Define Consiousness

[Mr. E]

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

Is this really a childish distortion? 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?

1) The word was in quotes for a reason. If you check the prior context you will see from whence it came, not from me. It struck me as out of place, but I "went with" the flow of the notion to see where Jeff would take it, in effect to discover what meaning Jeff might bring to the thread.

2) I, the poster of this post, am not known here as "Mr E", but "Mr. E" or "ME", or by BillHoyt's usage apparently variously as "Mystery" and "mystery" tho' he might disclaim that. Maybe it was a only a typo. [shrug]

Is that childishly or otherwise clearer?

Jeff dropped that thread but we could take it up as a possibly topical loose end if you like. Got paradox or oxymoron?


ME

 

[Mr. E]

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.

Poor you, still lost in Cr*pology.

I'm waiting.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

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. [/B]

Feel free to change your mind at whim. But consider that the study of such a "thing" which has allegedly remained unexplained for a long time might warrant some attention to detail and insight if it's not to be a mere bull session. I will second your comment to David, and thank him for the opportunities I have already noted, bull or no bull.

ME

 

[Mr. E]

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.

I had to laugh when I read the prior context of that excerpt:

"And Dennett is at times aggravatingly smug and confident about the merits of his arguments (comparing his `revelations' about consciousness to a magician's revealing the operation of stage tricks, for example; p. 434). All in all Dennett's book is annoying, frustrating, insightful, provocative and above all annoying. "

Heh!

ME

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

I had to laugh when I read the prior context of that excerpt:

"And Dennett is at times aggravatingly smug and confident about the merits of his arguments (comparing his `revelations' about consciousness to a magician's revealing the operation of stage tricks, for example; p. 434). All in all Dennett's book is annoying, frustrating, insightful, provocative and above all annoying."

Worth noting that he didn't say he actually disagreed with Dennett. Do we need to wait until you've actually read the book to find out whether you do?

 

[Skep]

Hi Skep.
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?


Responding to my question:

Originally posted by Skep
I'm new to this conversation, but this statement seems nonsensical to me.

About Mr E's:

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

Your answer seems like a really obtuse way of saying "Yes, it is nonsense."

I begin to understand. It would seem that there is an decipherable manifesto in the making...

 

[H'ethetheth]

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

I'm still waiting.

ME

Bah! Who in their right mind would use a "beginners analogy" that raises these questions exactly because of its complicated mathematical nature? I can imagine that you don't want to bicker about a "beginners analogy", but if you keep insisting that it was "correct" and "served its purpose", you get on people's nerves, mine too.
It is (as of the quoted post above) admittedly unfounded mathematically and served only the purpose of confusion and irritation.

polite regards.

P.S:I disclaim that this post fails to disprove my disinclination to further participate in this discussion.

P.P.S: The guy in my avatar is me. The previous one was from the 'fast show', which features sketches from which my nickname was taken.

 

[Mr. E]

Worth noting that he didn't say he actually disagreed with Dennett.

I think the point of the reviewer is that Dennet's book is valuable not as much for any insights into consciousness nor for having explained it, what the title alleges, but for being provocative and annoying. Bullsh and bafflegab can be provocative or annoying. Disagreeing with them may or may not be productive in one way or another. The serious student of consciousness may well benefit from being provoked and annoyed.

Necessity is said to be the mother of invention. Politics is said to be the art of the possible. Both can prove provocative or annoying at times.

Contingency can be considered the cross product of the two.

Fair enough?

ME

 

[Mr. E]

Bah! Who in their right mind would use a "beginners analogy" that raises these questions exactly because of its complicated mathematical nature?

BillHoyt?

It is (as of the quoted post above) admittedly unfounded mathematically and served only the purpose of confusion and irritation.

Uh, no. Are you putting me on a level with Dennet whose book was labelled "provocative and annoying" and "above all annoying"? It's not clear who suffers by comparison.

I wonder if an important post of mine got lost in the great crash of Sept. 04... I had replied re BillHoyt as to his apparent interest in running emulations of aspects of consciousness on modern computers, as opposed to the focus of my interest in this thread in discussing consciousness as it is now.

