Define Consiousness

[Mr. E]

Re perceived trolls: I don't know what else to call uncivil "trolling behavior". If someone takes what you say, turns it inside out, and then proclaims that it is inside out while demanding you prove it isn't, and persists even when you pat them on the head, what do you call that if not an insult to intelligent discourse, no matter how much or how little reasoned critical thinking went into the inversion operation? I've seen no sound reasoned arguments, only dissembling and/or empty denial, from trolls. I also figure this could be mistaken as troll bait, so I hereby explicitly disclaim that.

Both God and Consciousness are part of the human experience. I make that statement in it's self-evident meaning.

You mean that people at large have pretty much all heard talk about God and Consciousness at one time or another. I would accept that as self-evident; people are conscious to some extent but have widely varying relationships with God and with 'God' ranging pretty much all over the general map of consciousness. It's a generalization which doesn't hold up well under particular examination.[/quote]

Consciousness, poetically called the light of mind, is similar in that it is a very real sensed experience. We "see" our formed thoughts.

Lose the metaphor of the scarequotes, if I may be blunt... I "see" conflation in your statement. I don't see my thoughts unless you call visual qualia "thoughts", and I seldom bother to recognize particular qualia experiences as such, rather relying on habit to recognize faces as such, and sometimes faces as friendly and well-known. I don't see my suppositions unless they are imaged in imagination. This is an informal statement of my formal notion of suppositions, that supposition is as close to nothing in active mind as it gets - no "visible" object, but object nonetheless. There may yet be more subtle aspects of mind than supposition fields, but let's not quibble.

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.

How is this not mere metaphorical speaking or extrapolation from the domain of discourse into other domains?

For me, the human experience is rich enough, wonderfully rich enough in and of itself to choose the fairyland version.

Symmetry breaking alert? You do choose the fairytale, for the reason stated? That is, in addition to having your plate overflowing, you choose more.

Moving on... When I said: Consciousness is a useful concept - you asked (strangely in my opinion) Yes they are. Words stand for concepts. Every concept has one. Or if not one, several. It's how we think.

I'm resisting the temptation to simply respond, "No they are not!" to your "Yes they are." Concepts might be called the general objects of thought; dunno about "how". Words are taken to stand for concepts. Ambiguity is a necessary aspect of natural language.

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 mean this building block: "Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness"?

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.

I'm questioning the use of 'symbol' in the definition in which it appeared as being redundant there and thus perhaps confusion-generating material, that's all. What are associations which don't grow? Do they get a name as a class/category?

I don't know enough child psychology to comment further on the 3 year old comment.

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.

My request was for you to help me understand how my usage might run against what you take to be the "grain" of common usage of that term, since you didn't accept it immediately (whether in its role in my system or as "equatable" somehow to yours) which might help both of us get at perhaps minor differences/latent issues in our systems.

~~

ME

edit PS -"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." Discussion from "within" is not impossible. The "trick" is simply to recognize how course and dis-course can be reconciled in a way which might seem miraculous to those who believe in miracles. Of course, heh, it might not be easy at first, and that's only a hint, not necessarily a full-on recipe for disaster in the making.

 

[Atlas]

Lose the metaphor of the scarequotes, if I may be blunt... I "see" conflation in your statement. I don't see my thoughts unless you call visual qualia "thoughts", and I seldom bother to recognize particular qualia experiences as such, rather relying on habit to recognize faces as such, and sometimes faces as friendly and well-known. I don't see my suppositions unless they are imaged in imagination. This is an informal statement of my formal notion of suppositions, that supposition is as close to nothing in active mind as it gets - no "visible" object, but object nonetheless. There may yet be more subtle aspects of mind than supposition fields, but let's not quibble.

How is this not mere metaphorical speaking or extrapolation from the domain of discourse into other domains?

Visual qualia... I wasn't thinking of that but to me the brain pumps thought and I would put visual qualia as one of the things on the input side of that pump. I was thinking more of the imagination space. I think I could have been called on using or not using quote marks. I haven't read all your stuff on supposition fields but I agree that much thought is unaccompanied by visualized information.

