Define Consiousness

[BillHoyt]

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.

Points of truth trump all, mystery. You are taking the oft-heard credophile stance of refusing to address issues because of the mean skeptic posing the questions. Balderdash. You've got nothing but flummery here, and you know it.

 

[Mr. E]

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.

No problem, that's what the party is for, at least from my perspective.

That was quite a lot of words you generated! I don't think I can do it all justice, but will try to follow your example and pick several fixed points, but in my own preferred style.

Is that what you're talking about?

Sorta. The school of hard knocks, though not child abuse in the usual sense as one might mistake from your words. As for 'embedded': I here [try to] demo the way of Synthetic Conscious embedded in me, embedded by circumstances somewhat beyond my control working more or less in concert with my subconscious and semi-conscious desires - while and by engaging in discourse on the topic. Does that address your issue well? BTW, if we aren't "stuck", is the conversation moot?

Next you ask for more comments on the aha! experience. It is an amazing phenomonon.

I think there is more awe than amazement to the point, but the two can be pretty close except that 'awe' more stongly suggests the possibility of fear, something I will get back to below.

I'm of the opinion that all problem solving occurs by this method.

That would be nonconscious problem solving? That is, there are rote methods of problem solving such as searching for an almost-known text-string such as a word on the tip of one's tongue. The iteration through the alphabet seems to rely on conscious if private behavior (computers can implement something *like* this via human conscious direction). But I would agree that human problem solving is probably based in something like what you describe with *focus* somehow engaging less than obvious processes in a state of apparently unfocussed behavior - asking a spiritual guide for an answer, for instance... sometimes suddenly you *believe you know* what to do! I trust this reads agreeably to you.

Fear is an amplifying elixir.

Okay, it's like a drug-based temporary shortcut to higher consciousness? I've experienced that at times in the development of Synthetic Consciousness. Facing one's fears with logic and patience (aka perseverance) is sometimes hard to do, but often quite valuable, in my experience. The problem is that when the "drug" wears off, depression might follow. Also, it's not yet clear to me how the "drug" interacts in the brain processes - what does stimulate awareness into heightened activity, and is the fear-as-chemical more an epi-phenomenon or more causal? That said, fear allows/creates reduced awareness in other areas, in my experience. One gets "tunnelvision" mentally speaking and can't attend to other potentials as well as that which is at the *focus* of the subject-object relation which involves/creates the fear conditions in the first place. Synthetic Consciousnes, practically speaking, must not rely only on drug-based experiences as this, even as it currently might rely on fear-drug based experiences in another larger sense.

Sorry if that was convoluted, I haven't written/thought much about this angle before and appreciate to critically work through the jungle of synthesis here.

Speaking of jumping the gun:

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.

Sorta not. I distinguish 'conscious awareness' from 'awareness'. I get the picture but not the conclusion as stated. Would you accept: "Soldier has/experiences nagging vague 'interrupt' but ignores it and thus doesn't recognize it as pain due to attention focussed elsewhere"? The soldier is not fully informed as to the circumstances. The soldier *became* informed in your story, and engaged in denial for awhile. No experience of suffering until maybe later there is more nagging "helpmehelpme" which the soldier then *associates* with some part of his somatic structures and then does experiments to become more fully informed as to the "real world" facts - looks at the area of interest and notes blood etc. Does that clarify? It's an ongoing evolving process, in process terms.

In keeping with what I perceived as your flawed analogy of the shape of consciousness I chose a triangle.

Perhaps we are talking different forms. The "square" is not my analogy, sorry, but it might work.

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.

If the triangle works, fine. I think it might beg something important. Time will tell. But let's be clear about these relations -- to me, input into the larger system is a matter of *becoming* informed, not of being informed - this is an important "orthogonality" to respect when becoming clear about the definition and any "model" you might try to create via your own understanding(s). Without becoming informed (sensation) we can never learn, no matter how much prior information we have, that is, no matter the degree/intensity/activity of being informed (awareness). The Synthesis, while perhaps running on brain processes, and arguably understandable as a process itself, is to be distinguished clearly until there are no other options. Conflation is a shortcut to ignorance, if I may be allowed a pithy remark.

Your question asking if I "don't really know what I am talking about re Output?"

