareness as having a being informed meaning. I don't often quote Charles Manson but I will here... Fear is when you are most aware. OK, it's a poorly constructed thought but he was probably high. Still, in the documentary's leadup in which I heard the thought expressed, I took it as profound. A state of awareness is a readiness state... antenna up. We are steeping in the sensations of the surrounding environment. Fear is an amplifying elixir. But the sensations are not necessarily informative. In your math we are aware without being informed. Then a twig snaps behind us. We hear it. We jump. Very little becoming. Very little process. Big input. Big Output.

I'm sizing it up more like this, I guess...

Input: Awareness of sensation (Mentalizing the Physical)

Process: Apprehension, Intuition, Comprehension, etc. (Pure Mentalizing)

Output: Volition, Instinct, Action, Behavior. (Physicalizing the Mental)

 

[hammegk]

No, put his words next to yours in very close proximity, and get back to us with how the text strings are manifestly not different even to a word processor.

Manifestly not different text strings? You do go on don't you?

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

ME

Does this mean you have an affinity for some form of dualism?

 

[Mr. E]

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

My analogy may seem farfetched to some but your characterization of what you seem to admit you don't understand, that's gotta be ludicrous if taken seriously.

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

Why does it seem I must remind you of the context of this discussion? So far, my definition, and that which stands behind it, hinted at or explicity, "solves" quite a lot. Else why would Bill be still calling it names like "bunk" instead of simply debunking it! See?

Whatever 'consciousness' might "hold" or mean for a reasonable human being, that should not be excluded by my definition. Is that a fair or better starting point, to be formal about it?

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

Whatever. Let me know when you decide to get serious again, please.

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

Similar, but evidently not what you presented. Similarity has many traps, or "stinky pits" to borrow a term from this board. Only the right similarities are right, d'oh!

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

Something like that, only I recall asking what I asked. I'm seeing an increase of apparently trivial linguistic malfunctions in your post here, like commas and periods and such out of place, in addition to what might be fair enough or might be in error. Just FYI.

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

As I asked before, How do you learn? As I said somewhere before "...trial and error..." What makes you think humans are born into a world fully conscious, not having to make mistakes and learn empirically?? How do you learn that which lets you talk about learning things via so-called "axioms" in the first place? Bottom line, so to speak, in response to you, No. Prior completeness is obviously not necessary to learning. Sigh... but thanks for the typing exercise, and maybe somebody else has been getting more than that out of reading this thread.

And this, my friend, is the silliest thing you've said since you brought up vector calculus.

I'm taking that as high praise. Did you want to get back on topic, or explore your pathetic sense of humor further? Please remember my bias in this thread!! (just remember it to yourself, not out loud)

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:...)

Depends.

A definition that allows anything you might come up with later in this discussion is not useful. It's bogus.

Curious. The most powerful definitions are the most inclusive, right? Math, for instance. What's the point? It's a matter of supposition fields, in part, as I've been saying for awhile now. What is required is discrimination, not blanket denial or exclusion as you seem to propose. Are you confusing the inside with the outside here??

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

Whatever.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Manifestly not different text strings? You do go on don't you?

Does this mean you are admitting you are a fool? No offense, your response strikes me as foolish and/or arrogant [edit - Found Art possible insult corrected]. Are you still maintaining that his text string was exactly identical to your interpretation of it??

Does this mean you have an affinity for some form of dualism?

Does this mean you did not read much of anything some of us have been discussing? Like my first post in this thread, that might be a good place to start...

Post the two text strings of interest, side by side vertically speaking, and then if examination shows they are literally the same I shall admit I had a major brain fart. If you can then concisely show how they must necessarily "state" the same thing other than what "nothing" states then I shall be in a position to admit I am the bigger fool than you in this matter.

Here's what you said, apparently acting as his mouthpiece:
"No, he's stating that he *is* conscious, and that all else is assumption. "

I leave it as an exercise in foolishness for anyone who cares to check up on what Ian posted.


