Define Consiousness

[Atlas]

Please repeat the paranormal claim or a link to it.

 

[Mr. E]

Please repeat the paranormal claim or a link to it.

You mean the premise I mentioned is a "claim"? Bill stated that truth trumps order. If so, why is a stated claim necessary here?

Let's not lose site of the topical thread, but if you are a formal representative of JREF and the Randi Challenge folks, we could discuss this further. You sure seemed to jump on that line of thinking pretty quickly if you are only an ordinary critical thinker (and further I don't see any reply or rebuttal to my recent posts other than what I quoted above, so my working hypothesis is that you accept everything I stated there as the truth). Here is a pointer to part of it. I don't know how to easily link to specific posts in this thread...

"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."

I have done both.

I'm still waiting.

Regards formally,

ME

 

[Atlas]

You mean the premise I mentioned is a "claim"? Bill stated that truth trumps order. If so, why is a stated claim necessary here?

I should have quoted. You seemed to be making a claim based on some premise by another poster....

You said...

On your premise, I have demonstrated a paranormal phenomenon in this thread.

That sounded like you were making the claim that you have demonstrated a paranormal phenomenon.

What did your words mean if not what they say?

I was just saying that I had missed the interchange you were referencing and wanted to read it. You seem quite willing to challenge others but are unwilling to accept challenges from others as if the "teacher" that you are is not trying to promote critical thinking but to jam "text strings" down our throats.

Did you or did you not demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon, and if not, what was the meaning you were trying to convey?

 

[Mr. E]

I should have quoted. You seemed to be making a claim based on some premise by another poster....

I was making two "arguments in one". And yes, everyone who posted constructively to the Synthetic Consciousness aspects of this thread did provide some basis for what you are calling a claim. I'm not clear on the point of pursuing this angle. Are you a formal representative as noted?

What did your words mean if not what they say?

I suppose they meant whatever else you read them to mean. Are you asking me to define 'meaning' explicitly?

I was just saying that I had missed the interchange you were referencing and wanted to read it.

This entire thread, or a bit less, plus some emails with people who seem to be randi.org authorized representatives (to which you might not have access at this time).

You seem quite willing to challenge others but are unwilling to accept challenges from others as if the "teacher" that you are is not trying to promote critical thinking but to jam "text strings" down our throats.

What it seems to you is in your head only, tho' others may also have similar such seemings in their heads, as far as I can tell the tale of conscious experience.

In the interest of cutting down verbiage, what challenges remain unanswered? Please be specific.

Did you or did you not demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon, and if not, what was the meaning you were trying to convey?

Isn't that first part the very point? "To whom?" is my reiteration of my effective earlier text string.

3 Options: It was demonstrated, not demonstrated, or both. Who wants to know and why?

I am "solving" what might amount to a pair of simultaneous equations. I don't mind trying give you an idea (but likely won't elaborate a lot immediately):

1) The BillHoyt thing, with the RC as leverage.
........... This includes other data too.
2) The RC thing with the BillHoyt thing (and more) as leverage.

I'm still waiting.

It is possible that the Randi Challenge itself is bunk. Your inquiry is what it is making it topical here and giving it more meaning, thanks.

In a day or so, if there is not further attempted challenge to the first building block of SC, I intend to proceed further on phase two of defining consciousness and "challenging" its existence as tho' this thread meant anything at all like that. In the meantime I'm available daily to deal with issues raised about my first post in this thread and elaborations of the necessary aspects in further posts in this thread.

Thanks for your contributions to the demo of SC so far. Synchronicity can be awesome!

ME

 

[Atlas]

In the interest of cutting down verbiage, what challenges remain unanswered? Please be specific.

The only challenge I put out was to put some definitions up next to mine so that we could compare and further the discussion. You seem dodgy and unwilling. Then contrary and preachy. I took that to mean you really have nothing to offer but empty text strings. There are a few others who say things but quail when asked for explanations. They evade. They have no depth. You are proving every bit their equal.

I then had a personal request. You said: I have demonstrated a paranormal phenomenon in this thread. I certainly missed it and it seems so did everyone else. I asked again. You evaded.

Isn't that first part the very point? "To whom?" is my reiteration of my effective earlier text string.

3 Options: It was demonstrated, not demonstrated, or both. Who wants to know and why?

I want to know. Why not? We were having a pleasant exchange but then I asked you to show me what you've got. You made a claim. Is it odd that someone took an interest?

Then you move to obfuscation.