My apologies, that was poorly phrased on my part. What I was aiming for was much simpler and yet perhaps much harder to state without seeming silly: "How do you do?" with the implicit connected question thus - can you tell me how you know your doing? Obviously we do *experiments* and that feedback loop is fairly obvious in general to most everyone, but how well do we each know what we each are doing at any moment, if say, we are without sensory feedback? Most people are, for instance, highly oriented towards action into the world so as to achieve space-time oriented goals, such as putting the dried glass onto the shelf after washing it. But action into the world occurs, at the behavioral level, not in those terms of space-time, but in terms of action in the moment -- our muscles effect from nerve impulses *forces* in/into the world which accelerate inertial masses and so on. We *learn* via trial and error to match space-time based information streams (call it knowledge if casually) with [fill in the blanks in the matrix], some other possible duality of nature having to do with volition and the like. If knowledge is said to be founded in space-time, what's the other part of the picture and why should we not think of it as a duality as well, when we try to think what cannot be merely be thought or sensed but only done?

How's that? Probably been said before by someone in some terms or another. It's a Dual Duality "in" which many suffer, if we suffer. Synthetic Consciousness is, in part, an attempt to refine the vocabulary of the debate.

So, got fill-in-the-blanks now?


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Points of truth trump all, mystery. You are taking the oft-heard credophile stance of refusing to address issues because of the mean skeptic posing the questions. Balderdash. You've got nothing but flummery here, and you know it.

Garbage in, garbage out, Dirtbag. You've had more than enough of my attention in this thread. Go read a stone cold post (as previously directed) and see if you can breathe some life into your non-sense.

Oh, and now it's your turn to go read the Randi Challenge and get back to us with your critical essay on how it's entirely irrelevant here.

Pointedly yours,

ME

 

[Mr. E]

(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.)

Not to devalue nor demean the body of your essay by only responding at this time to this postscript of yours...

Nicely stated point. In my terms: Symmetry breaking is indeed a critical factor, both as tool and as the work in process. The distinction at issue clearly is a very fine point, if we can even begin to define it here (at this moment). I don't think I'd use Consciousness as the subject of a transitive verb at this point, but casually I'd agree. It tends to, well, overly subjectify the object of discussion!

I believe it is possible to draw reasonably sharp lines between what I take to be your unconscious values and suppose you might mean by 'your conscious values'. And so it's questionable whether "conscious[ness] values according to subjective sense data" itself is coherent (makes sense). Conscious values, if we are to make a distinction of meaning are values of mind, not of body, whether they are "nestled" on top of subconscious or nonconscious values, or not. We can suppose much which we cannot sense by ordinary sense perception. Surely the virtues which supposition fields might support might be rather different from sense-data dominated values. It's necessity vs. possibility here.

Agreed?

ME

 

[drkitten]

Uh, I see problems with your analysis. Where did I equa[t]e the matrix to the vector analogy?

I'm not sure. But you're the one who brought the notion of "cross product" into the discussion, and discussed the idea of consciousness being a cross product of becoming and being....

How it follows:

General case: C = S x A

Particular case (Information):

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

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

To be fair : you may not have known that "vector product" and "cross product" are synonyms -- and it was possibly unfair of H'ethetheth to swith terms on you (bad H'ethetheth! no notation biscuit!). But his central point stands -- if you're going to start flinging around mathematical analogies, you better understand the math underneath them.

In particular, the 2x2 matrix to which you wish to apply the "cross product" doesn't permit it. There is no "cross-product" operation defined for matrices of such size; it can only be applied to 3x3 matrices (or alternatively, it can only be applied in three dimensional space (R^3). To someone who actually understood the mathematics, the idea of a "cross product" in a two-dimensional space is as ludicrous -- and as uninformative -- as talking about "the third wheel of a bicycle." Bicycles don't have three wheels, by definition, and two-dimensional spaces don't have cross products.

Similarly, your statement

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).

... is simply wrong; two-dimensional subspaces of RN will not support vector cross-products, no matter how "unlimited" your thinking is. This isn't a limitation of the thinking, but of the mathematics, and more importantly of the meaning underlying the mathematics. If you want to talk about a three-wheeled bicycle, there's a word you should use instead.