ME

 

[hammegk]

... If you can then concisely show how they must necessarily "state" the same thing other than what "nothing" states then I shall be in a position to admit I am the bigger fool than you in this matter.
ME

Irrelevant crap I have no interest in pursuing. I would like to discover if you consider yourself a dualist. If so, do have any rational argument for why you are?

If not, and if you are a "materialist", welcome to Hume's problem(paraphrased): If it's deterministic, why am I responsible? If it's random, why am I responsible?

 

[Dancing David]

My, my.

All this time & effort, and DD knows full well that in his worldview --- reality being a Turing machine -- Awareness=Input, Consciousness=Output. Dymanic, II, glad to see you're still around; we even have new blood.

To those re-contemplating the mind-body interface, good luck.

Quagmire, indeed!

Hiya HammeGK!

And a pithy analysis no less, this thread is very blessed.

I don't recall saying that reality was a Turing machine, I have said that I felt a Turing machine would produce consciousnessif constructed correctly.

Awareness is much more than input, I would say that it is in fact a self referencing perception, of many different channels.
Consiousness as out put, well from the strict behavioral viewpoint, out pout would be bahviors that demostrate consciousness.

The mind body interface is un-needed unedr either monism, the mind is the body, consciousness is brain events, possibly.

 

[Mr. E]

Irrelevant crap I have no interest in pursuing. I would like to discover if you consider yourself a dualist. If so, do have any rational argument for why you are?

Okay. We will politely pretend it didn't happen in public, even though evidence proves otherwise. Very skeptical of you, Monsieur! May I sell you a bridge, or introduce you to God in my own pathetic way?

How does your personal consideration of my consideration of myself bear on the topic, for you? I'm a "Mystery" according to BillHoyt's posts. On this board one might think I am a *duelist*, tho' unlike Aaron Burr, but then "doing the list over" is a weak, pun, eh? As I said, I'm trying to take this topic seriously. If you have personal inquires, direct them to email etc. That I love Found Art should be taken only as an aside for most readers.

If not, and if you are a "materialist", welcome to Hume's problem(paraphrased): If it's deterministic, why am I responsible? If it's random, why am I responsible? [/B]

Old hat. Why should I put myself willy-nilly into a category which belongs to the dead and dying?? My interest is Synthetic Consciousness, not how people misread Hume. Please respect that.

Thanks.

ME

 

[Dancing David]

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

This is the kind of assertive definition that I find confusing. It would appear that all parts of consiousness are learned events and behaviors, why then should it be beyond definition? Even you Ian did not know what anger or love was when you first experieneced it, and in fact many emotions are very dependant upon the contextual label applied. So no, it is not clear what consciousness is.

I feel that you fail to answer because you wish to avoid the logic of the reduction. The things that are called consciousness are all discrete events that can be labeled.

While there meay be an immaterial component, evidence is lacking.

 

[Mr. E]

And a pithy analysis no less, this thread is very blessed.

Maybe.

I don't recall saying that reality was a Turing machine, I have said that I felt a Turing machine would produce consciousnessif constructed correctly.

While I support Synthetic Consciousness including the possibility of running it on a platform other than your average primate etc. brain, and have for about 7 years, and a Turing-like machine might well play a role in the development of human understanding of consciousness (like sparring classes), it seems you think any old emulation running on say a Macintosh would count as the real thing.

Consiousness as out put, well from the strict behavioral viewpoint, out pout would be bahviors that demostrate consciousness.

I DO love Found Art!!! Children do pout, a very important insight into the fundamental nature of consciousness!! BTW, "Consiousness" has been corrected already, hasn't it? I recall something about typos...

The mind body interface is un-needed unedr either monism, the mind is the body, consciousness is brain events, possibly.

Watch those typos, you might accidentally say something true.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Dancing David re the recalcitrant Ian
While there meay be an immaterial component, evidence is lacking.

David,

Have you answered my penny ante test yet? If you won't take the test, you can't pass meaningful judgment on matters depending on it.

Sincerely,

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Always. Though I consider myself a slow thinker.

Met too. That is why online is great for me.

How did you put it earlier, oh yah... NO. You are thinking square. You are inviting me to be the box. You are using math.

This is not a trap. Did you mean math is using me?

I'm a computer programmer.

