Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics

[reverebison]

There is gravity.

There are subatomic forces and other laws that govern our universe

but there is one other law of nature that to my knowledge has not yet been fully appreciated, although I am sure it has been contemplated by many.


FOR EXISTENCE, YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS

This is why the unknowing, unfeeling, uncaring universe produces consciousness. It produces it infinitely. It spews it out from every point, every corner. Over and over again. Inifinitely. It has no choice. without it there can be no existence.

Since the universe is the very epitome of existence, it follows that it must produce consciousness.

[KingMerv00]

There is gravity.

There are subatomic forces and other laws that govern our universe

but there is one other law of nature that to my knowledge has not yet been fully appreciated, although I am sure it has been contemplated by many.


FOR EXISTENCE, YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS

How do you figure?

This is why the unknowing, unfeeling, uncaring universe produces consciousness. It produces it infinitely. It spews it out from every point, every corner. Over and over again. Inifinitely. It has no choice. without it there can be no existence.

Since the universe is the very epitome of existence, it follows that it must produce consciousness.

The vast majority of the universe is not conscious. What makes you think it is so important?

Also, are you saying it is impossible to have a universe without consciousness? What about the first few billion years?

[lionking]

Consciousness of what? Serious question.

[Hokulele]

The universe isn't infinite. Nor is anything it "produces".

[DevilsAdvocate]

FOR EXISTENCE, YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS.No. It's sounds like Descartes "I think, therefore I am" in reverse. To KNOW existence YOU must have consciousness. But existence itself is independent of “you” and “knowing”.

If a person dies, their knowledge of existence ends. But certainly existence itself doesn’t end. If all conscious beings lived on Earth and Earth blew up, it would be like a person dying. All knowledge of existence ends. But certainly existence itself doesn’t end.

Existence does just fine on its own without anyone being conscious of it.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Consciousness of what? Serious question.Good reply. I see an infinite loop begging the question. :)

[lionking]

The universe isn't infinite. Nor is anything it "produces".

Actually, some cosmologists contend that the universe can indeed be infinite.

[Hokulele]

Actually, some cosmologists contend that the universe can indeed be infinite.


Are you talking about the oscillatory universe theory?

[lionking]

No. I recently read "The Infinite Book" by John Barrow, where he talks about the universe possibly being infinite in space. He is a Professor of Mathematics with some credibility. I will have another look at the book.

[Hokulele]

No. I recently read "The Infinite Book" by John Barrow, where he talks about the universe possibly being infinite in space. He is a Professor of Mathematics with some credibility. I will have another look at the book.


I could see this in a topological sense, sort of a Klein bottle effect, but reversebison didn't seem to be speaking topologically.

[lionking]

I don't think Barrow is talking topologically, but agree that this is tangental to reverebison's OP.

[Hokulele]

I don't think Barrow is talking topologically, but agree that this is tangental to reverebison's OP.


Meh, if this is anything like reverbison's previous OPs, it really doesn't matter what we discuss, as he will be back to spout off on the observer effect, consciousness, and the proof of some strange form of pantheism.

But to end this derail, if you find the bit in the book, PM me. I may try to find it in the local library, as that book sounds very interesting.

[lionking]

Meh, if this is anything like reverbison's previous OPs, it really doesn't matter what we discuss, as he will be back to spout off on the observer effect, consciousness, and the proof of some strange form of pantheism.

But to end this derail, if you find the bit in the book, PM me. I may try to find it in the local library, as that book sounds very interesting.

Sort of off-topic (cont.) but the book is "The Infinite Book" by John D Barrow. I thought I had some sort of idea of infinity before reading this (twice, because it stretches the brain, even though it is written in layperson's terms). He covers the history of infinity, different scales of infinity, whether the universe is infinite, "infinity machines" etc. Deep, but satisfying.

[arthwollipot]

FOR EXISTENCE, YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESSEvidence?

This is why the unknowing, unfeeling, uncaring universe produces consciousness.Evidence?

It produces it infinitely.Evidence?

It spews it out from every point, every corner. Over and over again. Inifinitely. It has no choice. without it there can be no existence.Evidence?

Since the universe is the very epitome of existence, it follows that it must produce consciousness.And once more for the kiddies at home: Evidence?

[Mashuna]

FOR EXISTENCE, YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS
No.


This is why the unknowing, unfeeling, uncaring universe produces consciousness.
No.


It produces it infinitely.
No.


It spews it out from every point, every corner. Over and over again. Inifinitely. It has no choice. without it there can be no existence.
No.


Since the universe is the very epitome of existence, it follows that it must produce consciousness.
And once more for the kiddies at home: No.

[lionking]

Do I get an award if I stay the distance on this thread?

[my_wan]

FOR EXISTENCE, YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS

This sounds to me like the Quantum Mechanical twist of the old philosophical question: If a tree falls in the woods and nobody is there to hear it does it make a sound? Only the lack of context or equivocation throws grave doubts on what grounds you make such a claim.