So as a "beginner's analogy," it's either meaningless, wrong, or misleading through abuse of terminology. In any case, you need to find a better way of expressing yourself if you expect either to communicate your ideas or even to be taken seriously.

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

Where is the line drawn between assuming that you're entirely ignorant, and concluding it on the basis of what you've written?

 

[H'ethetheth]

A few things before I can continue on topic

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.

This comment I'm supposed to reply to, is something I vaguely remember not understanding. I looked it up and I still don't understand it. It might be a language thing.

[...] My apologies if that's too wordy, but you seem seriously interested in just about nothing.

That I take as an insult.
But as long as we're insulting: As I said earlier, pompous language bears no authority, it just clouds, annoys and distracts from the topic.

Uh, I see problems with your analysis. Where did I equa[t]e the matrix to the vector analogy?

Sorry, indeed you did not. However I can see the next set of questions rising about the elements of this matrix, their meaning, invertibility etc.
Be careful with math, in fact stay out of math concerning this subject, since the subject has nothing to do with math.

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

I'm sorry but the following exchange made me suspect otherwise.

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Let me say this: You split up consciousness into two parts.

To which you replied:

Three. Remember your good point about three dimensions?

My point about three dimensions had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of parts you split consciousness up in. In fact it was the same point as made in my previos post (on R3). You completely missed the boat, so forgive me if I jumped to conclusions here, but that reply does not hint towards expertise on vector math.

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!

Yes, because you are obviously the only one with content in mind on these forums. I bet you're mighty contented up there at the top of the intellectual ladder.
I asked this not because I don't want you to explain it to me. I'm just curious if anyone knows, and subsequently wheter it's meaningful for you to use it in the discussion, what with nobody understanding and all.

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...

It may not be completely serious, but it is mostly intelligent conversation.

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?

I'm not sure. I don't quite see how this helps. I would like to see you come up with a definition without vague or ambiguous terms, or definine the terms that have proven vague and ambiguous in this discussion.
Now, I think I understand that in your view consciousness cannot be cleanly cut into its constituents, so I will not ask you to again, but I still want to know what you're on about, so either you ignore me or find a way to explain your view untill I understand.

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.

Now this I agree to completely.
Your definition awaits clarefaction.

 

[H'ethetheth]

bad H'ethetheth! no notation biscuit!

Awww!

What happened to 'old' drkitten?

 

[H'ethetheth]

Oh, and before I forget, Mr. E:

You'll have to forgive my lack of expertise on subjects concerning consciousness and supposition fields.
For your information, my background is that of aerospace engineering a.k.a. 'rocket science'. Which means I don't deal with biology or supposition fields, not much with philosophy and not with 'new' or complicated mathematics. But I do deal with critical and analytical thinking (and a lot of vector math).

So I'm once again sorry if I seem like a bonehead to you, but don't mistake me for one just because I lack knowledge on certain subjects.
Furthermore, I see no shame in lacking knowledge so I do not mind anyone being ignorant of vector math to any extent, just don't pretend.

regards,

H'ethetheth

 

[drkitten]

What happened to 'old' drkitten?

I wish I knew. The backroom boys at JREF are working on it now, I gather.

 

[H'ethetheth]

I wish I knew. The backroom boys at JREF are working on it now, I gather.

Lost in the great crash of ought four was he?

 

[Dancing David]

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

Could you point me to it or quote it again, I am not sure which of the many posts you are referring to?

Thanks!

(You have posted a lot and I have responded to some but I am still eading page four trying to understand much of it.)

 

[Dancing David]

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

Most certainly , it is just the way my brain organises things, very mechanistic. So absraction exists, I just admit the bias in my conceptual network, I can more easily express the mechanistic in clear terms than I can the intuitive.

I can make intuitive statements, but then I examine them for contextual validity.

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.

That is probably worthy of another thread but seems to be the main thrust of your conception. There would be many things which would influence such objects,
the biological structure of sensation and perception
the organizational structure of association (deliberate and preconsious)
the cultural set of expectations
the social set of expectations
personal belief

basicaly I think I understand your use.

But where does this lead to consciousness? I am aware of the filter effect but I consider the brain to use biological reverberation as the method of organization.