Symmetry breaking alert? You do choose the fairytale, for the reason stated? That is, in addition to having your plate overflowing, you choose more.

Ya think? I celebrate man. All his fragility and power. Poets are needed to give voice to the greatness man is. That there are religions and woo and gods and souls in the belief patterns of man is undeniable and must be embraced to appreciate who we are and why our civilization is what it is. I embrace all the faults, foibles, fantasys and fallacies along with all that is mundane and wonderful. But I do so to understand man not God. That said, I'll switch gears. The brain does produce an illusion of self and the world. In that sense we all live in a fairy tale of our own making. I can be persuaded to look both ways here on the middle way.

You mean this building block: "Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness"?

You should expand on this for me. To me it is still quite spare. You call the statement a building block rather than a definition. Are you building toward a more robust and complete definition that will leave out the kitchen sink? Is the statement equivalent if you'd leave out "a matter of" or is that where all the magic happens.

I'm questioning the use of 'symbol' in the definition in which it appeared as being redundant there and thus perhaps confusion-generating material, that's all. What are associations which don't grow? Do they get a name as a class/category?

Symbols are words, letters, math characters like pi, mental replacements for physical objects like books, fire, horses, anything. I don't know about associations which don't grow. They all can except perhaps forgotten or suppressed ones. I say they grow by including others in their construct or being included in another construct.. The letter A may be learned by drawing it. It becomes associated to B by sound and rote learning. To "alpha" by equivalence. By being included with other letters in an alphabet and in words. It may at sometime be associated with Bay by rhyme or by a triangle by shape. I believe association is the basic value that the unconscious uses in the evaluation of symbols (or concepts) for storage. I don't know how concepts are stored. But many symbols can be written on a chalkboard or a street sign. These can also be imaged in the consciousness. There are concepts that are difficult to image without symbols. The squareroot of minus 1. I don't know if that's a good example. I don't think symbol is necessarily redundant to concept. I invite comments on this from others.

My request was for you to help me understand how my usage might run against what you take to be the "grain" of common usage of that term, since you didn't accept it immediately (whether in its role in my system or as "equatable" somehow to yours) which might help both of us get at perhaps minor differences/latent issues in our systems.

My initial reticence was just as I said. Conscience does not seem to be the producer of dreams the way that subconscious in common usage might be said to be. I would offer too that conscience, in common usage, is more often associated with conscious activity. "No you shouldn't eat that brownie or the last piece of pizza." Likewise the many moral choices we make each day are done consciously rather than subconsciously though, I'm sure, many choices are not done consciously. If I'm broke and somebody buys me coffee and leaves a tip at the table when they get up to pay, I may be faced with a moral dilemma. Or not. It might never occur to me that I could pick that money up because subconsciously or unconsciously it is already someones else's money. To me though, common usage conscience has always had a conscious aspect to it in the face of a dilemma.

Perhaps you should explain how you believe common usage subconscious and conscience are equivalent. If it was discussed earlier you can link the post. I don't know how else to continue.

 

[BillHoyt]

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

Get something straight, mystery. The last thing I would do is look to you for personal answers about anything. This is especially true every time I read rants like this.

Something else you need to get straight is you are demonstrating nothing here. You keep trying to prop up this pap with a combination of pseudoscience and metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

And for the last time, I have written nothing atopical. You continue to bring up matrices and vectors and the double-helix and symmetry operations. Each time, I pose completely on-topic questions and each time you launch into a rant. This is the most pathetic non-presentation of nonsense I have ever read. You take the cake for intellectual bottom-fishing.

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, mystery, I am going to begin counting the lies, as well as the self-contradictions. The first one I will record is your claim about the matrix and mathematical context. A quick search of your posts on this thread shows no less than 21 posts in which you used "math" or some variant. The first one included this passage:

If you know vector math you might consider the cross-product, for a beginners analogy

Kind of sets a "math" context, doesn't it? A context you reinforced with this:

Some people are more hip to math than others, so I don't want to make complex numbers the starting point here. Could you please show your understanding of the analogy so I could figure out how to try to shine more light your way?

