Define Consiousness

[Mr. E]

Please give us your definitions of Meaning,
Thank you

What do you make of the definitions I already "gave"?

Give? I will state one serious definition in this post:

Meaning comes from intention, goes to purpose, and ends in consequence.

- Note: As said before, the "bridge" of meaning can be a two-way street - that is, one can if careful swap 'comes' for' 'goes' etc.

Note also that I pretty much defined it in a post re Interesting Ian a bit ago, if you care to search that part of the thread, and I have indicated it in other posts.

I also restate a casual definition for the third time: Whatever turns you on.

I also present, ohmigod watchout for Metaphor Madness, a vague analogy of almost no relevance/meaning but perhaps worthwhile otherwise: Archery. Induce tension in the bow, Aim at the Objective, and barring accident etc. in flight, the arrow of meaning hits the target well enough, the intended consequence of skillful objectivity guiding subjectivity.

Okay?

I am currently standing firm on the position that the definitions I have presented are sufficient to the ostensibly serious side of the topic. Until my "hand" is forced by cogent sound argument, that's that. That leaves a definition of "to exist". Perhaps some of the red herrings, wild goose chases etc. will come down to earth at that point, as per my very first post to this thread.

I'm not against playing the role of Janitor, I've done it before...

Best Regards,

ME

 

[hammegk]

I will state one serious definition in this post:

Meaning comes from intention, goes to purpose, and ends in consequence.

LOFL. Derrida would love your obfuscatory opaqueness.


Not too bad as a koan, but I still prefer:

..... What moves? Flag, wind, or mind? .....

 

[Mr. E]

LOFL. Derrida would love your obfuscatory opaqueness.


Not too bad as a koan, but I still prefer:

..... What moves? Flag, wind, or mind? .....

In your case, apparently bowels move.

Care to cite Derrida on this to indicate a basis for your abject inability to articulate a meaningful thought of your own?


ME

 

[hammegk]

Care to cite Derrida on this to indicate a basis for your abject inability to articulate a meaningful thought of your own?

Nope.

What I find interesting is that you seem to think you have posted a meaningful thought from any source.

 

[Mr. E]

A "red herring" is a diversionary tactic meant to keep the hounds off your trail.

Fair enough but you are the one using them here, from the very beginning of your silly replies to my posts. You made it all necessary, remember? Or maybe you speak with forked tongue. Or both. I don't really care, as it isn't all that topical to me.

I'm still waiting.

Meanwhile anyone care to defend the Randi Challenge, or does everyone here already agree that it is merely hyped bunk from an alleged debunker? As I said before, it has meaning in this thread at this point, so we could chase that down to see if it too can outrun even a speeding BillHoyt.

Reminder: "Truth trumps order."

Or care to deny it? Evidently Bill can't.
As I said, Bill, I've got the real McCoy and it's ticking...

ME

 

[Atlas]

I will state one serious definition in this post:

Meaning comes from intention, goes to purpose, and ends in consequence.
...
Note also that I pretty much defined it in a post re Interesting Ian a bit ago, if you care to search that part of the thread, and I have indicated it in other posts.
...
I'm not against playing the role of Janitor, I've done it before...

You're not playing teacher or student well either, which has been your claim.

I understand why you don't want to locate your own definitions - they don't seem to be there. There is no way anyone is going to mistake your "serious definition" of meaning for a definition of meaning.

You mince other's words well and you've been hinting that you wanted to share your definition of meaning for 3 days. If I had written it you would have explained that it is not a definition but would have added: Please define intention, purpose, and consequence in that condescendingly nice way you have about you.

But I will ask, What was your intention and to what purpose and consequence is the meaning of your definition of meaning. I am discouraged by our exchanges of late but I will ask it sensibly too.

Is "meaning" some coin of exchange between the conscious and something else? If not does it relate to consciousness some other way. Perhaps you can develop your definition of consciousness from lower lever principles or functions. That is what the thread asks after all and you have the most posts. Please aim in that direction.

 

[Mr. E]

What I find interesting is that you seem to think you have posted a meaningful thought from any source.

Gosh, such self-absorption coming from a curmudgeon, whodathunkit!? I've been demoing the Synthetic Method and Synthetic Conciousness (about as far as it can be done in a text-based medium), while playing Janitor, Student, Teacher, and Silly Fool. Feel free to mislabel things to your heart's content, Sir.

People give or take meaning to/from the world, and within themselves in the world. If you don't take meaning from my posts, what are you doing wasting your time here, besides wasting your time all alone?

Got topic?

ME

 

[hammegk]

People give or take meaning to/from the world ...

Agreed. Do you think your code can pass the Turing test? I deem results to date iffy.

Can you make sense if you try really really hard?

 

[Atlas]

LOFL. Derrida would love your obfuscatory opaqueness.


Not too bad as a koan, but I still prefer:

..... What moves? Flag, wind, or mind? .....

Good to be on the same side my friend. But, if I remember, you backed me into a corner and said: Mu

This guy is Muing all over the place.

So, I'm gonna be offended if somehow you let Mr E off easy. He makes me appreciate lifegazer. I'd try to put them together but I'm afraid it would bring down the server.

