Define Consiousness

[Mr. E]

The monist and the materialist have untestable hypothesis that are not readily discovered.

Is that remarkable in that those of others are readily discovered? How does this impinge on whether consciousness or a definition of it exists?

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

What about the "internal" realm of imagination, which it seems you agree exists at least for you, albeit with objects (imagined copper penny) which are more vague/dim/etc as compared to some other senses? You wrote: "As to the external validity of those scenes, ?" and this doesn't begin to make sense to me. If you see something, you see something whether vague or not. So, since when you close your eyes, and can still recognize a visual object which doesn't have an obvious material referent, are you stuck with two realms? Imagination, while perhaps not material, surely is not immaterial to human existence. So I'm challening the notion of existence per the OP. Maybe I misunderstood something earlier, about materialism. Could you clarify/explain this for me?

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

My myth supports that both might be the "wake" of "something" else. But I'm less interested in vague metaphors and metaphysical myths here than in coming to understand how you think and are conscious, by your reports.

I'm still not clear on what your OP point really is to be primarily about -- self, awareness, consciousness, some definition, the apparenty unity of conscious experience in a moment,... It seems all of these have been offered up at one point or another.

Which way are you arguing the existence of consciousness, for or against? At first I suspected "against" but as I read more, I'm more skeptical.

ME

 

[Atlas]

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.

Sorry. When I read your stuff I kinda feel like I understand but I'm never sure. Like this...

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!

My definition implied that Consciousness was a function of the brain. Intransitive so far. But functions do things - transitively. Anyway it's a noun so I've got my choice subject or object. I'm so tied up in my own thinking, I suddenly realize that you are thinking of consciousness, as you've described, as a manifestation of the cross-product you mentioned earlier. We're in opposition there. That discussion was totally beyond me and seemed to draw the ire of several posters who understood it better than I.

Another thing in your post:

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.

Again, I was running in another direction and was caught confused. For me, the values of the unconscious are associative, not appreciative. It wants to store something so that it can be retrieved by meaning, by rhyme, by age and every which way. It's not concerned with virtues or goodness just storage and retrieval. That's probably an oversimplification but that's where I was going. But your comment about virtues I translated as: a consciousness with a spiritual paradigm will conceptualize virtues differently than one with a purely hedonistic paradigm - and I had no disagreement with that.

OK, enough about that... feel free to set me straight.

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.

This is a rather interesting challenge. Again I wasn't thinking about it when I wrote my definition. It first struck me that subconscious and unconscious were pretty synonomous to my way of thinking. But as I thought about it I wasn't getting close to good definitions. This is how I'll build on my definitions - I really don't know where this is going to take me and I invite you to throw your definitions up in opposition.

Definitions by Atlas
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.

Self: A construct of the consciousness that differentiates it's host from the rest of the world.

Soul: That construct of consciousness within the construct of "self" that appreciates the world and itself.

Construct: A conceptual assembly of symbols and associations.

Concept: An abstract or general idea of a class of entity (from dictionary)

Conscious Self: That "Self" which is called "I" and accepts as fact that it is an awake, logical, feeling human being.

Subconscious Self: A term the "Conscious Self" uses to describe that part of "Self" shrouded in mystery... (A term for the dreamer or producer of any woo, strange, weird, poetic or unexplained ideas or powers.)

I do not think my definitions are large or clear enough to include the consciousness of animals. In one of my earlier posts I believe I assumed that big cats and their prey were in a sense conscious. I still think that way but I'll leave these definitions up to define how I view what's happening in the human animal.

 

[Mr. E]

Sorry. When I read your stuff I kinda feel like I understand but I'm never sure.

Sounds excellent to me at this point! Thanks for the mutual engagement.

Like this...My definition implied that Consciousness was a function of the brain. Intransitive so far. But functions do things - transitively.