Emotions are not labels.

that is a rather strong assertion, if there is such a strong self identify-ing component to emeotions, then I ask why is there such a lack of clarity in the expression of emotion.
As a social worker i spend much of the day helping people to thats elf definition.
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.

Ah. I would not deny that the body states that we label as emotions are not body states, just that there is a great deal of 'non-clarity' in the interpretation of those body states.

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.

Yes but a very vauge objects with the lack of clear referential status.


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

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?

My guess would be that the state which produces the image of the penyy is a physical state of arousal, memeory and constructive reverie.

Or do you lack imagination sufficient to that test?

Or do you lack the social skills to avoid baiting?

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.

Different people have different capacities for recontructive and creative visualization, it appears to be unrelated to imagination, some people can imagine single objects more easily than others. I tend to imagine in 'scenes'.

As to the external validity of those scenes, ?


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

I would say that it is a moot point, as discussed frequently with hammeGk, in mant a thread. I find there to be no difference between the monist and the scientist. The monist and the materialist have untestable hypothesis that are not readily discovered.

I state that it would appear there is a physical realm and that the brain is the vehicle of the mind. Or in an analogy

:looks both ways for Troll Bane:

The mind is the wake of the brain. The brain is the boat and the mind is the wake in the material realm.

:looks around again:

Is that Metaphor Monster still lurking?

 

[Mr. E]

I'm not sure. But you're the one who brought the notion of "cross product" into the discussion, and discussed the idea of consciousness being a cross product of becoming and being....

Fair enough, only, and btw, thanks for joining the thread here. I caught a bit of what I recall to be your jousting with BillHoyt at the end of a "quagmire" of a thread. Did Bill put you on ignore back then?

That said, this reply is almost totally off-topic, but what the hey!

To be fair : you may not have known that "vector product" and "cross product" are synonyms

To be fair, it doesn't matter unless you make a big stink over nothing important, like overdigested boot-strapping. Chasing red herrings used to be something I fancied until I got tired of the taste. Some evidently like that kind of poison. Bleah.

But his central point stands -- if you're going to start flinging around mathematical analogies, you better understand the math underneath them.

Was that a topical point at issue? BTW, I do, well enough. H' is evidently intent on improving my didactic skills, and I appreciate the rare moments of correction, have said so.

In particular, the 2x2 matrix to which you wish to apply the "cross product" doesn't permit it.

Sez who!?

To someone who actually understood the mathematics, the idea of a "cross product" in a two-dimensional space is as ludicrous...

The result might be in 3-space? Whose "point" is that, Flatlander? Aren't you a bit fixated on this "point"? Must be a slow day at the office.. Anyway stop limiting your thinking to R2, I'm working in something like RN with N>2 as any sensible reader would have understood if the reader had a clue at reading for meaning with your apparent education in the formalities of math. The R2 think (sic) is a figment of Bill's rudimentary imagination *in this context*, and that's allowing for a bit, not something I made topically necessary.

If you want to talk about a three-wheeled bicycle, there's a word you should use instead.

If you read the rest of the thread I think you might grasp what is going on here. If you want wheels, try an automobile with an engine.

So as a "beginner's analogy," it's either meaningless, wrong, or misleading through abuse of terminology. In any case, you need to find a better way of expressing yourself if you expect either to communicate your ideas or even to be taken seriously.

Thanks for the feedback, it was stated casually before I realized how silly posters here could get. BTW1, When quoting, please use exact quotes. Thanks for getting through the kindergarten level of Synthetic Consciousness. BTW2, I don't accept your three part categorization, but it's moot either way.

Where is the line drawn between assuming that you're entirely ignorant, and concluding it on the basis of what you've written?

In common decency, at the "If...". If you (anyone) don't understand something, open your mind and "see" what happens. Denial is not sufficient as a learning tool. Nit-picking typos is silly in a casual context.


ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

I state that it would appear there is a physical realm and that the brain is the vehicle of the mind. Or in an analogy

:looks both ways for Troll Bane:

The mind is the wake of the brain. The brain is the boat and the mind is the wake in the material realm.

:looks around again:

Is that Metaphor Monster still lurking?