Ah. Bad if comfy habits die hard. I've done embedded progamming myself on 8-bit processors and human brain. The former had almost nothing to do with this current thread. You seem to be the one stuck in the box, not realizing that what I have to offer might offer a way out.

I would combine your two "becoming" legs and equate it to my "Process".

Whatever. Are you claiming an exact morphism or just fooling around with vague notions?

By example I submit the Eureka experience. Here there is a Process of intuition that occurs around a simultaneity of becoming informed and expressing it.

Can you say more? The "aha!" experience is indeed an important aspect of Synthetic Conscious, and I'm not talking vacuum fluctuations in the ordinary material sense.

We input the TV images.

What?? TV is known to rot brains.

I think much of consciousness involves the feedback of information against emotions. Perhaps that's already been talked about. But as I move to the edge of my seat, the "input/process/output", "sensation/anticipation/hifivin" whirls in a vortex of feedback.

Nice! The metaphor of Spin has been my ally for about 10 years. Synthetic Consciousness allows for this, too. And yes, we've touched briefly in this thread on emotions and feedback from mind into body, to use outdated terms for a moment.

You use the word awareness as having a being informed meaning. I don't often quote Charles Manson but I will here... Fear is when you are most aware. OK, it's a poorly constructed thought but he was probably high. Still, in the documentary's leadup in which I heard the thought expressed, I took it as profound. A state of awareness is a readiness state... antenna up.

Some states of awareness are readiness states. That's been stated explicitly in the thread via active/latent, plus "ready mind" and "supposition fields". So we're relatively close here, it seems.

We are steeping in the sensations of the surrounding environment. Fear is an amplifying elixir.

Uh... that's a bit poetic here. Can you restate in plain terms?

But the sensations are not necessarily informative. In your math we are aware without being informed.

I am not clear how you figure that. Be careful about introducing your own model's notions into your understanding of my notion's model.

Then a twig snaps behind us. We hear it. We jump. Very little becoming. Very little process. Big input. Big Output.

Startle reflex etc. So what? We might jump before we recognize it for what it is. Small input, but surprising. Output depends on attitude and other things.

Input: Awareness of sensation (Mentalizing the Physical)

Process: Apprehension, Intuition, Comprehension, etc. (Pure Mentalizing)

Output: Volition, Instinct, Action, Behavior. (Physicalizing the Mental)

So... why can't you take a stab at putting names onto what might be my somewhat similar structures? Is it because you don't really know what you are talking about re Output? Most people don't, they learn to do by imitation. "Watch me, and try to do what I do..."

Thanks for taking this thread seriously!

ME

 

[Atlas]

Mr E you wrote: I've done embedded progamming myself on 8-bit processors and human brain. The former had almost nothing to do with this current thread. You seem to be the one stuck in the box, not realizing that what I have to offer might offer a way out.

Well this is what I get for coming to the party late. My Dad would've claimed he'd done embedded programming on the human brain, although he probably would've called it scolding or whippin. I still can't escape some of what he put in me. Is that what you're talking about? Would I know if I was stuck in this box you offer escape from? I've been in Plato's cave and I've seen the sun. Could be a bigger different kind of cave I suppose. Or a large box. Right now I'm doing ok. You tell me if I'm stuck, I'll listen and judge.

Let's go on... When I combine your two "becoming" legs to "Process" you ask... Are you claiming an exact morphism or just fooling around with vague notions? While I might take issue with the phrase "fooling around" I readily admit to vague notions. So yah, I expect to get the same treatment from other posters as you with the notions I present. As far as exact morphism, no. I was shooting for reasonable equivalence.

Next you ask for more comments on the aha! experience. It is an amazing phenomonon. I think I first became aware of it and developed my own vague notion of it from Buddhism. Christianity teaches a prayerful meditation. Keep a quiet monologue or chant going. But the emptied, quieted mind delivers to consciousness answers and insights. I'm of the opinion that all problem solving occurs by this method. Behaviorially we become perplexed and stare at the problem with a quizzical expression perhaps and after a moment a strategy or answer appears to consciousness and we get back to acting on our problem. Where the idea or answer or strategy comes from we call the unconscious. In fact the phenomonon is so readily apparent it seems natural to name the abyss from which these ideas spring as the unconscious because it is clearly a different kind of thought process than the articulated logic of the conscious mind.