The analogy strikes me as well founded. Matters of degree can be discussed in terms of linear polarities, like hot vs. cold on a thermometer. Other polar matters might not be be understood in this linear fashion but in higher dimensional form. Vectors, or the complex numbers, might well form an effective basis in understanding. Are necessity and possibility "opposites" in a linear sense, or might we make sense of them as a vector space analogy basis for conceptualizing the grounds of discussion? Whether the analogy proves "exact" or not is not crucial immediately if it at least is "provocative" or "annoying", or gives meaning where meaning was lacking.

Can you conceive of awareness and sensation as being largely orthogonal?

The analogy was presented for those who know math.

If you (one) don't know math, it might look more like bunk than like insight and thus the initial qualification.
If you (one) do know math, what are you doing quibbling about it ad nauseum?

The focus of the thread, as I take it, is the challenge as stated in the OP, less typos etc. I did not intend to "hijack" it.

ME


PS - Maybe I'll get a decent picture taken of mystery sometime so I can have an avatar like yours!

 

[Mr. E]

Your answer seems like a really obtuse way of saying "Yes, it is nonsense."

It might seem that way. Your observation seems to be a way of saying it doesn't make sense to you and you aren't going to use critical thinking skills to see if there is sense there beyond your superficial reading of it.

Perhaps you missed a similar statement earlier in the thread -

...Synthetic Consciousness is solid as a rock and more fluid than many might suppose.

Notice "rock" for starters.

ME

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

 

[Skep]

It might seem that way. Your observation seems to be a way of saying it doesn't make sense to you and you aren't going to use critical thinking skills to see if there is sense there beyond your superficial reading of it.

It would seem that you are actually capable of using clear language and making a point when you feel like it. And what you just wrote is what you could have written when you wrote:

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 state.

It would seem that your defense is that anyone who doesn't understand your point is stupid. This a logical fallacy and doesn't actually prove your point. But I will give you points for finally using clear language.

 

[H'ethetheth]

BillHoyt?

Uh, no. Are you putting me on a level with Dennet whose book was labelled "provocative and annoying" and "above all annoying"? It's not clear who suffers by comparison.

I wonder if an important post of mine got lost in the great crash of Sept. 04... I had replied re BillHoyt as to his apparent interest in running emulations of aspects of consciousness on modern computers, as opposed to the focus of my interest in this thread in discussing consciousness as it is now.

The analogy strikes me as well founded. Matters of degree can be discussed in terms of linear polarities, like hot vs. cold on a thermometer. Other polar matters might not be be understood in this linear fashion but in higher dimensional form. Vectors, or the complex numbers, might well form an effective basis in understanding. Are necessity and possibility "opposites" in a linear sense, or might we make sense of them as a vector space analogy basis for conceptualizing the grounds of discussion? Whether the analogy proves "exact" or not is not crucial immediately if it at least is "provocative" or "annoying", or gives meaning where meaning was lacking.

Can you conceive of awareness and sensation as being largely orthogonal?

The analogy was presented for those who know math.

If you (one) don't know math, it might look more like bunk than like insight and thus the initial qualification.
If you (one) do know math, what are you doing quibbling about it ad nauseum?

The focus of the thread, as I take it, is the challenge as stated in the OP, less typos etc. I did not intend to "hijack" it.

ME


PS - Maybe I'll get a decent picture taken of mystery sometime so I can have an avatar like yours!

I'm sorry, but it puzzles me to think what your notion of a 'beginner' encompasses. I know my math reasonably well, but being shown that consciousness is somehow orthogonal to the plane of sensation and awareness conveys nothing to me. I don't want to continue this ad nause[a]m, but stating regularly (to BillyHoyt) that the analogy was correct and served its purpose is bold to say the least. Serving its purpose means to me that a number of people who read the analogy actually understand its relevance to the topic, and not find themselves asking: What is the base set? What is the meaning of length, what are the dimensions? If it were an analogy well founded in mathematics, that is, if the 'behaviour' of consciousness was very much like that of two vectors being multiplied, I'd think you should be able to answer these questions.
However nobody here understood it, and many people are asking (themselves) the questions posed by Billyhoyt, to some degree of detail.

regards.
So if you keep stating your solid definition in terms that no beginner can understand is not going to get you far in this particular discussion, however true your message may turn out to be.
It seems to me you must adjust your definition of 'beginner' if you ever hope to explain this to the average hobby-philosopher. If you think that shouldn't be necessary, you might want to end the disussion right here.

 

[Mr. E]

It would seem that you are actually capable of using clear language and making a point when you feel like it.

It would seem that you are not actually capable of reading relatively clear language ... So what?