Different grammar I guess, or level of metaphor maybe. For me, there are only transformations, not "actors" because changing form is all there is to deal with fundamentally, everything else is perception or phenomena, illusion or not. So I can think of brain function in general or particular terms, but still have not got it being an object or a subject-like entity except 1) for casual convenience or 2)metaconversationally (talk about talk), and quite deliberately so, because it seems if I choose either one up front, I am stuck with the subject-object problem immediately rather than later when it might be irrelevant. If that's obscure, sorry. So for me it is currently both or neither, which is part of why I'd be careful about saying it "does" anything or has anything done to "it", as tho' it's already been established to "exist" in this thread. (don't want to assume the desired conclusion!!)

Consciousness is (can be considered as) both a state and a process, and by common convention in language I start out with is as the former - the state of being conscious (which doesn't tell us much at all by itself). That's where my definition kicks in, to transform old vocabulary... not sure just how 'function' fits in here besides in terms of basic metabolism at the cellular level, some place I've never been!

We're in opposition there.

Maybe. Maybe loyal opposition and this isn't up for a vote, so may the best one "win"! Heh. BTW, lot's of bickering parades as informed debate when it isn't. But you and I definitely have different starting points, the question is whether our paths will merge, orbit, parallel, diverge, or destruct, or... transform each other. I need to conserve right now, so I may not do justice to your ideas (my loss) but will try to post minute offerings for your generous consideration.

But your comment about virtues I translated as: a consciousness with a spiritual paradigm will conceptualize virtues differently than one with a purely hedonistic paradigm - and I had no disagreement with that.

Could be, but maybe almost all virtues could be very similar or even have some identity across the apparent gap between those two. For instance, I suspect I can be very "scientific", a critical skeptic, or very spiritual affirming belief. Yet I value honesty with others, humor, integrity, and so on, apparently the same either way. so there seems to be some kind of broken symmetry between the two states. Is this making sense, or am I talking about something completely different from what you have "in mind" here? As for hedonism, it too might be embraced spiritually or vice versa to a large extent, if perhaps with not such a clearcut distinction. So I think we are together pretty much on this.

My comments inserted obviously as labelled:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions by Atlas
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.

ME: You know my initial objections to making it an actor. Also, looks like everything but the kitchen sink is in there.

Self: A construct of the consciousness that differentiates it[]s host from the rest of the world.

ME: Lots of terms, "host" = "brain" ="God" =? 'differentiates tells me that the construct does something, again as an actor. Yes?

Soul: That construct of consciousness within the construct of "self" that appreciates the world and itself.

ME: No comment.

Construct: A conceptual assembly of symbols and associations.

ME: I sorta get it, except that I take symbols as being associations already. Please clarify or modify. What distinguishes a construct from any other such assembly? "An" assembly...

Concept: An abstract or general idea of a class of entity (from dictionary)

ME: Hmmmm.... for me perhaps too simply "mind-like object". But I like the "general" part! And don't go for the 'abstract' part unless we are careful since we speak of concrete concepts too.

Conscious Self: That "Self" which is called "I" and accepts as fact that it is an awake, logical, feeling human being.

ME: LOL! Dunno what to say about that construction! To me, the conscious part of the self is simply a made up character, a construct perhaps. Some people let the world tell them what role to play, others take more of a hand in actively chosing their character(S!).

Subconscious Self: A term the "Conscious Self" uses to describe that part of "Self" shrouded in mystery... (A term for the dreamer or producer of any woo, strange, weird or unexplained ideas or powers.)

ME: In a word, conscience, that by which you might know what *you* believe (or, a feedback mechanism from mind into body which is sensible directly or by inference which acts like a sense organ which detecs general assent of mind). That is, as eyes translate photons into pulse trains in nerves, so this "function" translates mind-non-sense into sense.


Voila, more than I thought I had in me. Most productive. I hope you find value in your read of my response to my read of your write!

Thanks for the inspiration! We may not think alike, but it seems as if we both have great minds in mind!

~~

ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Atlas But I have done as the thread asked and defined consciousness. And until DD catches up, I got it all over on you guys.

