Define Consiousness

[BillHoyt]

This thread is equationless.

I think you missed dozens of posts.

 

[hammegk]

Perhaps the word jzs was searching for -- in specific regards to Mr.E -- is "meaningless"?

 

[T'ai Chi]

I think you missed dozens of posts.

Nope, read them all. I'm looking for a real equation from Mr. E, none of this word stuff:

"How it follows:

General case: C = S x A

Particular case (Information):

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

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


For example, what exactly is I(becoming) and I(being),etc.? Can he put actual numbers in these matrices?

 

[BillHoyt]

Nope, read them all. I'm looking for a real equation from Mr. E, none of this word stuff:

"How it follows:

General case: C = S x A

Particular case (Information):

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

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


For example, what exactly is I(becoming) and I(being),etc.? Can he put actual numbers in these matrices?

C = S x A is an equation. Otherwise, I agree with you, and have been asking mystery to back this nonsense up. Quite surprisingly, there has been no back up.

 

[Mr. E]

Hi Atlas, thanks for continuing.

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".

If I do not attempt to use your terms, how are we to find a common language? If you can show a necessary problem ala the "looseness" you allege, by all means lay out the argument clearly. Until then, you are accepting my usage in that context since you didn't deny nor correct it explicitly. I'm glad we have that settled.

Please offer your own definition and reference those.

Which one and which "those"? Didn't you just read my reply to your prior similar request for definition?! Stop being recursively silly in such an obvious fashion, please, it is uncivil.

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.

That's nice.

"sure to be construed to be support for your position"? So now you are removing truth from the thread, openly! My, isn't this fun!

Hey, David, are you reading this? I don't mean to hijack the thread, and am still waiting for responses from you, but this stuff is too silly to leave alone.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

C = S x A is an equation. Otherwise, I agree with you, and have been asking mystery to back this nonsense up. Quite surprisingly, there has been no back up.

It's shorthand, silly - referencing the prior posts. Even a three year old (per H'ethetheth and maybe others) should have been able to figure that out in context, esp. one which can generate text strings about "R2" or GS orthogonalization and the like. Anyway this was already dealt with by prior posts, so you are now chewing on the musty remains of your imagination, a thoroughly odd act to perform in public. Good for you, Bill!

Truth trumps order.

I'm still waiting. I'm feeling more patient than I was recently, but time is passing. Got watch, Bill? I've got the real McCoy and you know it.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Perhaps the word jzs was searching for -- in specific regards to Mr.E -- is "meaningless"?

Hi again. Please define the term you put in quotation marks.

Thanks.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Re: A little interjection

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!

I'd think you'd know by now that while I was born yesterday, I wasn't born yesterday, if you get the idiom. Civility rules this forum at some level, I was trying to be polite.

Thanks for the support!! Any progress with Dennet?

ME

 

[Mr. E]

For example, what exactly is I(becoming) and I(being),etc.? Can he put actual numbers in these matrices? [/B]

Allowing for the shorthand and your use of "matrices", that's an excellent if metaphysical question. What exactly is an actual number and how does an abstraction effect action in the world? What/how are being and becoming?

But I don't see that it is necessarily relevant to the serious side of the OP - maybe you could concisely outline exactly how it is. OTOH, David seems to be AFK, or at least reading without posting, whether holding his sides from laughing or crying or not. Yo, DD, you got input here?


ME

 

[H'ethetheth]

Re: Re: A little interjection

Thanks for the support!! Any progress with Dennet?

No need to be offended, just exploring my pathetic sense of humor again.

Dennett's a bit long on making sure I will understand his line of argument, but it's interesting. Lots of analogies too.
About a third of the way through now.

P.S.: Did I spell it Dennet? I did, didn't I? I meant Dennett of course.

 

[Mr. E]

Re: Re: Re: A little interjection

P.S.: Did I spell it Dennet? I did, didn't I? I meant Dennett of course.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p="daniel+dennet"&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab= for example: "Consciousness Explained -Daniel Dennet"

Same difference? No harm, no foul. Thanks for your assiduous if overzealous attention to irrelevant detail, Comrade! BTW, I *have* considered the possibility of other "typos" in the OP itself at least one of which is REALLY funny in a colloquial sense.

Play on, Puppets!

Silly ME

 

[BillHoyt]

It's shorthand, silly - referencing the prior posts. Even a three year old (per H'ethetheth and maybe others) should have been able to figure that out in context, esp. one which can generate text strings about "R2" or GS orthogonalization and the like. Anyway this was already dealt with by prior posts, so you are now chewing on the musty remains of your imagination, a thoroughly odd act to perform in public. Good for you, Bill!

The fact that you cannot supply any meat behind the shorthand is the issue, mystery. Mathematics is, indeed, shorthand. It is a compact notation that means something except when used in a crank manner. Do regale us with your explanation of the shorthand. I've only been asking for days now and you keep up this red herring.