I am "solving" what might amount to a pair of simultaneous equations. I don't mind trying give you an idea (but likely won't elaborate a lot immediately):

1) The BillHoyt thing, with the RC as leverage.
........... This includes other data too.
2) The RC thing with the BillHoyt thing (and more) as leverage.

Those are hardly equations. They aren't even sentences.
Plain and simple it's bunk.

But ironically you say...

It is possible that the Randi Challenge itself is bunk.

Finally you say:

... I intend to proceed further on phase two of defining consciousness and "challenging" its existence ...

Will phase 2 of defining consciousness include a definition? If we are to take your challenge of it seriously it might help us to know what you believe it is. Otherwise how will anyone be able to assess whether you offer anything but bunk?

 

[BillHoyt]

Mystery Crank Oil,

You're waiting for nothing. You continue to make claims involving mathematics while blathering on, whining about the Randi challenge for some bizarre reason and ignoring skeptical inquiry.

Now we must add this "simultaneous equations" crap to the bunk list, but, of course, it is couched in weasel words to give you an out:

I am "solving" what might amount to a pair of simultaneous equations. I don't mind trying give you an idea (but likely won't elaborate a lot immediately):

1) The BillHoyt thing, with the RC as leverage.
........... This includes other data too.
2) The RC thing with the BillHoyt thing (and more) as leverage.

As Atlas has already indicated, this is sheer bunk. Frankly, mystery, you haven't elaborated on any of your pseudoscientific claims. Frankly, you have run away from each one like a scared little girl. Frankly, you know you have no basis for your assertions. You know you also have precious little knowledge about matrices, vectors, symmetry operations or the DNA double helix. You also know, as do all cranks and all who love to play with metaphysical fog machines, that the crank ideas you are trying to sell require "scientific-souding stuff." Absent real science, you just make it up and hope your audience's acumen is about as dull as your own.

Go peddle this stuff elsewhere. There are plenty of websites out there with similar nonsense, that use a similar blend of scientific illiteracy and metaphysical bafflegab.

 

[Mr. E]

You're waiting for nothing.

No.

You continue to make claims involving mathematics while blathering on, whining about the Randi challenge for some bizarre reason and ignoring skeptical inquiry.

Bill continues to blather on about his fantasies instead of demonstrating clear-cut ordinary critical thinking. Whooopeee. But isn't part of the notion of the paranormal that it might seem bizarre to many? And the truth about consciousness might also seem bizarre.

Now we must add this "simultaneous equations" crap to the bunk list, but, of course, it is couched in weasel words to give you an out:

Don't mistake a topical argument for what it isn't, Bill. If you'd just get off your high horse and show some horse sense, there'd be less verbiage in this thread.

As Atlas has already indicated, this is sheer bunk.

You aren't doing a good job of focussing on the topic, Bill.

Frankly, mystery, you haven't elaborated on any of your pseudoscientific claims.

Frankly, Troll, you just keep trolling as long as you like.

Frankly, you have run away from each one like a scared little girl.

No, I have engaged much of your sad ◊◊◊◊ with generosity and kindness, since you are making value judgments here. And I'm still waiting. No excuses, Bill. You know what I mean. Time is running out.

Absent real science, you just make it up and hope your audience's acumen is about as dull as your own.

Bill, in his terribly rude and uncivil way is almost correct on this one. Art, Religion, and Science all seem to be about truth. But for some reason, they don't all seem to be on the same page. Some people believe in Synchronicity. I find Found Art to be a stepping stone to higher consciousness, as indicated in this thread.

Go peddle this stuff elsewhere. There are plenty of websites out there with similar nonsense, that use a similar blend of scientific illiteracy and metaphysical bafflegab.

The path which took me here might or might not be relevant. But this forum is supposed to be about critical thinking. Throwing virtual mud doesn't prove anything except that you can post trash talk posing as argument. I've been kindly making sense of your nonsense plenty, Bill.

And I'm still waiting. Bill's silence on that matter is deafening.



ME

 

[Mr. E]

The only challenge I put out was to put some definitions up next to mine so that we could compare and further the discussion.

If that's the only thing missing, it seems you are asking me to summarize the thread in one short post. Let's see what I can do in a moment. Meanwhile:

You seem dodgy and unwilling. Then contrary and preachy. I took that to mean you really have nothing to offer but empty text strings.