Heh, sez you. I've done my part as well, only it's very long ago in the thread, and it may not be a great definition, but it's a definition.
To quote Eric Cartman: ne-ne-ne-ne-nehh-neh, ha-ha-ha-ha-haah-ha.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Phew! btw, 'clarification'?

I know, I just like to mess up words like that a little. Because English allows for a lot of ways to end words from latin like consciousness.
Why for instance is it not called consciosity? I could come up with more nonsense like this, and no doubt I will, but not now.

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

I will in the future immediately say when I don't understand something, and try to explain why.

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).

This pat on the back thing is not clear to me. How is being interested in almost nothing a compliment?
But, fair enough, I agree with the second part.

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.

Glad I can help.

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?

Yes, however since a matrix has more than one meaning, it is ambiguous, and therefore must be defined or avoided. But I shall nit-pick no longer, unless you provide too much pickings for nit-picking. Remaining above the fray sounds good.

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.

Yes, so you noted. But if you emulate in an extraordinary sense, you might want to provide reasons and explanation to your sense of emulation. Misunderstanding might otherwise occur (cough).

"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.

Okay, this is pickings for nit-pickers: If you propose consciousness to be split up into a vector product, regardless of how many vectors, they must be three dimensional. This has nothing to do with what I do or do not understand about the underlying meaning of the equation (Yes I misspelled that last time, d'oh!).

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

I'd say both. I thought it was fairly presumptuous of you to say that there are only people without content in mind here who would try to explain supposition fields to me (not to say arrogant).

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

Moving on.

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?

Yes, but since I'm interested in this topic too, it would be nice if it would be sufficiently clear to everyone, including me.

 

[Atlas]

Heh, sez you. I've done my part as well, only it's very long ago in the thread, and it may not be a great definition, but it's a definition.
To quote Eric Cartman: ne-ne-ne-ne-nehh-neh, ha-ha-ha-ha-haah-ha.

To quote Homer Simpson: D'oh

 

[Atlas]

Mr E,

I applaud your response. You've completely come over to greet me where I'm at. Plenty of food for thought and some good horse sense thrown in. I almost started my response: Mr. Ed.

You began with the discomfort inherent in the subject/object/state/process/function word play around the common and specific usage of the term consciousness. Good points. Later against my definition of Consciousness you will throw the "kitchen sink" at me. All of that is fair and I enjoy thinking about these things. I don't adhere to the principle that we know everything and discover it in the dialectic but that's how I approach topics like this. I engage in the discussion more to discover what I think I know than to convince someone that I do know.

Anyway I had unconsciously (pun not intended) structured my definition in agreement to what you make explicit. That consciousness is fluid or flux in a dynamic exchange process as subject/object (requestor/receiver) with the hidden symmetrical side of a wholeness of mind I called the unconscious. DD wants to leave this consciousness analyzed into constituent processes. I see no value there but I have to veer off and take the long way round to explain why.

I've posted 4 or 5 times in different threads my take on the question of whether there is a God. I have found a middle way in my thinking that confirms and denies this existence. For me, no supernatural being overlords us, but every culture down through time has one. So, of course the concept exists, but it is more. People feel God. They feel what they know is the touch of God in every daily blessing. As I've stated in this thread, feelings are their own proof. God is a feeling.

The concept of God is useful then (although hopelessly contaminated.) It can be a key to other elevating feelings that we possibly throw away when we dismiss and destroy God.

Consciousness is to me a similar invention. An apparently real phenomenon and a concept that we can talk about when we use that shorthand term. It's fascinating to me to explore the terms we all know for what agreement we have, only to find that in doing so we have more disagreement than we realize. What's more, in casual conversation it makes absolutely no difference. That to me is the power of concept. We all have the concept of God, Consciousness, Self and Soul yet no two of us have exactly the same concept.

Does Consciousness really exist? I would answer: As much as God. That is, Consciousness is a useful concept. It exists until a better concept comes along to replace it. It is apparently real, but c'mon it's just a word - it describes something going on and seems very much linked to the brain. If someone shows me that my version is flat and can bring me the spherical of it I will change concepts.