Am I "that Metaphor Monster"? If so, yes, I lurk still, and will continue to do so for some time and eat your face if I don't like your analogies or metaphors.
However, even though you failed to include any obscene bodily functions in this analogy, I find this one very easy to relate to. I know what a boat is, I know what a wake is.
I will not eat your face.

Also, I object to the title Metaphor Monster.

 

[Atlas]

Mr E,
These exchanges do get long addressing every point so I'll choose the more interesting areas of agreement and disagreement. Regarding the Eureka or aha experience, I wrote that in my opinion all problem solving occurs by this method. Perhaps it was an overstatement but I need better examples as to where problem solving occurs differently. The phenomenon is, as we agree I think, often available to a focused worker who suddenly draws a blank. There are multiple strategies that can be employed but in a moment of quiet blank expectation an answer or strategy presents itself to consciousness.

These insights come from somewhere in the dark recesses of our mind. They are exceptionally powerful perhaps because of the emotion that accompanies them. I think that is the case. It's my philosophical posture. When the child learns that 3+4=7 and demonstrates his knowledge by pronouncing the answer after several seconds of blank thought and then is lavished with praise, the child is not only learning his sums but the positive feeling of being correct. I believe that emotional rush is secondarily associated with the delivering up the correct answer experience. That is, "Eureka" comes to produce the positive feeling of correctness all on its own. It may not happen as I describe but it does produce the feeling.

Likewise, the Bible devotee can read some troubling things in his good book, but in quiet meditation on the questions raised, answers come - often in the form of insight. This is accompanied by that feeling of correctness he'd call, a blessing. To me this speaks to the power of the expectant wait that delivers up the insight and the feeling. We have a tendency to latch onto our own insights because of the accompanying feeling. And as I remarked philosophically in another thread: Regardless of truth, feelings are their own proof. (This to me is an axiom of the mind.)

I'm drifting a bit here because I'm trying to set up for the other question you ask about knowing and doing as well as how the chemicals of our emotions shape our understanding of truth and consciousness. But before I do that I want to say that this expectant wait ALWAYS delivers an answer or strategy. We are never left in vacant stare brainlock for long. Of course, sometimes the strategy is, "I'll have to come back to this later - I'll work on this other thing now and maybe the answer will come to me."

When a child learns his numbers or ABCs, he invariably gets it wrong... ABCGTVDWXYZ or something. If he does start right ABC and end right XYZ, he knows he's done. The middle might not be correct but for him things went pretty well. When the child gets it all down rote, I still think the Eureka concept is in play. It's just so much faster. The search for associations is all together. It may seem like a conscious behavior but for me the conscious behavior is the application of desire or wish or whim or whatever you want to call it to the current symbol in consciousness and requesting the unconscious search mechanism to deliver up the next character. The wait time merely tends toward zero. That's why we can say it stupidly as I did at the beginning of this paragraph. I desire to deliver up the ABCs as a child and wha'd'yaknow, I can. I merely make a request for a desirable association not with correctness but with a child. It's a "correct" version to for what I want. I think the Bible reader gets a "correct" version of the answer he wants and the skeptic for what he wants. (What we do with those answers is a separate discussion.) My point is that the Eureka phenomenon may in fact be the way we solve all problems with speed of retrieval being the factor that makes us believe it's a totally conscious experience without reference to the retrieval that obviously must be going on. Even this long paragraph has words following words that must have been retrieved to communicate the point.

Ok, as usual I'm going long. I won't discuss my gunshot soldier and I'm dropping my triangle model discussion because I incorrectly had put you and your model into a box. I'll finish up with your knowing/doing deprived of senses question. First I'll say, that I'm not sure I'm following and we could explore this more. But if you're saying that a blindfolded person cannot write on the lines as well as a sighted person, I agree. But not all of our knowledge is in space-time. I know if I'm going to vomit. It's an internal experience that I can't be deprived of sensorally. It may come on faster than I can run, but I'm at least on the way. I'm sure I'm missing the point so expand on it for me. You said:

If knowledge is said to be founded in space-time, what's the other part of the picture and why should we not think of it as a duality as well, when we try to think what cannot be merely be thought or sensed but only done?

 

[Mr. E]

Now this I agree to completely.
Your definition awaits clarefaction.