So there is the context, and now a quick analysis. You started, pages of blather ago, with your assertion that consciousness is the vector cross product of sensation and awareness. Then you describe your "matrix"

"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 expresse

Well smack me on the butt with a lemon and call me vodka, but there are those words again! Do you see them? The matrix is discussing the same horsepucky as the cross-product! Silly us, though, for seeing a connection between them.

8 semesters of math? Hah. You couldn't rub two variables together to start an equation.

 

[Mr. E]

The last thing I would do is look to you for personal answers about anything.

Consciousness is a very personal thing; I take it you are not asking me, or mystery for guidance, illumination or etc. in the matter of SC when you post text strings with "?" at the end of sentences. That seems odd but could be true. It seems some people think we all know perfectly what it is, but that strikes me as an unwarranted assumption.

Bill, I'm sorry if something I wrote misled you needlessly, but remind you of my first reply to you in this thread. I recall asking "Was that necessary?" to which I recall you replying "Yeah, it was". I agree that Synthetic Consciousness might contain what could be (mis)taken to be bunk, after all if it's a model it should well-model "real life" where people seem to have a need to debunk things. You seemed to indicate it was necessary.

If your post was aimed at my didactic approach, thanks for the metatopical feedback. Otherwise it doesn't seem to be aimed at anything topical about SC 'per se', and is only some vague series of text strings by you and what look like out of context excerpts from my posts arranged in a rather unconvincing pattern - hardly reasonable proof of anything other than that a post was made.

ME

PS - Each of my posts is a demonstration of my ability to reply to posters on this board, so "you are demonstrating nothing" is a rather cute way of showing how you (mis)use language.

 

[Mr. E]

This pat on the back thing is not clear to me. How is being interested in almost nothing a compliment?

We are talking about almost nothing, aren't we? You seem to be taking it seriously. It's tough for many to tread the edge of absolute foolishness, in my experience. Or, in other terms, how does one know when something is an insult vs. a compliment, in a universe which contains irony? You said you took something as an insult.

Enough?

[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).

We all start somewhere, even if only "with" the past. I don't want to get into an explicit defense of my didactic processes here, for one thing because I'm more or less only human and therefore subject to error so as you know I have welcomed your constructive feedback in/from the past.

Enough?

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).

Any arrogance on my part is accompanied by a dose of humility (being a student and a teacher, as stated), so I will take your comment to read "fairly" as meaning that any presumption was, to be fair, quite correct. This avoids nit-picking, apparent ad hominem, and any unnecessary implication such as "looking down ones nose at someone else".

Enough?

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

Wouldn't that assume the conclusion?

Let's try a different approach, shall we?

When I post to this forum, I am writing from the future, to the past, to the presently best of my embedded abilities. Other things might also be "going on", seriously or otherwise. If that's not clear, then perhaps we should work any junk out of it for you - for instance if the goal is to make progress. If it is clear enough, then we can build on that bit of almost nothing. If it is "crystal" clear then we are just some jokers on the internet passing time passing gas, so to speak.

Enough?

Conservatives and progressives are well known to have different senses of humor, no kidding!

I look forward to your eminently sensible reply, on topic if serious, off topic if not.

Got topic?


ME

 

[Mr. E]

Visual qualia... I wasn't thinking of that but to me the brain pumps thought

...or thought pumps the brain if one isn't too heavily planted in dogmatic materialism.

and I would put visual qualia as one of the things on the input side of that pump.

I believe some people question whether much of what passes for consciousness is merely epi-phenomenal. I'm not up to date on this, so maybe the past 7 years of hibernation have left me out of the loop too much.

I was thinking more of the imagination space. I think I could have been called on using or not using quote marks. I haven't read all your stuff on supposition fields but I agree that much thought is unaccompanied by visualized information.

Good enough.

Ya think? I celebrate man. All his fragility and power. Poets are needed to give voice to the greatness man is.

Poetry is an essential aspect of the human experience, and may be well allowed for by Synthetic Consciousness. That said, "Ya think?" strikes me as deliberately vague, and so I believe we can leave it there for now.