Anyway, you made several additional points that I thought were well said and for the first time I felt very much in tune with the meanings. I may have more to say later but I'm already going long and I want to add comments of my own on your thoughts of my definition.

Consciousness. I've addressed this kitchen sink approach I've taken above and will hold fast to it because of the multifaceted nature of that which we call consciousness.

Self: A construct of the consciousness that differentiates it[]s host from the rest of the world.

ME: Lots of terms, "host" = "brain" ="God" =? 'differentiates tells me that the construct does something, again as an actor. Yes?

Construct: A conceptual assembly of symbols and associations.

ME: I sorta get it, except that I take symbols as being associations already. Please clarify or modify. What distinguishes a construct from any other such assembly? "An" assembly...

By host I meant the living matter, the walking meatbag, the human with the brain producing the consciousness. Symbols are associations but they grow through association as well. When we are 3 we have a concept of the world and man and God. The words are symbols and stand for the same concepts until we die. But the world gets a lot bigger as we grow. All of our concepts do. We assemble ever larger constructs of lower concepts and the construct becomes a lower level concept in some larger construct. The differentiation is a recognition by consciousness of distinguishing attributes of symbols within a communication. Thus the following thoughts can be uttered by a single individual without internal falsity. "I am a distinct being in the world. God is everything. I am God." It is of course, the reason we seek definitions and clarifications from one another when the use of terms conflicts with our own concepts behind those terms.

Conscious Self: That "Self" which is called "I" and accepts as fact that it is an awake, logical, feeling human being.

ME: LOL! Dunno what to say about that construction! To me, the conscious part of the self is simply a made up character, a construct perhaps. Some people let the world tell them what role to play, others take more of a hand in actively chosing their character(S!).

Subconscious Self: A term the "Conscious Self" uses to describe that part of "Self" shrouded in mystery... (A term for the dreamer or producer of any woo, strange, weird or unexplained ideas or powers.)

ME: In a word, conscience, that by which you might know what *you* believe (or, a feedback mechanism from mind into body which is sensible directly or by inference which acts like a sense organ which detecs general assent of mind). That is, as eyes translate photons into pulse trains in nerves, so this "function" translates mind-non-sense into sense.

I had a chuckle writing these definitions. Indeed, Conscious Self is a construct,. It referenced the Self defined previously.

As far as subconscious self, I like the word conscience but I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to equate the terms. Perhaps if dreams were a product of conscience. I wouldn't say that but I would say dreams are a product of the subconscious self.

Whew! That's all for now. Sorry to take the long way round but I am coming from a less than mainstream perspective. About 30 years ago I was fascinated by Buddhism and I think it still influences me to find a middle way.

 

[BillHoyt]

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

Now we three people very pointedly and very clearly informing you that your vector analogy was delivered already broken. You wish to portray this as the result of manhandling by me, the evil skeptic. It is, however, your problem. You raised the cross product point, have refused to defend it and refused to disclaim it. Now you've raised the issue again by mangling the details. Your 2x2 "matrix" claims R2. Cross product demands R3.

In a similar fashion, you raised the DNA double-helix as an analogy, and have thus far resisted attempts at skeptical inquiry. Your few responses to questions took a diversionary path down to making assertions about the DNA double-helix and symmetry operations. When asked to defend that, you sputtered and stammered once more.

This has the hallmarks of mystical crank nonsense. Puff shallow ideas up with pseudoscientific wrapping paper and try to palm it off on the naive. This is the wrong audience, mystery. Defend your points with explanations and evidence and logic. Or take it to a woo forum.

 

[Mr. E]

Now we three people very pointedly and very clearly informing you that your vector analogy was delivered already broken. You wish to portray this as the result of manhandling by me, the evil skeptic. It is, however, your problem. You raised the cross product point, have refused to defend it and refused to disclaim it. Now you've raised the issue again by mangling the details. Your 2x2 "matrix" claims R2. Cross product demands R3.

In a similar fashion, you raised the DNA double-helix as an analogy, and have thus far resisted attempts at skeptical inquiry. Your few responses to questions took a diversionary path down to making assertions about the DNA double-helix and symmetry operations. When asked to defend that, you sputtered and stammered once more.

