Define Consiousness

[BillHoyt]

For a while, I thought some people had been taking mystery seriously. Perhaps they were; perhaps they were simply inquisitive and polite. But now, as the pseudoscience, bafflegab and outright intellectual dishonesty mount to towering heights, I can bid this arse adieu.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Oh, back to vulgar commode jokes, are we? We're talking the kitchen sink, dude, at least some of us. Get with the program!!


Your Feculancy, that was not meant to discommode you or to topple you off your throne. It was to clarify the point that the immaterial doesn't matter.

 

[Mr. E]

It was to clarify the point that the immaterial doesn't matter.

What point?

I suppose humor is immaterial to some mindless idiots. Good point, Jeff. The human experience includes humor even if mindless droids don't get. Did you get the point about symmetry breaking, too?



ME

 

[Mr. E]

For a while, I thought some people had been taking mystery seriously. Perhaps they were; perhaps they were simply inquisitive and polite. But now, as the pseudoscience, bafflegab and outright intellectual dishonesty mount to towering heights, I can bid this arse adieu.

Good riddance to bad rubbish, Bill. Don't mistake my words for pseudoscience unless you like playing in the sandbox of your own imagination.

I'm glad to hear you are getting off your high horse. Must be pretty sore by now. Maybe when DD comes back, you'll be up for more of almost nothing, with a dash of necessity and possibillity thrown in along the way of Synthetic Consciousness.

Have a good nap,

ME

 

[Jeff Corey]

What point?
... Did you get the point about symmetry breaking, too?
ME

No. Pull my finger.

 

[Mr. E]

No. Pull my finger.

That's pretty terse, Jeff.

Your reply looks like ill humor from over here.

Say, H'ethetheth, you still reading this? Does Dennett suck or what!


ME

PS - From the point of view of body, mind may be immaterial. From the point of view of mind, body may be immaterial even as people mistake it for reality. But then consciousness is a matter of mind in body for humans. It's a mistake to confuse the ordinary world of rockheads and boobs with the world at large.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Call me Terse, if you wish. Just don't call me surely.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Say, H'ethetheth, you still reading this? Does Dennett suck or what!

Yes I am, but I'm feeling ever less inclined to take part in this discussion.
Dennett doesn't suck, but its tough reading and I have been busy doing other stuff that had to be done.

 

[BillHoyt]

Don't mistake my words for pseudoscience unless you like playing in the sandbox of your own imagination.

I've made no mistake in labeling your pap as pseudoscience. It is up to you, who cannot or will not reasonably respond to valid questions, to defend against the label. Since you cannot, you bore me horribly. You make lame assertions and dance when the skeptics shoot at your feet. Watched it a million times. Yawn. Ho-hum.

But you, mystery, should not mistake what you are doing here for any kind of dialogue. When you dismiss all attempts at critical inquiry, you are clearly more interested in this lame, scientifically illiterate monologue. Take it to a credophile site. You know, one of those "scientific spirituality / indigo child" piece-of-crap websites.

 

[Mr. E]

Yes I am, but I'm feeling ever less inclined to take part in this discussion.
Dennett doesn't suck, but its tough reading and I have been busy doing other stuff that had to be done.

Hey, your picture changed!

Anyway, inclination is another important aspect of human consciousness.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

I've made no mistake in labeling your pap as pseudoscience.

Fair enough. You needed a reason to post to the thread, even if you had to make one up, which you did. That's another demonstration of something conscious people can do, pretend. I've been kindly playing along with you, waiting for you to get out of Cr*pology mode.

It is up to you, who cannot or will not reasonably respond to valid questions, to defend against the label.

Oh, more rules from he who denied there were rules? How about "truth trumps order"? Who needs validity when truth trumps order, Bill?

But you, mystery, should not mistake what you are doing here for any kind of dialogue.

I wondered about that, Bill, from your very first post in re Mr. E's first post. Thanks for the confirmation that you had no interest in serious dialog about the topic of consciousness. Yet you did say bullsh was necessary. I'd been saying I have a bias towards seriousness in the thread. Voila.

Who in their right mind would think that a beginners analogy would be about GS orthogonalizations??

I'm still waiting.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Call me Terse, if you wish. Just don't call me surely.

It was your post which was the referrent, Jeff, and I won't likely call your weak sense of humor surly, maybe silly or some other 's' word. What, are you the Queen of Feculancy??

Puns are of course something which some conscious humans enjoy. I'm not clear on whether 3 year olds appreciate puns as adults do. H'ethetheth, you introduced '3' here, what do you think?

Got paradox, Jeff?

ME

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=commode
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=feculence

 

[Skep]

It's a mistake to confuse the ordinary world of rockheads and boobs with the world at large.

I'm new to this conversation, but this statement seems nonsensical to me.