After this we had some agreement but you wanted me to expand on this comment: We are steeping in the sensations of the surrounding environment. Fear is an amplifying elixir.

Nothing much really. Emotions amplify some sensation and the opposite happens too. Adrenaline experiences can mask sensation, like being shot in battle and not even know it until the adrenaline wears off.

Next I jumped the gun a little and you called me on it. I said: But the sensations are not necessarily informative. In your math we are aware without being informed.

The first sentence I'll say now relates to the gun shot on andrenaline, though that wasn't the original context. I was trying in the second sentence to relate my thought in opposition to your model. If we are in battle and have been shot it is my belief that we sensed it and are aware of it at some level but not consciously. The consciousness receives the next important thought from the unconscious. If fighting back is more important in the survival situation than suffering the wound we will not suffer. That is, we are aware but not informed.

Finally you ask: So... why can't you take a stab at putting names onto what might be my somewhat similar structures? Is it because you don't really know what you are talking about re Output? Most people don't, they learn to do by imitation. "Watch me, and try to do what I do..." This was a strange set of questions for me. Vortexwise I was spinning toward a definition of consciousness. You had presented a model, I thought it was square. In keeping with what I perceived as your flawed analogy of the shape of consciousness I chose a triangle. A much more succint and stable shape I might add. But it was pretty much the same thing. I said INput, you said being INformed. You said "becoming", I said "process". And what you called being EXpressed I called OUTput. I thought I was establishing a fair equivalence with my own preferred model. I thought your model was as unweildy as it was unfamiliar. I wasn't trying to dodge. This began as DD's thread. I was trying to define consciousness/unconsciousness in my own terms of mental activities and relating it to sensation and behavior. My model did not explicitly name the conscious and unconscious in the Input, Process and Output sections, partly because of my expressed dislike to leave the thing analyzed when, whatever consciousness/unconsciousness is, it is for me a synthesis greater than the sum of it's parts.

Your question asking if I "don't really know what I am talking about re Output?" seemed to be followed by a confusing non sequitor. I agree than in learning we often follow models and imitate. But I didn't see how that related. I certainly know what I am talking about regarding Output. I'm probably the only one who does. These are my thoughts and I'm the one presenting them. Are they representative of the truth of the reality. Well yes. To me, Yes. I was offering that unconscious Instinct and conscious Will were drivers of our voluntary movements. (I am leaving breathing and heartbeat out of the discussion for now.) Clarify what you were asking here if I was way off base. Or feel free to explain where I am off base - Again, sorry that I haven't read the whole thread and missed that part of the discussion.

 

[BillHoyt]

PS - I'm going to take a wild guess here that Bill is denying that the cross product produces a vector orthogonal to the plane of the unconscious. Close?

Try again. Apparently you don't even know the basics about which you blather. R2 (sorry, we can't do superscripts here) versus R3. One of the issues I raised in my original set of questions. Stop dancing and start answering.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Whatever. Let me know when you decide to get serious again, please.
[...]
Did you want to get back on topic, or explore your pathetic sense of humor further?

Yes, I intend to get serious again, and explore my "pathetic sense of humor", as well as yours.

Excuse me for my last unfriendly post. I had run out of patience. I'm okay again though.

About bunk:

My analogy may seem farfetched to some but your characterization of what you seem to admit you don't understand, that's gotta be ludicrous if taken seriously.

Indeed, this vector analogy may seem far fetched to some, but to me it seems ill-conceived.
I came up with the 'apples and pears addition story' to make clear to you how unintuitive your multiplication analogy really is. It was in fact an illustration of why I don't understand your notion of synhtesis.