This has the hallmarks of mystical crank nonsense. Puff shallow ideas up with pseudoscientific wrapping paper and try to palm it off on the naive. This is the wrong audience, mystery. Defend your points with explanations and evidence and logic. Or take it to a woo forum.

"Points of truth trump all."

I want my money. No excuses please. You know what I mean.

ME

PS - Thanks for being civil in an obvious way for once.

 

[davidsmith73]

So for me my definition of consciousness is that it is just one of the many processes that happen when a certain group of chemicals mix together with a bit of energy thrown in. Intrinsically no more remarkable or special then photosynthesis.

(Edited for words.)

I am jumping into this debate without having read most of the dialogue between Mr. E, Atlas, H'ethetheth, BillHoyt and co.

I want to use the above statement as a starting point for an argument against the views of some of the posters here. Darat says that consciousness can be defined by a physical process, whatever the details of that process may turn out to be, and that this physical process is or results in consciousness (I hope I have fairly represented your view). Is consciousness no more special than other physical processes such as photosynthesis? I think not. The major difference between your explanation given to consciousness and photosynthesis is that photosynthesis is entirely defined by its physical description. There is no debate about the "photosynthesis soul" or indeed any conceivable notion as to any other phenomenon that needs to be explained outside of the physical description to which the term "photosynthesis" is defined by. Consciousness is different. If we were to describe the neurochemical pathways that are attributed to consciousness in as much detail as that for photosynthesis, we would be left with two things - the physical description and the associated experience. With physical descriptions of all other phenomena that we know of aside from conscious experience, there is no such duality.

 

[Mr. E]

Mr E,

I applaud your response. You've completely come over to greet me where I'm at. Plenty of food for thought and some good horse sense thrown in. I almost started my response: Mr. Ed.

To cite an authority, not as a point of debate, you probably don't know how true that is, wink or no wink.

Later against my definition of Consciousness you will throw the "kitchen sink" at me. All of that is fair and I enjoy thinking about these things. I don't adhere to the principle that we know everything and discover it in the dialectic but that's how I approach topics like this. I engage in the discussion more to discover what I think I know than to convince someone that I do know.

I hope, and have faith, that I am a student and a teacher. The problem with the kitchen sink is that the drain gets clogged and then all hell might break loose. As I said casually to H' recently, higher consciousness warrants discriminating distinctions. This is a very important point for the serious student of consciousness, in my experience. The attempt to convince someone is an act of assault. As a former pacifist, I tend to avoid such, even when asked to perform unnatural acts.

Anyway I had unconsciously (pun not intended) structured my definition in agreement to what you make explicit. That consciousness is fluid or flux in a dynamic exchange process as subject/object (requestor/receiver) with the hidden symmetrical side of a wholeness of mind I called the unconscious.

We can keep it almost simple. Synthetic Consciousness is solid as a rock and more fluid than many people might suppose.

I've posted 4 or 5 times in different threads my take on the question of whether there is a God. I have found a middle way in my thinking that confirms and denies this existence. For me, no supernatural being overlords us, but every culture down through time has one. So, of course the concept exists, but it is more. People feel God. They feel what they know is the touch of God in every daily blessing. As I've stated in this thread, feelings are their own proof. God is a feeling.

If I may, the existence of the *notion* is unarguable to most. In a strict sense the question of the existence of the concept depends both on the question of existence, both in particular and in general, as my first post to this thread stated openly, as well as the question of concept in general and the particular concept which "God" is assumed to represent. You and I might have very similar takes, re "confirms and denies" but if I may use the power of suggestion, reconsider your phrasing.

The concept of God is useful then (although hopelessly contaminated.) It can be a key to other elevating feelings that we possibly throw away when we dismiss and destroy God.

The kitchen sink stinks, speaking of stinky pits. But I don't believe the notion of God well-informs the general discussion on consciousness, if that's how you meant this. That said, what it left unsaid there is no less intended than what the text strings ought to convey at first glance.