I hope to read you post's often in this thread.

 

[Mr. E]

You're not playing teacher or student well either, which has been your claim.

Is that supposed to *mean* more than that you can post stupid text strings here for the Janitor to deal with?

I understand why you don't want to locate your own definitions - they don't seem to be there.

"locate", what is that supposed to *mean*? I've just thought this through more carefully than some it seems, and enjoy shooting the ◊◊◊◊ from/with both sides.

There is no way anyone is going to mistake your "serious definition" of meaning for a definition of meaning.

Please prove or disprove the definition, not your imaginary notion of what people will or won't do in general; stupid remarks are beneath you. Examine it, try to use it in simple ways, like a three year old child if you must. I find that while its construction is perhap novel, it covers common usage well enough for me.

You mince other's words well and you've been hinting that you wanted to share your definition of meaning for 3 days. If I had written it you would have explained that it is not a definition but would have added: Please define intention, purpose, and consequence in that condescendingly nice way you have about you.

Gosh more inconsequential consequences to clean up. Yay for the Janitor!! Or maybe not. Your words do not accurately describe my MO, but I appreciate the effort at humor. Stop arguing your paltry imagination and wasting the Janitor's time. Intention, purpose, and consequence are all quite obvious. Got a dictionary? Purpose = objective in mind. Purpose gives focus to consciousness. Consequence -- con-sequence, that which follows in sequence, either proximally or distally, more or less necessarily. Consequences occur in the world if one acts into the world, consciously or not, but consciousness if used well tends to improve the results with practice. Intention is related to will, free or not.

But I will ask, What was your intention and to what purpose and consequence is the meaning of your definition of meaning. I am discouraged by our exchanges of late but I will ask it sensibly too.

I posted it because I was asked to post, by you. That's a natural consequence of intellectual integrity, that I *mean* what I say except for brain farts and typos, which itself is an unnecessary consequence of Synthetic Consciousness, but which fits in nicely (thanks, btw). One purpose of posting here is to address the nominal topic. Others include a variety of personal goals already pointed out.

Is "meaning" some coin of exchange between the conscious and something else? If not does it relate to consciousness some other way. Perhaps you can develop your definition of consciousness from lower lever principles or functions. That is what the thread asks after all and you have the most posts. Please aim in that direction.

Say what? I stated the definition in my first post.

No the thread as I read the OP in common usage, to the extent that it is serious, asks for sufficient definition to engage the question of existence of sumthin or other which the OP shifted around a few times (I'm *still* waiting David). It did not ask *ME* for complete formal definition of all possible terms in a Vocabulary of Consciousness.

The count of my posts only indicates my willingness to engage what people post here, most of it nonsense (but that's what the brain does when used effectively, it makes sense out of nonsense in a focussed fashion, relativey coherently). The vast majority of my posts are in re posts apparently directed to me or indirectly at me or my posts. Duh. That's a *consequence* of my *intention* to hold to my *purpose* of engaging jackasses and serious posters alike here, guided on the serious side by the serious possibilities of the OP, and guided on other sides by other possibitlities of the OP as understandable to me.

Get my drift? On my wavelength? Are we "close" on this? I'm highly objective here in case you hadn't noticed. Oh, but then I haven't defined ALL my terms for you have I. Sheeesh. Thanks for the otherwise *meaningless* typing exercise and the help getting the rust out of my mind since I haven't engaged this seriously for about 7 years now, a rather private *meaning* for the moment.

If you go around denying *meaning* all the time, have fun not getting turned on! "never assume" *means* pretty much never learn.

Live and learn,

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Agreed. Do you think your code can pass the Turing test? I deem results to date iffy.

On which side? What code?

Can you make sense if you try really really hard?

I usually don't try at all. Good luck misreading that one.

ME

 

[T'ai Chi]

C = S x A is an equation.

I, for one, cannot decipher what A = I(being) specifically is. Therefore I will not consider it a real equation until things are defined.

Mr. E, can you help fill in the blanks for us?

 

[Jeff Corey]

And my question about the "subconscious mind" was never satifactorily answered.
I'll reword it. What is the "subconscious mind"? Is it Freud's "unconscious" or something else?

 

[Mr. E]

And my question about the "subconscious mind" was never satifactorily answered.

Did you ask explicitly? Even so: Is asking such questions a demonstration of critical thinking? This psot is an aside at best.

I'll reword it. What is the "subconscious mind"? Is it Freud's "unconscious" or something else?

Do you "mind"? For one thing, it, what ME's posts have been talking about, is what you (assuming you are a natural person) had, or had you, before you developed a conscious "I" along the lines of what Atlas wrote. It is there in most people, one presumes, but often conflated erroneously with Conscious Self, or ignored by people who consider themselves conscious but are more likely living an illusion. But since you, Jeff, haven't stated your definition of "I", pardon me, Atlas, if my usage offends your delicate sensibilities.

As for jzs, "Asked and Answered" sufficiently.

It's, or would be, interesting to watch (mis)/undefined "I" argue the existence of itself, huh! C'mon DD, speak up!!