Apparently you didn't notice, but BillyHoyt is debunking your theory. You just don't answer his questions.
In fact if you answer his questions satisfactorily(is that a word?) he'll probably be willing to inquire further ito your notions on consciousness.
To fill you in on his latest post:
R3 stands for a three dimensional space. That is, any vector in such a space is described by three perpendicular components.
The vector product requires this three-dimensional space R3. In two-dimensional space, as in any space other than R3, the vector product is meaningless.
So a 2 x 2 matrix equasion can have nothing to do with vector products.
If you did not know this, you shouldn't have used an analogy from vector calculus, because it could easily be construed as false erudition, which places you in a disadvantage in intelligent conversation.

As a side note to other readers; I've heard no-one but Mr. E use the term "supposition field", so can anyone explain to me what that is? (Google comes up with a story about UFOs and some .pdf that includes "...supposition: field...")

About definitions:

Math as a broad definition is not very powerful as a discussion tool. That's why there are different specific fields of specific types of math, so everyone knows what is talked about.
Definitions may not contain vague or ambiguous terms - like synthetic in this case - because this will result in only bickering over the defintions of the vague terms themselves.
And that's the whole point. If you check back in the thread, responses tou your posts reveil that people on this board have trouble understanding what you say. They ask you: what is being informed? What is awareness? What do you mean by ... ? etc.
Maybe this is because you use definitions that are not clear enough, but this too can be construed as false erudition, or as obfuscating the fact that there is not much revolutionary to what you say.
This, needless to say, places you in a disadvantage in an intelligent discussion.

Agreed?

Edited for puctuation...and again for the spelling of punctuation.

 

[Mr. E]

Try again. Apparently you don't even know the basics about which you blather. R2 (sorry, we can't do superscripts here) versus R3. One of the issues I raised in my original set of questions. Stop dancing and start answering.

Apparently you have a reading disability or just don't want to take this topic seriously. Define your terms in simple terms suited to the 3 year old mentality mentioned before, please.

And, again, did you miss my reply(ies) which touched on your analogy fixation? I've pointed to it(them) several times now. Don't be rude and then go asking me for favors.


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Yes, I intend to get serious again, and explore my "pathetic sense of humor", as well as yours.

Well, as long as we have a common bias, I'm confident we will get along fine! Thing is of course, that critical thinking kinda demands that we test our biases, if not to the ultimate breaking point in each moment, at least in regards the immediate context of a discussion.

Excuse me for my last unfriendly post. I had run out of patience. I'm okay again though.

Patience is a good thing to run out of sometimes. Frustration is a good thing to work through. Both are aspects of a discussion of consciousness worth at least noting if not practicing in a terminal fashion! Your "unfriendly post" was not without merit, in my "eyes".

About bunk: Indeed, this vector analogy may seem far fetched to some, but to me it seems ill-conceived.
I came up with the 'apples and pears addition story' to make clear to you how unintuitive your multiplication analogy really is. It was in fact an illustration of why I don't understand your notion of synhtesis.

That's not big news to me. I'm still waiting for a serious reply to the "humor me" thing so that I can assist you further along in this thread.

Apparently you didn't notice, but BillyHoyt is debunking your theory. You just don't answer his questions.

BillHoyt seems to be out of order most of the time. Points of order trump alleged points of debate, in my world, even if the alleged point of debate has merit (but sometimes I'm generous despite that, perhaps a failing on my only human part). Points of information might have value, but not absolute value (except in a math pun sense). Bill seems, no offense, to be fixated on something I can't see in this online venue. As far as I can tell, if Bill is debunking something it must be in his imagination if it is anywhere at all. My apologies if that's too wordy, but you seem seriously interested in just about nothing.

The vector product requires this three-dimensional space R3. In two-dimensional space, as in any space other than R3, the vector product is meaningless.
So a 2 x 2 matrix equa[t]ion can have nothing to do with vector products.

Uh, I see problems with your analysis. Where did I equa[t]e the matrix to the vector analogy? Further, if you were a Flatlander (you know the storybook, Flatland?) the vector product might seem/be meaningless to you for all intents and purposes. So I don't see any meaningful challange to the "beginners analogy" here, sorry. BTW, subspaces of RN might support vector cross-products, just FYI, so don't limit your thinking to only R3 (but don't fixate on it either, please). Also, you may note that Bill has recently disclaimed denial of the analogy, so you and he are still barking up the wrong, uh, tree, it seems. Perhaps you guys can get even more serious at take a bite out of crime or sumthin.