But I do so to understand man not God. That said, I'll switch gears.

Looks like we agree about the "God" salvo issue from before

The brain does produce an illusion of self and the world.

Does it? Are the questions of nature vs. nurture solved in the general case - maybe acculturation "produces" that illusion, rather than the brain (or at least in concert with it). Sure, we may say there are illusions, and most have experienced them.

In that sense we all live in a fairy tale of our own making. I can be persuaded to look both ways here on the middle way.

Nice reading. I believe some people have said something about looking both ways before jumping into the future (my terms referencing their terms in this thread). If you mean that such people are in effect viewable from two external viewpoints more or less simulatneously, then you seem to have at least an intuitive grasp of Synthetic Consciousness. They look to the left and right for oncoming traffic, we are the traffic looking at them looking left and right... in/from two "places" at the same time.

You should expand on this for me. To me it is still quite spare. You call the statement a building block rather than a definition. Are you building toward a more robust and complete definition that will leave out the kitchen sink? Is the statement equivalent if you'd leave out "a matter of" or is that where all the magic happens.

The kitchen sink will be put in its proper place, if it isn't already more or less eternally there. As I have said in this thread, my contribution is partly about a refinement of vocabulary, of dealing with confusions for instance. That's why I asked about "symbols" in one of your offerings to the God of Synthetic Consciousness, if I may be allowed that usage correctly. No, 'matter' is not unnecessary. Perhaps that got lost in the hubbub of the thread.

Symbols are ...

So, why does the text string "symbols" need to appear in that definition that way? You are saying that

[whatever] = [something built out of associations] + some things built out of associations

Why not leave out the first part (the second bracket-part) entirely?

[whatever] = some things built out of associations

or,

[whatever] = some things, such as symbols, built out of associations.

It's more general and cleaner that way, I think. It's also more compact conceptually since no explicit reference to 'symbol' is required when the mind is engaged in *using* the construct. It's like leaving out excess subroutine calls... a program can run faster if it doesn't have to duplicate "effort" - redunancy has its value but real-time constraints dictate it not be abused.

I believe association is the basic value that the unconscious uses in the evaluation of symbols (or concepts) for storage.

Value? Do you find this construction agreeable:

Understanding is a matter of the association of associations with associated associations.

It strikes me as quite similar to what you wrote, tho' it looks very different and doesn't explicity include 'value'. You will note "with" as being synonymous with "synthesis" here, and thus this fits the Synthetic Method of Synthetic Consciousness nicely. And it is spare on extra terms such as 'symbol', while it is complex and conceptually compact if perhaps wordy if you count characters the hard way.

I don't think symbol is necessarily redundant to concept. I invite comments on this from others.

Depends on how you mean it. I think you are trying to say that some associations have a concrete reference in the ordinary material world, and that some [other] associations might be more abstract, that is with less content. The argument over the existence of God can then be understood as a question of whether 'God' has more or less, or zero, ordinary material content. Agreed? So in this sense, calling upon God can indeed be seen to inform the debate about consciousness. Have I got it exactly?

My initial reticence was just as I said. Conscience does not seem I would offer too that conscience, in common usage, is more often associated with conscious activity. "No you shouldn't eat that brownie or the last piece of pizza."

Looks like an editing problem with that quote, sorry. I am not equating conscience with all of the subconscious, only with a part which feeds back assent of the mind into perception so that one might know what one believes. Conscience in ordinary use is at the base of what makes conscious moral judgments meaningfully possible, even if people don't generally unpack it that way consciously.

Likewise the many moral choices we make each day are done consciously rather than subconsciously though, I'm sure, many choices are not done consciously. If I'm broke and somebody buys me coffee and leaves a tip at the table when they get up to pay, I may be faced with a moral dilemma. Or not. It might never occur to me that I could pick that money up because subconsciously or unconsciously it is already someones else's money. To me though, common usage conscience has always had a conscious aspect to it in the face of a dilemma.