It would seem that your defense is that anyone who doesn't understand your point is stupid. This a logical fallacy and doesn't actually prove your point. But I will give you points for finally using clear language.

I can see how that could be your fallacy, logical or not. Mr. E can live with "I am thinking fallaciously" coming from you. Let's hope you were doing it deliberately.

But thanks for keeping it relatively civil. Are the personal remarks warranted?

ME

 

[Mr. E]

I'm sorry, but it puzzles me to think what your notion of a 'beginner' encompasses.

I feel as if we've covered this or very similar ground before. A beginner is one who is relatively unacquainted with the discipline. People may come from one discipline into another (as I did myself), and may make good use of metaphor across the ostensible boundary between the two. Metaphor can be more bunk or more insight, again. But posting a barrage of "questions" is generally neither civil nor taken by me as a sign of serious interest in anything expect showing off an Advanced Degree In Cr*pology, as I've been patiently pointing out for quite awhile.

I know my math reasonably well, but being shown that consciousness is somehow orthogonal to the plane of sensation and awareness conveys nothing to me.

I didn't see you follow up on that, sorry. Or, I saw you drop what might have been a follow-up on that. We got to "product" and to the edge of understanding (or so it seemed to me). Then you went off to read Dennett. I've pointed out that to 2-D Flatlanders embedded in a 3-D space, the cross product result might seem like a figment of imagination. But that doesn't mean that one can't take two 2-D vectors in a plane and calculate the cross product magnitude even if a 2-D'er can't visualize the common math meaning of a normal vector. Hey, people can't see tesseracts* as they can see cubes, but that doesn't stop people from talking about them seriously or otherwise. And people don't generally see cubes anyway, since the retina is commonly taken to be a relatively 2-D surface; they create useful illusions in the mind/brain. That's yet another aspect of consciousness, the ability to see what is not really "in" raw sense data.

I happened to find the analogy useful 7 years ago, so I offered it as an aside here. If that's bold, okay.

Is there someone here who *wants* further explanation?

ME

*tesseract - The common 4-D extrapolation of the notion of a cube, often rendered schematically in 2-D.

 

[Skep]

It would seem that you are not actually capable of reading relatively clear language ... So what?

Oh, I am cut to the quick! I think, as I suspect you already know, that you generally write poorly constructed, obtuse sentences. My complements were extended to you for your demonstration that you had it in you to communicate clearly when you feel like it. I think clear communication raises the level of discourse and results in a more constructive dialogue. Conversely, I believe that poorly constructed, jargon-filled posts are often designed to dress up poor arguments to make them seem profound--or, at least, hard to argue with.

I can see how that could be your fallacy, logical or not. Mr. E can live with "I am thinking fallaciously" coming from you. Let's hope you were doing it deliberately.

Ugh, Skep can live with that, too. [Please note that I am deliberately mocking your 3d person reference to yourself.] The actually interesting part of your response here, is the lack of response. In my last post, I posited that saying a poster is stupid (my characterization of your point) doesn't actually prove your point. And yet, you still haven't disputed that you were using a logical fallacy, but rather compound the error by using it again.

But thanks for keeping it relatively civil. Are the personal remarks warranted?

...said the kettle to the pot.

"Are the personal remarks warranted?" I'd ask you to answer that one. It was you who started them! Although disguised to look impersonal and objective, I am observant enough to notice that your remarks were aimed at me, personally. I had posted a query asking noting that one of your statements looked nonsensical to me. Let's take a look at you first response to me:

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?

Perhaps you would like a larger bucket of rocks to throw in that glass house of yours?

BTW, with such gems as the above, you may wish to try your hand a the Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest--not that you necessarily are a fiction writer, but I think the style shows promise...

 

[Mr. E]

[Mr. E:]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That sentence was constructed so that you or anyone might take it personally or you might take it topically. If you are into insults, fine, be that way; otherwise take it otherwise. People give and take meaning... as already affirmed in this thread earlier. When Dymanic says something I posted was "dim", I consider the options and try to frame my reply more or less in kind with a bias towards the serious.

Asking a question is not always merely rhetorical, is it. My personal policy is to take it the way I want to. Sometimes, usually, I take it two ways, say personally and topically, and I respond more or less in kind to find out where things go.