If you did not know this, you shouldn't have used an analogy from vector calculus, because it could easily be construed as false erudition, which places you in a disadvantage in intelligent conversation.

Let's not assume I'm entirely ignorant about what I present, okay?

As a side note to other readers; I've heard no-one but Mr. E use the term "supposition field", so can anyone explain to me what that is?

I read this as you not asking me to explain this further, and shall therefore await the no doubt delightful attempts of others to explain a matter of something of no content in mind to someone who doesn't seem to understand understanding itself!

This, needless to say, places you in a disadvantage in an intelligent discussion.

I'm hardly perfect, and this isn't strictly a formal intelligent discussion, it's also a demo, and it's some jokers posting more or less seriously in a forum on the internet... People might ask in strange ways which look like something else from time to time. While it's cute to be clever, is it taking the topic seriously to doge it mindlessly? If I deem, from my "insider" point of view that a definition is warranted when asked directly to offer one, I will generally comply. If I don't comply, it's generally because the challenge or request seems out of order. Use logic on that. Is more chaos what you want here, or can we show some discrimination and attention to detail and propriety?

Agreed?

As qualified above, okay. I believe we have ruled out mere black/white dichotomies (inside-outside and the like) in favor of discriminating distinctions, a form of intelligence suitable to higher consciousness. Agreed? We have clarified that the more powerfully broad a definition, the more carefully it must be agreeably defined in order to put chaos in its proper place and thus allow progress on the topic. Agreed?

Edited for puctuation...and again for the spelling of punctuation. [/B]

LOL! Cute. Nice Consciousness joke!

Did I miss anything important from/in your post?

ME

PS - There is at least one Found Art instance of note in this post, for any art collectors out there.

 

[Atlas]

I have wanted to come out of this with a reasonable definition of consciousness but my thoughts on the subject fold and overlap in on themselves. I don't really think that I should leave the body out of the definition but for now I will. First though I will just put down random thoughts relating to relationship of the unconscious and the consciousness to the brain, which for no particular reason other than to reveal how I am thinking about the brain, I call the brainmeat pump/valve.

Brainmeat pump/valve: Controller of organs. The unconscious. Valve controller directing different organ's chemicals to be released or withheld from the organism's systems. Is the manager of breathing, heartrate and other involuntary systems.

Brainmeat pump/valve: Thought and idea preparer. The unconscious. The searcharea and the automatic search mechanism that accesses and retrieves related storages converting and elevating them as idea and thought.

Brainmeat pump/valve: Idea and thought callout evaluator. This is the consciousness or part of it. Here, what is commonly referred to as idea appears. This is a real world association mechanism, the symbol manipulator. Here images and words appear that compare or contrast with the familiar external environment (physical objects, language and math constructs used and taught etc.). It seems as though each idea is tagged with desire or some other emotion and in feedback to the unconscious draws up the next subjectively assigned important word, idea, or association. Symbol manipulation is not limited to those learned, many are invented, from monster images to new words to new maths.)

Brainmeat pump/valve: Body mover, behavior driver. This consciousness/unconsciousness aspect is seamlessly integrated with the thought callout evaluator. Even a fleeting idea of thirst directs the body to rise and get a drink. Volition has both a conscious and an unconscious component. We stare into the fridge and decide whether to choose water, OJ, or soda pop - but the directive causing us to reach is more of a thoughtless phenomonon. It seems automatic and driven by whim expression. An odd experience is when a limb "falls asleep" and we coax volition with articulated thought... "must... grab... TV clicker".

Personal definition of consciousness: That function of the brain that requests, evaluates, and chooses among it's own symbols and associations and drives the body to action for the organism's survival, comfort and satisfaction.

(Edit: As I reread my consciousness definition it could almost stand for my unconsciousness definition. The consciousness has a different valuation scheme though. And included in that is it's ability to be self-referential. Valuewise, the unconscious seems able to make any association unless an association has been consciously suppressed. Consciousness values according to subjective factors offered by the senses, likes and dislikes, goods and bads.)