That assumes experiment and is thus a posteriori usage. Perhaps the important choices in this context are precisely the many ones not done with full (pure) consciousness, for they would seem to form the grounds or basis of the possibility of making conscious choices at all. Can we draw a hard line between conscious choices and subconscious choices? I'm saying that hard line or not, there is an important distinction here, and I'd like to label part of this distinction with 'conscience' which as a word refers to that which makes self-knowledge possible and usable (however it may be instantiated or effected in/by the brain). What is a purely conscious choice? Could it have *any* connection to the material world if not via conscience and/or feedback via experiment?

ME

 

[Atlas]

Mr E,

You make some good points but there is still some disagreement between us. I'm ready to entertain the definitions that you'd like to put up for Consciousness, Synthetic Consciousness, Subconscious, Unconscious, construct, concept, symbol, soul, God, man, thought, or any mix of these that we can use to point up the areas of disagreement between us. I think my subconscious definition could use some shoring up but I'm fairly well satisfied with the construction of the others.

I don't mind you using some math symbols if by '=' you mean "is" and if by '+' you mean "and" and if by '-' you mean "not". But feel free to substitute plain english. If you use other math symbols please identify how we should interpret. That is if you think consciousness is a quantity rather than a product use the '*' or 'x' symbols but if you think it is a product of something but not mathematically quantifiable just say product.

Whatever makes your definitions clearer.

If you say 'a matter of' or similar phrases in your definition, please follow up with a short paragraph of explanation.

We've been making long posts here and I'm ready to see whether your own definition of terms will be as brief as mine or more kitchen sinky. Let's stack 'em up side by side - it'll make DD's job easier if he chooses to attack us both for the same reason.

(An added benefit might be that in doing so you will satisfy Bill Hoyt. -- Just a thought.)

 

[Atlas]

Here are mine again.

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.)

 

[Mr. E]

You make some good points but there is still some disagreement between us. I'm ready to entertain the definitions that you'd like to put up for Consciousness, Synthetic Consciousness, Subconscious, Unconscious, construct, concept, symbol, soul, God, man, thought, or any mix of these that we can use to point up the areas of disagreement between us. I think my subconscious definition could use some shoring up but I'm fairly well satisfied with the construction of the others.

Except for your admission ("could use some shoring up"), I'm not aware of any immediate point of disagreement between us here.

I don't mind you using some math symbols if by '=' you mean "is" and if by '+' you mean "and" and if by '-' you mean "not". But feel free to substitute plain english. If you use other math symbols please identify how we should interpret. That is if you think consciousness is a quantity rather than a product use the '*' or 'x' symbols but if you think it is a product of something but not mathematically quantifiable just say product.

My kernel definitions as stated in this thread, similar to your litany of definitions, as such do not include such math symbols. Don't chase red herrings, please, that's Bill's job it seems. I do use math symbols in exposition from time to time, didactically, consistent with my stated goal of formalizing the informal. If the student persists in misunderstanding, what is the teacher to do? One can't just go around bashing people on the head when they don't behave properly, can one? If you want to criticize specific instances of some particular symbol, such as '=' in a recent reply of mine to a post of yours, fine. I'm happy to elaborate in such situations. Let me know explicitly please. My true vocabulary involves equations of terms in many instances, and to suggest that I might use common symbols with associative power in responding to a student's apparent request for insight into the power of Synthetic Consciousness. Please see my recent post to our comrade in arms, H'ethetheth, for more on this.

Whatever makes your definitions clearer.

Again: To whom? If there is no confusion, there is no need. If there is particular confusion, there is particular need. Each confusion warrants its own attention to resolve the attention deficit disorder. Your confusions might be different from BillHoyt's confusions, again assuming either or both has any. There is no general debunking tool except assault or assault and battery. Socrates is said to have said, "Know thyself." I suggest the serious student follow that advice, seriously and playfully. I did.

If you say 'a matter of' or similar phrases in your definition, please follow up with a short paragraph of explanation.

In general, I am working on the sub/unconcious level, attempting to avoid presuming the existence of consciousness in my terminology, as stated explicitly in my first post to this thread. I don't get what's remarkable about my usage of 'a matter of' in any instance. In fact it seems to have been taken for granted until you mentioned it. Can you use it, in good conscience, in a sentence to show me how it isn't already clear to you?