 

[Atlas]

I'm new to this conversation, but this statement seems nonsensical to me.

Welcome Skep. I had a few posts on page 1 and then missed all of Mr E's posts up to page 5.

I have gone back to read some of page 1 and 2 where Mr E begins. He holds as axiomatic that Clarity is valuable. Of all the ironies, that one takes the cake.

Bill Hoyt was the first one who really called him on his pseudoscientific bafflegab. I sure wish I had read those first few pages before I engaged him.

Mr E is a troll looking for attention. He has a monologue like the homeopaths and dowsers that puts the fault on anyone who doesn't understand. He will not admit any error on his part, and if you call him on something then you're the troll, he was using an analogy and if you can't see that you're stupid.

I've been asking him for definitions and he evades me. In reading the first posts I see why. He does "aim" at a definition - it is so poor in formation virtually every poster has called him on it. He cannot clarify and has dropped it from his later posts.

He might have had some insight to offer but he has so alienated the other posters with his evasion, obfuscation and condescension that he has thrown the good will and interest of this community down the toilet.

That's my take... judge for youself.

 

[Mr. E]

I'm new to this conversation, but this statement seems nonsensical to me.

Hi Skep.

Good point. Taking text out of context tends to remove/distort what sense it might have had in context. I've already pointed out that one thing the human brain does is to make sense out of what's practically nonsense. And I've pointed out, if vaguely since it didn't seem crucial at the time, BillHoyt and Atlas seeming to demonstrate this method.

Is the inability to make sense of something intrinsic to the thing or at least shared by that which would make sense of it (the thing) if it (the other) could?

Did you mean something else by your remark? Your use of 'this' is ambiguous. If you meant 'that' by 'this' it could be rather different than if you meant what you stated.

ME

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mr. E
It's a mistake to confuse the ordinary world of rockheads and boobs with the world at large.

 

[Mr. E]

[...]the toilet.

That's my take... judge for youself.

Poison the well much, Atlas? You and I were talking about the kitchen sink, not the toilet, last I noticed.

Regards,

ME

PS - Mr. E did not state axioms, but did state what might be "axioms", so cut out the childish "Mr E" distortions, Atlas. For myself, I do hold clarity to be valuable. Maybe you are beyond confusions, conflations, and the like, merely humoring yourself and others by demonstrating the like. When I gets to that level, I, too, might take one level of clarity for granted.

 

[BillHoyt]

Hi Skep.

Good point. Taking text out of context tends to remove/distort what sense it might have had in context. I've already pointed out that one thing the human brain does is to make sense out of what's practically nonsense. And I've pointed out, if vaguely since it didn't seem crucial at the time, BillHoyt and Atlas seeming to demonstrate this method.

I'm afraid, Skep, that by "take out of context," mystery means "quoted me exactly, calling me on my bafflegab." One needs to translate heavily with mystery. If you're unsure, I can point you to all the posts where he tries to insert vectors, matrices, double-helices, symmetry operations and "hypercalculations," which I suppose are ciphers on speed.

 

[Atlas]

PS - Mr. E did not state axioms, but did state what might be "axioms", so cut out the childish "Mr E" distortions, Atlas.

I did say that Mr E holds as axiomatic that Clarity is valuable.

Is this really a childish distortion?

It's one of the "axioms" that Clarity is valuable.

Even though you put the word in quotes, you were implying that you took those statements as axiomatic. Or did you mean something else, claritywise? What else could it mean?

 

[hammegk]

DD: You still with us? Good OP anyway.

Interesting that you chose Critical Thinking to present it.

I've run across a couple of articles you may find of interest.

http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au/v1/psyche-1-04-korb.html
and
http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/crick-koch-cc-97.html

The first one deconstructs Dennett et al-- the Stimpies, Pauls, DDs etc -- with the final thought that whatever Dennett accomplished it sure didn't explain consciousness.

The second is a learned discourse from the view of neuroscience, and conatins the memorable words "The explanation of consciousness is one of the major unsolved problems of modern science. After several thousand years of speculation, it would be very gratifying to find an answer to it.". I.E. We dunno.

As to Win, both articles agree that dualism is complete nonsense.

As to our Mr.E, whether he presents the ravings of a lunatic, or a brillance of exposition far beyond my ken, in either case I find his words without meaning and do not intend to be addressing them in the near future.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

The first one deconstructs Dennett et al-- the Stimpies, Pauls, DDs etc -- with the final thought that whatever Dennett accomplished it sure didn't explain consciousness.

Actually, the final thought was:

"I must conclude that for now Consciousness Explained is unavoidable reading for those who intend to think seriously about the problems of consciousness."

It is refreshing to hear criticism of Dennett's outrageously titled book by someone who appears actually to have read it.