Does Consciousness really exist? I would answer: As much as God.

A line might yet be drawn there, and it's not clear to me which strand of the double helix you might be affirming there.

That is, Consciousness is a useful concept.

Useful for what, besides banter on the internet? Words and concepts are distinguishable.

If someone shows me that my version is flat and can bring me the spherical of it I will change concepts.

See my position on the use of force, as noted above.

I may have more to say later but I'm already going long and I want to add comments of my own on your thoughts of my definition.

I look forward to your further posts as long as I last here.

Symbols are associations but they grow through association as well.

Maybe but what of it, in that prior context of clarifying the terms of discussion? Why clutter up the definition with internal distractions when there are plenty of trolls about with their own distractions already?

When we are 3 we have a concept of the world and man and God.

3 years old, The Trinity of Christianity, 3 spatial dimensions, silly wordplay? All? Where is time in all this?

As far as subconscious self, I like the word conscience but I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to equate the terms. Perhaps if dreams were a product of conscience. I wouldn't say that but I would say dreams are a product of the subconscious self.

How does what you take to be common usage significantly and necessarily deviate from my stated usage on this board, please?

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I do know something about Dual Dualities in this context.

Thanks much for the exchange. Good luck with your way.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

I am jumping into this debate without having read most of the dialogue between Mr. E, Atlas, H'ethetheth, BillHoyt and co.

Welcome, speaking for myself.

I believe there are people working as we speak on the possibility of experience of photosynthesis, in an attempt to make it not be merely metaphorical. That is, "plant consciousness" and the like. I'm not taking sides, merely pointing out something - there may be no scientific debate, but I've seen postings, well-thought or not, to that effect.

It may be widely accepted that the neural correlates of consciousness are only correlates of the experiences to which they seem to be correlated. That represents an unncessary assumption at this point.

With all physical descriptions there is a duality.

ME

 

[BillHoyt]

"Points of truth trump all."

I want my money. No excuses please. You know what I mean.

ME

PS - Thanks for being civil in an obvious way for once.

Answers, mystery, where are the answers? You keep making unsuportable assertions and ducking out when called on for answers. Now, I see, you're back to the double-helix nonsense. Using science to puff up shallow fluff is a hallmark of crankdom.

 

[BillHoyt]

Welcome, speaking for myself.

I believe there are people working as we speak on the possibility of experience of photosynthesis, in an attempt to make it not be merely metaphorical. That is, "plant consciousness" and the like. I'm not taking sides, merely pointing out something - there may be no scientific debate, but I've seen postings, well-thought or not, to that effect.[/quote
Do cite this evidence for us, mystery. Research papers from respected, peer-reviewed journals, please.

It may be widely accepted that the neural correlates of consciousness are only correlates of the experiences to which they seem to be correlated.

Flum-flum-flummery wrapped in a layer of tautology and topped with a dollop of appeal to pastry.

Start making sense and citing evidence.

 

[Mr. E]

Answers, mystery, where are the answers? You keep making unsuportable assertions and ducking out when called on for answers. Now, I see, you're back to the double-helix nonsense. Using science to puff up shallow fluff is a hallmark of crankdom.

Oh really?

I note your first excuse. Shame on you, especially after what now proves to have been only an uncharacteristic outburst of almost civil and meaningful text strings.

I'm waiting. You said that truth trumps all, even order. Prove it or go back to your hideous hole in the ground where you never existed anyway.

Ask a real question, get a real answer, Troll.


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Flum-flum-flummery wrapped in a layer of tautology and topped with a dollop of appeal to pastry.

Start making sense and citing evidence.

Yes, that does seem to adequately describe your modus operandoofus. Theatrical nonsense parading about as honest debunking of what looks like cr*p, but in this case isn't. I'm glad you recognize who you are, Bill, lost in your Advanced Degree in Cr*pology, evidencing being stuck in your own pattern-misrecognition filter. It's sad in a way, but let's not get personal here, this is a thread about Consciousness, not about you.