Is that a "short paragraph of explanation" to you?

We've been making long posts here and I'm ready to see whether your own definition of terms will be as brief as mine or more kitchen sinky. Let's stack 'em up side by side - it'll make DD's job easier if he chooses to attack us both for the same reason.

Your request is out of order. See the Randi Challenge please, for instance. Or consider that brevity is not the criterion of interest. Compact, concise, complex, and functional are my criteria, what are yours? Shall we make DD's job easier??

(An added benefit might be that in doing so you will satisfy Bill Hoyt. -- Just a thought.) [/B]

Please don't mention that name in a serious discussion of consciousness. Bill gets satisfaction from slinging mud at what he (mis)perceives to be bunk, if satisfaction means anything understandable here, and if satisfaction is possible via indefinite denial of denial. Let Bill deny denial for himself, he's said that Mr. E is the last person he'd ask, if I read his recent post right. I say, he's the first one to know what he's talking about.

Agreeably yours,

ME

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Goodness no! I have quite enjoyed your participation! As I have the opaque Mister E, I was making reference to the one who I also called Troll Bane, who got their undies in a bunch over the use of the analogy, of a vector or something.

 

[Mr. E]

Here are mine again.

Here, again is my question:

"Construct: A conceptual assembly of symbols and associations."

Construct: A conceptual assembly of associations.

Why/how is your phrasing more effective than mine, since this has been exposed to the light already in this thread? I believe you basically defined 'symbol' as a kind of association, yes? So perhaps I am taking some wrong reading there, unless the apparent redundancy is/was deliberate as a didactic tool of some kind.. There are many ways to mis-parse even a simple text-string there, so I could see it as having that kind of value, but it then lacks in its own "value".

BTW, as to 'is', it's been said that it depends on what 'is' is.

ME

 

[Atlas]

Your request is out of order. See the Randi Challenge please, for instance. Or consider that brevity is not the criterion of interest. Compact, concise, complex, and functional are my criteria, what are yours?

Honest. Honest would be good enough for me.

The thread is Define Consciousness. I didn't come early enough to see why you were being called guilty of the old 'bob and weave' but you were clear enough for me in that last post.

It's rather disheartening for me. I like to think that the posters here do try to explore subjects honestly. Especially when they claim to be teacher and student and offer advice like 'Know thyself'. You're certainly smart enough but just not wise enough I guess.

Well, perhaps you just crave attention, I don't know. Good luck. I hope you find what you're looking for.

 

[Mr. E]

Goodness no! I have quite enjoyed your participation! As I have the opaque Mister E, I was making reference to the one who I also called Troll Bane, who got their undies in a bunch over the use of the analogy, of a vector or something.

Yikes. "As I have the opaque Mister E..."

One might hope that if that refered to *ME* that it could translate agreeably into standard lingo as "As also have I enjoyed the posts presented by Mr. E, clearly a fine fellow he!..."

Agreeably yours, and sorry about the relative opacity of my clarity,

ME

 

[Atlas]

Here, again is my question:

"Construct: A conceptual assembly of symbols and associations."

Construct: A conceptual assembly of associations.

Why/how is your phrasing more effective than mine, since this has been exposed to the light already in this thread? I believe you basically defined 'symbol' as a kind of association, yes? So perhaps I am taking some wrong reading there, unless the apparent redundancy is/was deliberate as a didactic tool of some kind.. There are many ways to mis-parse even a simple text-string there, so I could see it as having that kind of value, but it then lacks in its own "value".

BTW, as to 'is', it's been said that it depends on what 'is' is.

ME

Not all associations are symbolic. But if you want that as your definition, use it. I might be persuaded. Put your definitions together and see if they are consistent with each other.

Well, that's what I was trying to do anyway. I like it when the conversation goes someplace. Start your own thread maybe to talk about talkin about stuff. I've become skeptical you're trying to reach a conclusion. You dodge along the marathon. It makes the whole thing longer.