I asked if you needed a definition of "meaning", since you use the term, and here in an odd and disrespectful way. I haven't seen such a request from you yet. If one prefers what "seems" so to what is so, then one prefers illusions to reality or truth (or both), in common usage. That would mean you prefer bunk, as I get the usage of the term. Did you get the point about "Shall we [make it easy for DD]?" If one skips questions, sometimes it leads to misunderstanding, whether internally or in political matters such as communication breakdowns.

There are a few others who say things but quail when asked for explanations. They evade. They have no depth. You are proving every bit their equal.

High praise coming from you? "Quail" is a cute term coming from a bird brain, but what's it doing coming from you here?

I then had a personal request. You said: I have demonstrated a paranormal phenomenon in this thread. I certainly missed it and it seems so did everyone else. I asked again. You evaded.

Don't pretend to quote me, quote in context if you want to make it topical and show attention to detail.

I want to know. Why not?

But who are you in that matter? Are you an illusion of your conscious mind, some vague construct with apparent confusions parading as thoughtful definitions of who you are? btw, 'why' and 'why not' are both good questions for the serious student to ask, nice point. Being aware of irony is definitely part of higher consciousness. Using it effectively is something else!

We were having a pleasant exchange but then I asked you to show me what you've got. You made a claim. Is it odd that someone took an interest?

What/which claim? I posted a post in this thread, containing textual evidence of Synthetic Consciousness, and since then we have mostly BillHoyt-like trash talk, and Dymanic, H'ethetheth, and Atlas-like apparently sincere discussions (some of which have petered out for whatever personal reasons) in response to my post(s). Do you think you could be a bit more vague in your references here?

Then you move to obfuscation. Those are hardly equations. They aren't even sentences.
Plain and simple it's bunk.

Plain and simple, people tend to see what they are looking for if they miss the fine details of the point. Good point about consciousness, again, Grasshopper! I am only your assist-Ant here, so don't take offense please.

But ironically you say...

That's a fine way to be skeptical, good for you! Thanks for confirming the supposition that "the Randi Challenge is bunk" is topical to the thread. It is both topical and probably true, but the proof of the latter is not necessarily topical to the core of this thread.

Finally you say: Will phase 2 of defining consciousness include a definition? If we are to take your challenge of it seriously it might help us to know what you believe it is. Otherwise how will anyone be able to assess whether you offer anything but bunk?

Your posts are beginning to look more and more like Bill's in their evident lack of attention to detail and lousy humor.

I "came over to your side", challenged your presentation, and here we are with you. Are you mad at me for not posting a litany of trash alongside yours right away?? I still don't have a solid answer from you as to my polite challenge about issues in definition. You had said you might be persuaded... well?

I take it that you accept my reply to your challenge about 'honesty' without quarrel or reservation. Do you?


ME

 

[Atlas]

I "came over to your side", challenged your presentation, and here we are with you. Are you mad at me for not posting a litany of trash alongside yours right away?? I still don't have a solid answer from you as to my polite challenge about issues in definition. You had said you might be persuaded... well?ME

I said often that your posts were difficult to understand. Then you posted something clear to show that in fact you are able to do so if you want. I did appreciate that.

But as soon as I politely asked you to present the definitions that you work from everything changed. I hadn't read the entire thread and didn't know why Bill Hoyt and others were calling you on stuff. I don't know math as well as those who were saying that you don't know it as well as you think you do. That argument was over my head.

I came to offer my 2 cents about an issue that is interesting to me. When I use words, words like consciousness, what do I think I mean when I us them and what is it that others think it is.

DD laid out the challenge in the first post. Define it and then he word argue against it. You've kinda taken the thread over. Insodoing you've shown flashes of intelligence but you use your intelligence to achieve a petty end.

You could treat others with respect. But fear that would unseat you from your perch. No one is able to question you about anything you say without getting doubletalk. You do not seek to engage the topic with integrity or intellectual honesty. All you want to do is teach but you won't even answer questions about that.

I very much enjoy the exchanges of others whenever they cause me to think about what is behind my beliefs. Often I disagree with another poster's expressed opinion respectfully, but never when the poster refuses to stand up and explain his own words.

You are that poster. Bill Hoyt is only one that has called you on it. You bob and weave and shuck and jive and then cast aspersions on Bill and anyone else who dares ask you what you really stand for.

I did put up my definitions and answered several of your questions. Several seemed strange to me and I said so finally asking you to present your definitions so that it would be apparent how we differ. You have refused. You've Obfuscated, You have dodged. All the while making pronouncements on others as being low and small.

I will show my good faith and address any of your questions when you quit acting childish and stand behind your words with a little integrity.

TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN. Put up your definitions of Consciousness, Synthetic consciousness, Conscience, Meaning or anything else you think will further the discussion. As you say, you have written things down and merely need to summarize your own posts. What is the problem?

Here is a hint. Start with the words you can define. I admit it's not easy, but it does let others know where you stand and it let's us know that you know where you stand as well. Since I believe you are intelligent enough to do it, especially with my examples and the dictionary and your books to guide you, I feel like your agenda is not to engage and inform.

Do the right thing Mr E. Reengage the topic with honesty, integrity and respect for the questions of the other posters. It's the fair thing too. There is no need to be condescending or didactic. We are open enough to embrace new ideas when they have merit. It's not about debate and skepticism - It's about the ideas presented by those means.

I'll answer all your questions of me when I know where you are coming from. Otherwise it's an exercise in futility. You mince my words and throw them back mixed with a strange gibberish. You won't explain where you firmly stand. I'm left believing that you really don't know what you're talking about but have a need to puff yourself up as if you were a deep thinker. But unless you tell us where your foundation is - It's all bunk, Mr E. It's all Bunk!

 

[Mr. E]

But unless you tell us where your foundation is - It's all bunk, Mr E. It's all Bunk!

Am I supposed to just dump it on the thread, or is critical thinking a matter of people drawing it out of me, as perhaps H'ethetheth was doing? If by "It's all bunk" you mean something like the common phrase "garbage in, garbage out" I'm generally agreeable. Your definitions read closer to bunk than to clearly stated insights into the deeper meaning of 'consciousness'.

As I read your text there, you could be saying that your posts are all bunk, Atlas. I've tried politely to engage you about them as noted in my previous post, and now I'm getting a long lecture in how you seem to think I am not playing fair here.

I have stated something about my "foundation" as I suppose you mean it, a number of times in this thread, along these lines (paraphrased in some places, so look at the original usage for guidance if there seems to be a problem):

I am writing from the future, as best as I presently can, and talking with/to the past - you might imagine that could produce some communication issues. I offered one poster a bridge, seriously and in good humor, but s/he went away silently after that. It could be a two-way street, that "bridge". Don't misread that to say that I am some ordinary time-traveller, it's more a manner of speaking than something like StarTrek, d'oh! I'm sure some will find a way to laugh, and let them have their fun. Just remember that quote from Schopenhauer when they do.

Synthetic Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness. "a matter of" has been accepted as common usage; 'sensation' and 'awareness' have been defined in terms of information theory; 'synthesis' doesn't seem to be at issue. I've stated that there is a distinction between conscious self and subconscious self, and described that some. I've noted 'attention' and the notion of 'phase' in the Synthesis. I've actively demoed the Synthetic Method in this thread, including the use of Found Art, the incorporation of terms brought in by other posters (eg, 'attention', 'God') and so on.

That's my foundation. When pressed I also stated some "axioms" about reality and value and the world and so on. Jeff made a bird-brain joke and dropped it when I called what looked like the bluff. He's been silent since as far as I can tell.

I'm waiting for DD to respond to a number of inquiries, if I'm to take his ironical OP seriously.

I'm waiting for BillHoyt to get real, in the ordinary sense.

I'm waiting for someone to defend the Randi Challenge. If nobody can, then it's bunk. If someone can at least state how it is relevant to this thread, that'd be great too! It's not irrelevant, just not on the main path, as stated from the past.

I want my money.

I'm losing patience.

Is that clear enough?

Is the air too thin here for you or what? Man does not live by irony alone.


ME

 

[Dymanic]

At first I was thinking either Profundus Maximus or Artful Dodger. After a while, I was more inclined to go with Tireless Rebutter, or maybe Furious Typer (which is about when I bailed). Right now, I'm still torn between Loopy and Bong. (I consider it cheating to propose hybrids; one must choose).

 

[Mr. E]

At first I was thinking either Profundus Maximus or Artful Dodger. After a while, I was more inclined to go with Tireless Rebutter, or maybe Furious Typer (which is about when I bailed). Right now, I'm still torn between Loopy and Bong. (I consider it cheating to propose hybrids; one must choose).

Hey look who's back! How goes the emulation?

Got topic?

ME

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

Hey look who's back!

I am not back.


...DOH!

How goes the emulation?

I wouldn't know where to begin.

Got topic?

You missed it? There's more to the forum than this one thread, you know.

 

[Mr. E]

There's more to the forum than this one thread, you know. [/B]

Whatever turns you on, Dude!