Stop making appeals to denial, Bill. You know the rules.

Now.

I'm waiting for my money.

ME

PS - If you want to break the rules, deny denial. Good luck, but I'm still waiting...

 

[BillHoyt]

Oh really?

I note your first excuse. Shame on you, especially after what now proves to have been only an uncharacteristic outburst of almost civil and meaningful text strings.

I'm waiting. You said that truth trumps all, even order. Prove it or go back to your hideous hole in the ground where you never existed anyway.

Ask a real question, get a real answer, Troll.

Mystery,

I and others have repeatedly asked you real questions and have repeatedly received nonsense in return. You repeat your claims and persist in trying to deflect. When is this going to stop?

Yes, that does seem to adequately describe your modus operandoofus. Theatrical nonsense parading about as honest debunking of what looks like cr*p, but in this case isn't. I'm glad you recognize who you are, Bill, lost in your Advanced Degree in Cr*pology, evidencing being stuck in your own pattern-misrecognition filter. It's sad in a way, but let's not get personal here, this is a thread about Consciousness, not about you.

As was previously pointed out to you by another poster, I have been debunking. Rather thoroughly.

Stop making appeals to denial, Bill. You know the rules.

Now.

I'm waiting for my money.

ME

PS - If you want to break the rules, deny denial. Good luck, but I'm still waiting...

If you want to try for the JREF prize, then contact JREF. If you think I'm breaking the rules, then contact JREF.

 

[Mr. E]

I note BillHoyt's further excuses and humor his atopical silliness with a reply. "truth trumps all, even order"

Mystery,

I and others have repeatedly asked you real questions and have repeatedly received nonsense in return. You repeat your claims and persist in trying to deflect. When is this going to stop?

Probably when you get serious about it. And stop addressing "Mystery" as though Mr. E had your personal answers. I'm discussing Synthetic (and other) Consciousness and demonstrating it; your personal psychotherapeutic or spiritual needs are hardly a good topic for this forum. Or do you want to make yourself a test case subject? I don't recommend it.

The only bunk you've helped point out so far, that I've noticed, was your complete misreading of two phrases in Standard English in an aside which was presented as an OPTIONAL excercise. You've also been pouting about some matrix which you misunderstood as an ordinary mathematical object when it wasn't presented in an ordinary mathematical context, except in your fallacious thinking. Good for you.

Now go get someone else to deny your denial, Denier.


ME

PS - "If you want to try for the JREF prize, then contact JREF. If you think I'm breaking the rules, then contact JREF." That advice is unwarranted and if you read the prior parts of the thread, you will see why, if you read them critically and for meaning. I'm still waiting for you to get real, Bill. And I'm still waiting for the money.

 

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
... If I may, the existence of the *notion* (of God) is unarguable to most. In a strict sense the question of the existence of the concept depends both on the question of existence, both in particular and in general, as my first post to this thread stated openly, as well as the question of concept in general and the particular concept which "God" is assumed to represent. You and I might have very similar takes, re "confirms and denies" but if I may use the power of suggestion, reconsider your phrasing.

The kitchen sink stinks, speaking of stinky pits. But I don't believe the notion of God well-informs the general discussion on consciousness, if that's how you meant this. That said, what it left unsaid there is no less intended than what the text strings ought to convey at first glance.

My thoughts on God and most topics are in a constant state of reconsideration. I was not using God to inform the discussion about Consciousness but moreso about concept. But I will try to make to make an explicit parallel. Both God and Consciousness are part of the human experience. I make that statement in it's self-evident meaning. I submit that the source of a supernatural entity of God is a very real felt experience. People that have the experience name the feeling and rationalize about it and teach their children some very mistaken things. That is, the feeling that is suddenly realized to be the touch of God is conflated out of reasonable proportion into something that it is not, but there remains a very real set of felt experiences that go by other names as well as the name God by the individual with the smaller vocabulary.

Consciousness, poetically called the light of mind, is similar in that it is a very real sensed experience. We "see" our formed thoughts. And like we "see" God in the actions of a Mother Theresa caring for the sick, we "see" consciousness in the building of a skyscraper or a hundred other things.