Perhaps we do have some commonality here:

"I think clear communication raises the level of discourse and results in a more constructive dialogue. Conversely, I believe that poorly constructed, jargon-filled posts are often designed to dress up poor arguments to make them seem profound--or, at least, hard to argue with."

I think you will find, if you read the thread, that I am not of a substantially different opinion in general, tho' my methods might be idiosyncratic in some views. The question remains, what exactly is "clear" and when is opacity an aspect of clarity, as already noted earlier in the thread. Clear to whom? What if something is complex? How does learning actually occur, consciously or otherwise?

"My complements were extended to you... " Is that Found Art or an intended unclear double meaning where "compliments" might have been used?

"In my last post, I posited that saying a poster is stupid (my characterization of your point) doesn't actually prove your point. And yet, you still haven't disputed that you were using a logical fallacy, but rather compound the error by using it again."

You want me to further argue whether your "stupid" remarks are my logical fallacies in this thread!? Does mischaracterizing something that way really warrant persistence? Let's look at what you posted:

"It would seem that your defense is that anyone who doesn't understand your point is stupid. This a logical fallacy and doesn't actually prove your point."

"This is a logical fallacy" is a another silly self-referential statement on your part which is like "This statement is false.", as pointed out in my earlier reply! If you meant "That would be a logical fallacy" then I suppose you'd have been asking me to explain/defend my prior remarks so that that alleged apparent fallacy could be displaced in favor of something else - more argument on that or moving on to something else. So much for exemplary clarity, Mr. pot or kettle. So far you seem to prefer junk to clarity, and hey, that's your thing. I've explicitly stated my position on clarity.

As for "defense" I'm not clear on what you think needs defending, which has not already had adequate defense. Maybe you can lay it out in clear form so I can see it and then further engage it to your satisfaction. I had had the impression that your "complements" indicated a satisfactory "defense" of the original point(s); now it seems you are now just wasting bandwidth but hey, maybe not!


ME

PS - Maybe you could make your reply clearly topical or show exactly how the direction here is topical? I realize this is amounts to the Bullsh Thinking Forum for some, but the particular topic is the definition of consciousness, and the subthread is even more limited than that.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Someone who agrees with me is John Beloff. From here.

We should note, at this point, that it is only in its derived sense that we can define or explicate what we mean by consciousness. In its basic sense it can no more be defined than any other primitive concept. With any primitive concept, either one understands what is intended or one fails to understand. A logical behaviourist may be defined as someone who has failed to grasp what consciousness means in this sense. Confronted with a logical behaviourist various strategies may be adopted in order to get him to understand what we mean. A nice example is that suggested by Kirk (1974) who asks us to imagine ourselves converted step by step into a "Zombie" (his name for our counterpart in A') by losing one sense-modality after another while continuing to behave in a normal fashion. However, if all such strategies fail and our logical behaviourist persists in denying that he understands what we are talking about, the dialogue can go no further; all that we can then do is to echo Dr Johnson when he declared that while he could give his opponent an argument he could not give him an understanding.

Note: A' refers to a possible Universe exactly the same as ours, except no-one is conscious. Thus everyone acts exactly the same as in our Universe but there simply is no consciousness. Consciousness here should be understood phenomenologically rather than in a behavioural sense.

 

[Dymanic]

Well, I certainly hope you've learned your lesson, young man!

What's with the firemen? I don't get the connection.

I've been reconsidering epiphenomenalism lately. I'd appreciate it if you'd talk me out of it.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Well, I certainly hope you've learned your lesson, young man!

What's with the firemen? I don't get the connection.

Ummm . .I don't know. Half way through the article.

I've been reconsidering epiphenomenalism lately. I'd appreciate it if you'd talk me out of it. [/B]

With epiphenomenalism consciousness is not integrated into a scientific picture of the world. Consciousness is simply correlated with certain events in the brain, but it can never be derived from any fundamental science. It is also staggering counter intuitional. Also there is the question of how we know that we ourselves are conscious (NB not how other people are conscious). Why? Because under epiphenomenalism consciousness has no causal efficacy whatsoever. Therefore my own consciousness cannot initiate any events in my brain corresponding to my own knowing of my own consciousness.

Here is an excellent paper which criticises David Chalmer's position (who is essentially an epiphenomenalist).

 

[hammegk]

I've been reconsidering epiphenomenalism lately. I'd appreciate it if you'd talk me out of it.

Why? It's a position that can at least be defended logically by ~idealists.