ME

 

[Jeff Corey]

... I've stated that there is a distinction between conscious self and subconscious self, and described that some.
ME

Let's explore that one point. I can agree that I have something I feel OK about calling a "conscious self", as I defined on page 1 of this thread. Other people tell me that they have one, and our descriptions of what we experience tend to agree.
But a "subconscious self"? Perhaps you are referring to the
Freudian notion of the unconscious. If not, let me know before I start quoting Popper.

 

[Mr. E]

Let's explore that one point. I can agree that I have something I feel OK about calling a "conscious self", as I defined on page 1 of this thread. Other people tell me that they have one, and our descriptions of what we experience tend to agree.
But a "subconscious self"? Perhaps you are referring to the
Freudian notion of the unconscious. If not, let me know before I start quoting Popper.

Oh, sorry. I thought I was quite clear about how I handle this: Conscience. Maybe conscience is somewhat unconscious - can you cite Freud on this? BTW, I didn't see an explicit defintion from you on page 1, but I did see three posts there, one of which dully called Interesting Ian a dullard, and one which paraphrased some alleged textbook blathering on about something vaguely related to the topic. Maybe you could state exactly what this "conscious self" is and/or cite your source?

We may have such different vocabularies of consciousness that understanding one from the other might be rather difficult to do at first.

Conscious self, as a "construct" of belief structures perhaps ala Atlas could be most anything constructable at all, even self-incoherent, self-defeating, confused,... - people can create fantasy selves and the like, for instance. People also might be said to follow their consciences, or not, so clearly any hypothetical conscious self would have to have some grounding in ordinary reality. What is the root of desire?

ME

 

[Atlas]

... Conscious self, as a "construct" of belief structures perhaps ala Atlas could be most anything constructable at all, even self-incoherent, self-defeating, confused,... - people can create fantasy selves and the like, for instance. People also might be said to follow their consciences, or not, so clearly any hypothetical conscious self would have to have some grounding in ordinary reality. What is the root of desire?

While I do put forth a definition for discussion of Consciousness, Self, and Conscious Self - do not twist it with words not found there. Especially when your conclusion is not apparent from my definition without an expansion of just how loosely you intend to interpret "grounded in ordinary reality".

Please offer your own definition and reference those.

My conscious self definition said simply this...Conscious Self: That "Self" which is called "I" and accepts as fact that it is an awake, logical, feeling human being.

Mine definitions are here.

(Editted to remove a sentence sure to be misconstrued as support for your position.)

 

[H'ethetheth]

A little interjection

Oh, sorry. I thought I was quite clear about how I handle this: Conscience[...]

Hehe, I'd think by now you should know that you can't assume that anyone but you understands what you say. Not being rude, just observing

Carry on!

 

[BillHoyt]

No.
Bill continues to blather on about his fantasies instead of demonstrating clear-cut ordinary critical thinking. Whooopeee. But isn't part of the notion of the paranormal that it might seem bizarre to many? And the truth about consciousness might also seem bizarre.

Don't mistake a topical argument for what it isn't, Bill. If you'd just get off your high horse and show some horse sense, there'd be less verbiage in this thread.

You aren't doing a good job of focussing on the topic, Bill.

Frankly, Troll, you just keep trolling as long as you like.

No, I have engaged much of your sad ◊◊◊◊ with generosity and kindness, since you are making value judgments here. And I'm still waiting. No excuses, Bill. You know what I mean. Time is running out.

Bill, in his terribly rude and uncivil way is almost correct on this one. Art, Religion, and Science all seem to be about truth. But for some reason, they don't all seem to be on the same page. Some people believe in Synchronicity. I find Found Art to be a stepping stone to higher consciousness, as indicated in this thread.

The path which took me here might or might not be relevant. But this forum is supposed to be about critical thinking. Throwing virtual mud doesn't prove anything except that you can post trash talk posing as argument. I've been kindly making sense of your nonsense plenty, Bill.

And I'm still waiting. Bill's silence on that matter is deafening.



ME

When am I going to get answers instead of lies? When are you going to stop wasting my time?

An important point you choose to lie about is critical thinking. I am doing that; you are failing to. When you make assertions about vectors, matrices, DNA and symmetry operations, it is the epitome of critical thinking for someone to ask incisive questions.

You made and continue to make pseudoscientific assertions in the middle of your bafflegab. Either back them up, retract them or go away.

 

[T'ai Chi]

This thread is equationless.