Phew! btw, 'clarification'? Let's see what fun we can have with the preceding part of your post:

Re: The "humor me" stuff about criteria for understanding -

This comment I'm supposed to reply to, is something I vaguely remember not understanding. I looked it up and I still don't understand it. It might be a language thing.

Could be. If you don't say, "Hey pal, I still don't understand [whatever]" you can see I might have to only imagine we are on the same page. David now seems to have clue about supposition fields. Does that suffice for that term? As for "to understand", let me know explicitly if you ever get the odd feeling (or more) that you require further definition [be specific] from me so as to correctly understand stuff I post here in my idiosyncratic style.

That I take as an insult.

If it's not offered as an insult to you? Does that clarify? (The point is a fine point, you could take 'just about' as a pat on the back in that context just as well as an insult, imo -- seems to be a style I've seen around here.) I can understand that my dual style of posting, sometimes crypticly short, sometimes apparently too wordy, might make it hard to "get on my wavelenth" but I don't want you to only believe you are on the correct wavelength, and then fall into a new trance (no offense) where you might take the wrong things for granted and the right things wrong(ly).

As I said earlier, pompous language bears no authority, it just clouds, annoys and distracts from the topic.

Method in madness? I hope my explanation above removes this obstacle to our future harmony! I happen to believe that I know what I am talking about pretty well tho' not completely, in this very narrow context. Y'all are in effect helping me test that belief.

Sorry, indeed you did not. However I can see the next set of questions rising about the elements of this matrix, their meaning, invertibility etc.

Glad that got cleared up, not all matrices are necessarily mathematical objects at that level. But then I must offer a red herring alert. This is a critical thinkiing forum, right? If it comes down to bizarre nit-picking on the first round (yes we are still on the first round a I see it) I can see Dymanic's point too well. May I suggest that you and I at least remain above the fray whenever possible?

Be careful with math, in fact stay out of math concerning this subject, since the subject has nothing to do with math.

Maybe. If that counts as a working approach for you, fine. As I pointed out to Bill a verrrry long time ago, this is not about emulations in the ordinary sense (as noted at the time, and since to someone else). I think Dymanic might understand this, too.

I'm sorry but the following exchange made me suspect otherwise.

Yeah, I got it. Critical thinking alert:
Three. Remember your good point about three dimensions?

My point about three dimensions had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the amount of parts you split consciousness up in.

"good part of that point"? Tell me how it has absolutely nothing to do with this please - that is, since you don't fully understand yet, maybe there IS some connection. ?? Could be a trivial issue, and if so, we could just move on for now and if it catches up with us later, deal with it then.

Yes, because you are obviously the only one with content in mind on these forums. I bet you're mighty contented up there at the top of the intellectual ladder.

??? Care to explain, irony or not, sarcasm or not?

I asked this not because I don't want you to explain it to me. I'm just curious if anyone knows, and subsequently wheter it's meaningful for you to use it in the discussion, what with nobody understanding and all.

How long shall we wait before you choose a different way of moving the conversation forward on this point?

I'm not sure. I don't quite see how this helps. I would like to see you come up with a definition without vague or ambiguous terms, or definine the terms that have proven vague and ambiguous in this discussion.

Can we agree on criteria for success in this matter, in advance? Isn't the criterion here that of the definition being sufficiently clear to address the OP challenge?

Hey, my fingers and head are tired already today!!

ME
[I didn't proofread as well as usual... ]

 

[Atlas]

... Symmetry breaking is indeed a critical factor, both as tool and as the work in process. The distinction at issue clearly is a very fine point, if we can even begin to define it here (at this moment). I don't think I'd use Consciousness as the subject of a transitive verb at this point, but casually I'd agree. It tends to, well, overly subjectify the object of discussion!

I believe it is possible to draw reasonably sharp lines between what I take to be your unconscious values and suppose you might mean by 'your conscious values'. And so it's questionable whether "conscious[ness] values according to subjective sense data" itself is coherent (makes sense). Conscious values, if we are to make a distinction of meaning are values of mind, not of body, whether they are "nestled" on top of subconscious or nonconscious values, or not. We can suppose much which we cannot sense by ordinary sense perception. Surely the virtues which supposition fields might support might be rather different from sense-data dominated values. It's necessity vs. possibility here.

Agreed?