I've got the real McCoy and you know it.

ME

You've got crank so far, mystery, and some mystery crank oil to go with it. When will you provide support for your specious, pseudoscientific claptrap?

 

[H'ethetheth]

[...] and you keep up this red herring.

Another little off-topic. Being Dutch I'm not familiar with the red herring, and I couldn't find it in my dictionary.
Is it something like when a magician says: "Look! A red herring! I bet you've never seen a red herring before!" And then quickly puts a couple of pigeons up his other sleeve?

 

[Atlas]

Perhaps the word jzs was searching for -- in specific regards to Mr.E -- is "meaningless"?

Hi again. Please define the term you put in quotation marks.

A close enough definition would be BUNK! Why don't you lay out a few definitions so that we can all know what you're talking about. Start with the same definitions I laid out. I think, Consciousness and Synthetic Consciousness would be good. You might try, Conscience. Perhaps: Intellectual Integrity.

 

[Mr. E]

I've only been asking for days now and you keep up this red herring.

Show its necessary relevance to the serious topic at hand. Don't just say "It's relevant because I say so" or such silly argument from non-authority. I've been telling you, since about day one, that I don't see how it's relevant in context to elaborate on it, and I courteously even allowed as how maybe you are more interested in emulations on an ordinary computer than in supposition fields and the like, many days ago, and further pointed you to these several issues a number of times since then. As I've stated many times, whatever your purpose in posting here, my bias is towards taking the OP ostensible topic seriously. If you can't accept that, how about not chewing off your own leg so often?

I also allowed as how "I failed" could be true in your estimation at some point; it's now clear to me that you will indeed continue to fail whether for the fun of it or not.

I'm still waiting, and you know what I mean. Tick tock... My patience is now waning.


ME

PS - Not that it's relevant but the analogy is/was adequate for the job.

 

[Mr. E]

Perhaps: Intellectual Integrity.

Coherent Irony In Action?

Next? Did you intend for me to define 'meaning', too? I didn't see your explicit request in the silliness of your post.

"BUNK" doesn't look to me like an effective definition, unless it's an example of "shouting" in ASCII text per common usage. Weak at best, and while emphasis does have something to do with getting a point across that's a pretty thin notion for most. I'd use something like "MEANING youretardedthickskullednetcompoop, you!!!!!!" as if that were the point. Please note that I am NOT saying that. I'm more a pacifist, as stated before.

And it further fails as an effective definition of the term 'meaning' because it is at most a transliteration, using one WORD in place of another. Any child can play that game, as I'm sure you know too well. Building an effective working vocabulary requires effective definitions, as "working" might indicate to some. Your pillow-fight stuff is mere puppetry. Who's pulling your strings, anyway? Are you having a good time? Great!

I'm still trying not to crack up laughing, but if someone asks me to state an explicit definition of 'meaning', I would be happy to comply even if it's not clear that it's relevant here. But please do ask politely if you want a serious reply.

As I said before, dude, "Whatever turns you on."

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Another little off-topic. Being Dutch I'm not familiar with the red herring, and I couldn't find it in my dictionary.
Is it something like when a magician says: "Look! A red herring! I bet you've never seen a red herring before!" And then quickly puts a couple of pigeons up his other sleeve?

Wrong birds. Think Wild Geese, and no magician to chase after them, that should do it for you.



Civilly yours,

ME

 

[Atlas]

Mr E,

Please give us your definitions of Meaning, Consciousness, Synthetic Consciousness, Self, Self Consciousness, Subconcious, and Unconconsious and Conscience.

Thank you

 

[H'ethetheth]

Wrong birds. Think Wild Geese, and no magician to chase after them, that should do it for you.

I read this enigmatic post as: "You got it right, but in no way does this phenomenon pertain to me (or ME)."

I'm not going to pass judgement on this red herring matter. However, stating that the analogy in question was "adequate for the job" as a "beginners analogy" is somewhat bold, as nobody who read it believed their eyes or understood it.

 

[BillHoyt]

Another little off-topic. Being Dutch I'm not familiar with the red herring, and I couldn't find it in my dictionary.
Is it something like when a magician says: "Look! A red herring! I bet you've never seen a red herring before!" And then quickly puts a couple of pigeons up his other sleeve?

A "red herring" is a diversionary tactic meant to keep the hounds off your trail. (To put scent hounds off your trail you would go back and smear red herring over your tracks. The scent is so strong, the hounds lose track.)

This is what mystery is doing here; covering his pseudoscience with red herrings about the JREF prize and by posing other questions. It is meant to make us lose track of the fact that he keeps sprinkling in this pseudoscientific bafflegab and hasn't a wit of foundation for it.

Mystery, for the last time: you made the assertions. You keep claiming they are relevant. My questions, therefore, are relevant.