ME

 

[Atlas]

... pardon me, Atlas, if my usage offends your delicate sensibilities.

To the extent that you will quote me and say: "I agree with Atlas when he says..." Or "I disagree with Atlas when he says this... Here's why..." you will never need to concern yourself with my sensibilities.

You know, you might include your own definition of "I" when asking someone to define it. It is a common word that is used self referentially. If that is not what you take it as, put your definition out there for agreement.

As for your explanation of the subconscious mind, You might differentiate for us the brain and mind in your way of thinking. You didn't really tell us what the subconscious mind did. Only that some people have it. It was there before the conscious mind. Was that all? That is, is it everything the brain does that is not done consciously? Why only for some people? You could be clear about things if you know what you are talking about. If not, its ok around here to say, "I don't know." We've kinda already guessed that about you and are trying to help you see that in yourself.

 

[Mr. E]

You know, you might include your own definition of "I" when asking someone to define it.

Why not! Somehow I don't recall asking for it yet. You seemed to give it to me along the way, for instance, for which perhaps this thread now has a bit more meaning beyond the assumption that you gave it and I took it with good intention and/or took it and gave it with good purpose. Haven't I thanked you enough? THANKS, DUDE, you are THE BEST!!!!

It is a common word that is used self referentially. If that is not what you take it as, put your definition out there for agreement.

"I" is a pronoun in English, for the most part, first person singular subject reference. ME suffers from pronoun deficiency disorder and has been quite aware of this for perhaps years. Think about it. Please post your valuable insights about ambiguity of reference in language.

You could be clear about things if you know what you are talking about.

Could be! You can't prove I'm not, because I do know what I am saying. As noted, "Truth trumps order." stands undenied.

If not, its ok around here to say, "I don't know." We've kinda already guessed that about you and are trying to help you see that in yourself. [/B]

Thanks for the apparently unnecessary advice. It sounds a bit like that which H' offered about ala "don't pretend". Did you read my response to that, with good attention? Looks like you didn't. What I don't yet know is when/how this thread is going to end. Do you?

ME

 

[Atlas]

Mr E, I am sensitive to the issue of definitions. I have asked you for several and you dodge, deflect and obfuscate and do not answer. But I did confuse you about a definition and I'd like to clear that up.

Jeff Corey asks: What is the "subconscious mind"?

You had tried to deflect it oddly before commenting. You asked: Is asking such questions a demonstration of critical thinking? I hesitate to ask what you believe Critical Thinking is - You do not often demonstrate it. Are questions not part of Critical Thinking? Or is the asking a demonstration of failure?

Anyway you go on to comment on it without really answering...

Mr. E: It is there in most people, one presumes, but often conflated erroneously with Conscious Self, or ignored by people who consider themselves conscious but are more likely living an illusion. But since you, Jeff, haven't stated your definition of "I"...


This is the definition issue. I interjected my comment. You know, you might include your own definition of "I" when asking someone to define it.

You responded: Somehow I don't recall asking for it yet.

Perhaps not explicitly, I took it as an implicit request or statement that you'll offer nothing more until Jeff comes across. That may be wrong. I trust you'll correct me. I didn't want you to think I was just makin stuff up. But you are a hard guy to read and know what is being said. Here is an example...I did cut off the end of the last statement of yours because the end of it seemed like a different thought. Here is your complete sentence: But since you, Jeff, haven't stated your definition of "I", pardon me, Atlas, if my usage offends your delicate sensibilities. I think it is saying.... Since Jeff did not act, I should pardon you Mr E, if you've hurt my feelings? A difficult formulation. I broke it into two distinct thoughts and as I said inferred that Jeff was being told or asked to supply his definition of "I".

Please continue defining your terms...

Please give us your definitions of Meaning, Consciousness, Synthetic Consciousness, Self, Self Consciousness, Subconscious, Unconscious and Conscience.

Mr. E: Meaning comes from intention, goes to purpose, and ends in consequence.

Don't feel restricted to this list. Link me to posts that contain your definitions.

(edit: I don't remember reading your response to H'. If you'd like me to please link to it and I most certainly will.)

 

[Jeff Corey]

Those are all good terms to play with, but I would like to focus on the "subconscious mind". It is not a term used in science or medicine, not even voodou Freudian psychiatry. They use the term,"unconscious".
The Three Way Battle at the Battlebot arena, "Featuring The Horrible Id, Wise-arse Ego and Mesohorney Libido. '
Popper felt that such "conjectures" were nonscientific. They were invulnerable to any potential disproof.

 

[Dancing David]

WoW!

I am still digesting page five, this is great, too much information and real discussion.

To wit, I do believe that behaviors and events that we define as consiousness exist but that tyhey can always be reduced to a material process. So I would say that the material process are the compnents of consiousness.

Mr. E. , Atlas, et al.: I am reading the posts and thinking and wil respond thanks for your contributions.!

PS I am on vacation and just not posting much.

 

[Mr. E]

re "don't pretend"

(edit: I don't remember reading your response to H'. If you'd like me to please link to it and I most certainly will.)

Here is the pertinent excerpt. The Search function can take you easily to the fuller context, as you likely know. ME

"
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.

"