We might be close here. You're talking above me so I can't be sure. But if we are - we should probably stop that right away. (Hey what happened to my smileys?)

And toward that end I offer my updated definition of consciousness and a little more for target practice.

My 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 and appreciates it's abilities.

I have added the final conjunctive phrase "and appreciates it's abilities" to my definition to incorporate the self-referential aspect of consciousness and to differentiate it fully from a definition of unconsciousness and confirm it's distinct type of value system.

My definition of "self" would be a terse: A construct of the consciousness that differentiates it's host from the rest of the world.

My definition of "soul" would be similar: That construct of consciousness within the construct of "self" that appreciates the world and itself.

(Edit: Oh Yah, by "the world" I really mean that old cliche - God, the Universe and Everything.)

 

[Mr. E]

Oh, and before I forget, Mr. E:

You'll have to forgive my lack of expertise on subjects concerning consciousness and supposition fields.

Before I sign off for the "day", I basically assume no prior academic knowledge of the topic on your part and am happy to answer/address/respond-to your explicit questions and requests for definitions in context. I thought this chat would have been unnecessary, but hey, live and learn!

For your information, my background is that of aerospace engineering a.k.a. 'rocket science'. Which means I don't deal with biology or supposition fields, not much with philosophy and not with 'new' or complicated mathematics. But I do deal with critical and analytical thinking (and a lot of vector math).

For your information, my most relevant background is a lowly degree in Physics, with 8 undergrad semesters of math, followed later in life with dabbling in robotics, electronics, philosophy(consciousness studies for one, d'oh!), spirituality, procrastination (I had a six month apprenticeship once which lasted many years!), the school of hard knocks and introspection, becoming un-tongue-tied, and many other possibly marginally relevant studies. I enjoy wordplay and many of my sentences have two streams of meaning both of which relate to the ostensible topic. I deal a lot with uncritical thinking myself, but you'd do well to read that carefully and then ignore it. I first proposed Synthetic Consciousness about 7 years ago, then dropped it for awhile until I got a pointer to this forum and my interest perked up again when I saw this thread, then at under one full page. The thread seems to have revived an overdose of passion on my part for the subject (and object of course)!

So I'm once again sorry if I seem like a bonehead to you, but don't mistake me for one just because I lack knowledge on certain subjects.

Okay! Sorry if I project to you the impression that I make such judgments about you. [okay already!? After you Alphonse....]

Furthermore, I see no shame in lacking knowledge so I do not mind anyone being ignorant of vector math to any extent, just don't pretend.

Ummm... good spirit and attitude. I will try to install and use a working assumption that if you don't ask explicitly, you have thought critically, analyzed completely and don't need a "lecture". I suspect my assumption won't last, on general princples not because you are who you are.


Plain Unironical*,

ME

*to within the uncertainty principle uncertainty or so

 

[Mr. E]

We might be close here. You're talking above me so I can't be sure. But if we are - we should probably stop that right away. (Hey what happened to my smileys?)

Okay. What? Why? (dunno) .. in that order. Is there something in particular you think might "equalize" things, regarding what you cited? I seem to dance between being too obvious and too obscure here. Mebbe that was just a joke about my text being there "above" yours on the page... dunno.

My definition of "self" would be a terse: A construct of the consciousness that differentiates it's host from the rest of the world.

My comment even more terse: Distinguish conscious self from subconscious self. "construct" is ambiguous to me since I don't know more about where you are 'coming from'. The two "selfs" are, in my thinking, not necessarily identical, tho' for most people they are likely not obviously highly antagonistic to each other (that is, relative harmony for the most part). I've stated some of my thinking before, but could summarize a bit more inre any constructive reply you might post if you ask for it.

'bout done for the day,

ME

 

[Atlas]

H'ethetheth: my background is that of aerospace engineering a.k.a. 'rocket science'

Mr. E: my most relevant background is a lowly degree in Physics, with 8 undergrad semesters of math, followed later in life with dabbling in robotics, electronics, philosophy(consciousness studies for one, d'oh!), spirituality...

Atlas: Hi school grad - In college I met a girl who took me to parties with smart people. So yah... I'm just fakin it. But I have done as the thread asked and defined consciousness. And until DD catches up, I got it all over on you guys.