I'll rest here awhile.

 

[Mr. E]

Honest. Honest would be good enough for me.

Well, perhaps you just crave attention, I don't know. Good luck. I hope you find what you're looking for.

Honesty is about telling the truth. But the truth is that the truth of becoming is not necessarily the truth of being. Let me cite something, perhaps that will "satisfy" some discouraged soul on this forum:

"We tend to take the truth of being for granted.
The truth of becoming is in deed a thing of awe."

Thanks for your good wishes. I in deed have indeed been getting a lot personally from my posts to the forum. The tenor of your post, as I read it seriously, suggests that you are dissatisfied or just giving up on understanding. I hope that reading is only terminal and not real in the ordinary real-world sense, for us both.

Any student of consciousness should crave attention, but not be greedy for it, for attention is at the heart of the synthesis of sensation with awareness which makes consciousness possible in the first place.

"The great thing about logic, is that if you persevere with it you can not go wrong."

Let your conscience be your guide, and as they used to say, "Godspeed".

Agnostically yours, or not,

ME

PS - As a personal aside, some things of value for me here:

Rust out of the "machinery" of my mind.
Marginal increments in Synthetic Consciousness.
Finding 'God' and putting it in its proper place in the Synthetic Order of things, thanks in part to your help.
Fun
Profound reorientation of key "constructs" leading to awesome possibilities
Didactic practice
Participation in a discussion of Definitions of Consciousness and the alleged existence thereof, an old pet topic of mine.

 

[Mr. E]

Not all associations are symbolic.

Check for ambiguity of negation: Likely readings -

Not (all are symbolic), or (not all) are symbolic:

[I am] denying that all are symbolic. Or,
Some or none, but not all, are symbolic.
All symbols are associations.
Some associations are not, in themselves, symbolic.

Okay, since 'symbolic' refers to associations with concrete items and I accept the possibility of associations with non-concrete items (even tho' I tend to be a concrete thinker perhaps like David). But a given association must eventually be associated/associatable with concrete items if the associations are to have what I believe David referred to as "external validity" (I have not seen a reply to my post about this).

Did I suggest otherwise? I was, again, simply trying to help you with your stated vocabulary of consciousness as understandable to me. I didn't yet understand the definition of construct as stated by you. Why is 'symbolic' in there explicitly?

What conclusion? This was (had been) only round one, for me, as stated in passing somewhere in the thread.

ME, or Mr. Ed

 

[H'ethetheth]

Goodness no! I have quite enjoyed your participation! As I have the opaque Mister E, I was making reference to the one who I also called Troll Bane, who got their undies in a bunch over the use of the analogy, of a vector or something.

Aha! They are one and the same. I guess that was my guilty conscience speaking, as I have seen myself forced to discuss analogies quite frequently. I must admit that my undergarments have also been creeping up every once in a while during this discussion.

I must say though that I have enjoyed most of this discussion, however I feel that my opinion on this matter needs further thinking and reading, since I had never come to ponder the inner workings of consciousness before this discussion.
It appears that that has become the topic though, so I'm going to withdraw for a bit.

Mr. E,

To most of your "enough?" questions I say yes, and I will not debate you on the correctness of your presumptions concerning "content in mind". However I myself presume that Daniel Dennet has the better teaching skills, so I've taken up his "consciousness explained".
After that I believe I shall be concentrating on topic.


regards,

H'ethetheth

 

[Mr. E]

I must say though that I have enjoyed most of this discussion, however I feel that my opinion on this matter needs further thinking and reading, since I had never come to ponder the inner workings of consciousness before this discussion.
It appears that that has become the topic though, so I'm going to withdraw for a bit.

I will miss your inspiring presence while you read the prose of that other DD character! But you have clearly got the essence of my starting position, about trying to consciously get at consciusness from the inside, so to speak. A lot of people seem to get paid good money to write books about such things. I've got it down pretty well myself, heh, so if DD raises something of, uh, interest for you, post it here or drop me a line otherwise!

Dennet has more of a reputation than I do, if you like argument from authority, but, no offense taken here.