DavidSmith73 takes issue with Darat's comparison of consciousness with photosynthesis. I'm in agreement but from another angle. While I agree that photosynthesis is a remarkable phenomenon, it is one that is not directly a part of the human experience (though without it my diet would most certainly suffer.) Consciousness is part of the human experience as DS points out. Darat has deflated the light of mind to chemical gushings where DS and I would not. Our experience is too wonderful and too real to choose to accept such a deflated view.

Back to my discussion of God for a moment. I choose a Darat type deflation of what others have accepted as a wonderfully full and rich concept of a supernatural deity. I choose to deflate it, to collapse it down into something that is inside, not outside, the human experience. For me, the human experience is rich enough, wonderfully rich enough in and of itself to choose the fairyland version. But I see nothing useful either is postulating that we are nothing but talking meatbags. It's not a useful way of thinking for me. That's why I even included a definition of "soul" with my others. It's is a useful concept because it is in such common usage. I like to know what I think those terms mean when I deflate them into my understanding of the human experience.

Anyway, that is my bias. I am human and I don't like my consciousness compared to a plant. I gotta be at least twice that smart. I am human and I don't like granting all the natural laws to a whimful sky god. Like I said, I'm smarter than than that. My phrasing "God is a feeling" is an overstatement that means to me much more than it says. Rightly or wrongly, I use it to separate myself succinctly from the two extremes of the general debate.

Moving on... When I said: Consciousness is a useful concept - you asked (strangely in my opinion)

Useful for what, besides banter on the internet? Words and concepts are distinguishable.

Yes they are. Words stand for concepts. Every concept has one. Or if not one, several. It's how we think. Consciousness is a term we use in shorthand recognition of a variety of aspects of the way in which we think. By the way, put your definition up again so that we can review the stinkiness of my kitchen sink description and your own side by side.

You went strange on me again when I responded to your expressing that symbols were associations. I said: Symbols are associations but they grow through association as well. To a 3 year old, man is any grown up who is not a woman. As we age the concept of man retains that distinction but becomes larger with more association.

Maybe but what of it, in that prior context of clarifying the terms of discussion? Why clutter up the definition with internal distractions when there are plenty of trolls about with their own distractions already?

You are the one being surrounded by perceived trolls, not me. Yet to my mind we say things equally outrageous. Your style brings out more opposition. These guys are not all trolls but they have no affinity for psuedoscientific sound. When they hear it they land on it. You win them over by clear explanations. A word of unsolicited advice: Don't let it go on too long. The joys of these exchanges are dramatically reduced when you've got other posters willing to mince every word of every post you make.

3 years old, The Trinity of Christianity, 3 spatial dimensions, silly wordplay? All? Where is time in all this?

When I said 3 I meant, Just 3 years old - No double meaning intended.

I'm not sure I understood this next demand. I had posted the definitional attributes of the subconscious self. You combined them saying: In a word, Conscience. I was unwilling to equate the two terms, that is all. But you ask this...

How does what you take to be common usage significantly and necessarily deviate from my stated usage on this board, please?

I don't know how to answer. I don't understand what I'm being asked to provide. I'm not dodging and will clarify if you can lay out what you believe our two positions are for me.

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I do know something about Dual Dualities in this context.

I've been tripped up in discussions of Duality in the past. I can't seem to discuss it without lapsing into it. Discussion of Dual Dualities is an obstacle course I'm as yet unprepared to maneuver in. As far as Buddhism goes, for me anyway, if one is Idealistic by nature Buddhism will be just like going home.

 

[Atlas]

Consciousness is different. If we were to describe the neurochemical pathways that are attributed to consciousness in as much detail as that for photosynthesis, we would be left with two things - the physical description and the associated experience.

David, good post. I used it in my example to Mr E above. (My previous post).

I don't mean to put words into anyone's mouth however and I did in a way align your views with mine. Since there are very few who actually think like me, I invite you to set me and the record straight.