May your eyestrain be worth the price of admission to Dennet's World!


ME

edit PS - H' wrote: "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)."

I don't recall saying that. Is this trivial beyond possibility of parole, or something to work out a bit while you read elsewhere? My text strings might have been dense or mis-stated, but when I read yours above, it doesn't seem to say the same as what I recall stating and meaning.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Mr. E
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!

I see I've indeed misread this, although now that I've really read it, I have no idea what you mean by "a matter of something of no content in mind".
Anyway, I remember I read something like: "[...]the delightful attempts of others of no content in mind[...]
I guess I really am a bonehead, and that presumption makes for inaccurate reading.

Sorry, 'see' you in couple of days, that is, on topic. I will be following the discussion though, and probably commenting on things like this.

 

[Mr. E]

I see I've indeed misread this, although now that I've really read it, I have no idea what you mean by "a matter of something of no content in mind".

If you had taken me up on my twice indicated offer about that essay, the one about understanding understanding, the one I didn't want to burden the list with if there was no explicit call for it, the meanings represented by that text might have been clearer. I could try to summarize in a shorter post if you would like ME to.

Anyway, I remember I read something like: "[...]the delightful attempts of others of no content in mind[...]
I guess I really am a bonehead, and that presumption makes for inaccurate reading.

Ah! Thanks for the explanation. If an excuse is warranted, I would accept the one you mentioned already about 'Dutch' and 'dutch'. I do love puns!! My rule of thumb is to read with both humility and arrogance at the same time; it ain't instantiated purrr-fectly all the time, not to be catty about it. I believe you agree. Reading deep ◊◊◊◊ across a native language barrier can indeed be problematic for the serious student. Or maybe you "misread" on purpose as a test of the teacher phase of our discourse on the course of SC. [shrug] I trust this reply covers both options well enough. After all, this is taken to be a Critical Thinking forum by some...

Speaking of which, I seem to recall you posting something about "don't pretend" as a kind of maxim. One of what might be maxims for ME, as you may recall, is that "our language" is necessarily ambiguous, both self-referentially and with respect to most other aspects. But I trust you knew that already. Anyway, in case anyone else is not there here, "don't pretend" is a good rule and a bad rule when it comes to Consciousness. It depends on how you mean it. If a hyphen is inserted, a minor act of symmetry breaking, it becomes clearer: "don't pre-tend". Both (or Bothersome) meanings are "contained in" 'pretense' if one stops to think carefully about ordinary usage.

Without pre-tense, consciousness is pretty dull, immaterial, non-existent for all practical purposes, for being conscious is almost precisely a matter of having a certain kind of tension in mind/brain - it may lead or lag, that is there is a phase relation to attention, but without attention what consciousness would be left to speak of?

But with pretense, consciousness can lead one on flights of fancy which seem to rather lose touch with the ordinary world and some end up in delusional states. The balancing act between fantasy and reality is another aspect of Synthetic Consciousness(tm) as hinted at by the double helix suggestion.

So, when attention is distracted or directed at imagination, we say the pour soul is not paying attention, because we, arrogantly or presumptuously or not, each have our own perspectives, and as someone pointed out, we can't communicate with "you" if "you" are not paying attention to "us". But of course that's because said "pour soul" might be paying attention to imagination. There are confusions of attention as well, such as mis-direction, short-circuits, denial, and other pathologies of consciousness as I believe I mentioned and have caused to be demonstrated earlier here.

Want more?

That said, I'm waiting for the OP to respond further, whether seriously on topic, or in the punny spirit of the contents of the OP as a scarecrow for Trolls. And Bill, I'm waiting ... but since you think this might be about the Randi Challenge, it could well be. Either way, "I want my money" stands. On your premise, I have demonstrated a paranormal phenomenon in this thread. Since truth trumps order, according to you, it should be clear that the usual formalities need not apply.

ahem.

Have a thoughtful day!


ME

edit: PS - All posts by "ME" to this thread Copyright 2004. Publication and distribution under Fair Use allowed with attribution, no commercial use rights granted. ~~