On what grounds do you presume that the existence of something depends on an awareness of that existence? I'm willing to entertain such notions, within a restricted context, but for you to state that IS the case shows a lack of appreciation of the nature of the question.

[lupus_in_fabula]

…This is why the unknowing, unfeeling, uncaring universe produces consciousness. It produces it infinitely. It spews it out from every point, every corner. Over and over again. Inifinitely. It has no choice. without it there can be no existence.

Since the universe is the very epitome of existence, it follows that it must produce consciousness.

If I’m reading you right, then: First you proclaim that the universe is unknowing, unfeeling and uncaring, and right after you proclaim it must produce consciousness in order to exist. Think about that for a while!

What was the universe before it produced consciousness? Ah yes: according to you it was unknowing, unfeeling and uncaring… but it must have existed. How else could it have produced anything?

[leon_heller]

The OP seems to be talking about the Anthropic Principle. The strong version of that actually has conscious beings responsible for creating the universe.

Leon

[Dancing David]

There is gravity.

There are subatomic forces and other laws that govern our universe

but there is one other law of nature that to my knowledge has not yet been fully appreciated, although I am sure it has been contemplated by many.


FOR EXISTENCE, YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS

This is why the unknowing, unfeeling, uncaring universe produces consciousness. It produces it infinitely. It spews it out from every point, every corner. Over and over again. Inifinitely. It has no choice. without it there can be no existence.

Since the universe is the very epitome of existence, it follows that it must produce consciousness.

Define cosciousness.

[bwinwright]

The universe isn't infinite. Nor is anything it "produces".

:D One, Two, Three, Four, Five......Not infinite? Hokulele, perhaps you shouldn't be contributing to this forum after smoking so much hooch, huh?

[bwinwright]

No. It's sounds like Descartes "I think, therefore I am" in reverse. To KNOW existence YOU must have consciousness. But existence itself is independent of “you” and “knowing”.

If a person dies, their knowledge of existence ends. But certainly existence itself doesn’t end. If all conscious beings lived on Earth and Earth blew up, it would be like a person dying. All knowledge of existence ends. But certainly existence itself doesn’t end.

Existence does just fine on its own without anyone being conscious of it.

:D Gee DevilsAdvocate, I just wonder how you can be so sure of yourself. I mean, how the hell could you possibly know whether or not the universe was somehow conscious or not? Maybe you should take another toke off the bong.

[bwinwright]

Actually, some cosmologists contend that the universe can indeed be infinite.

:D Unless it just happened sometime today, nobody has found an end to either the world of the large or small yet, have they?

[paximperium]

To the Mods, please remove Bwin's garbage.

[TMiguel]

No, not another “what the bleep do we know” freak, what the heck does the fact of some one being conscious have to do whit anything.

[firestorm]

if i hide something then i die, and no one else knows about it, does it not exist until someone finds it?

[Silentknight]

To the Mods, please remove Bwin's garbage.

Or leave it there as a reeking example of the kinds of arguments his best efforts are capable of putting forth. Insulting people like that speaks more poorly of the one making the insult than the one it's being directed against. But I won't complain if it gets moved.

Regarding the OP, I'd like to hear examples of how the universe has no choice but to spew consciousness out of every corner. It's an incredibly arrogant belief that not only assigns human qualities to the entire universe, but also asserts that the universe couldn't exist without it. In keeping with this line of reasoning, you might as well ask how big the universe's tallywhacker is, or assert that tallywhackers are a basic rule of physics that the universe creates everywhere you look.

[KingMerv00]

Or leave it there as a reeking example of the kinds of arguments his best efforts are capable of putting forth. Insulting people like that speaks more poorly of the one making the insult than the one it's being directed against. But I won't complain if it gets moved.

I think bwin is accusing others of using whacky tabaccy because he was insulted the same way in other threads.

Not that two wrongs make a right or anything.

[KingMerv00]

:D One, Two, Three, Four, Five......Not infinite? *snips insult*

A theoretical infinity is not the same as a actual infinity.

[Twiler]

I imagine reverebison's response to these replies will be along the lines of 'I don't understand your objections to my perfectly clear argument, therefore they are incorrect.'

(What's so great about buffalo anyway?)

[Ron_Tomkins]

FOR EXISTENCE, YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS

I take it rocks don't exist then.

(Or then again, I take it they are conscious)

[RandFan]

What is existence? What is the difference between something and nothing if there is no consciousness?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the OP. I don't think matter suddenly springs into being only when it is being observed. But I'm not sure what existence means without any consciousness to realize it exists.

Trust me on this one. When you die you won't know the difference between something and nothing. They are the same.

[jimtron]

Do I get an award if I stay the distance on this thread?

Yes!

I mean, no.

[Twiler]

What is existence? What is the difference between something and nothing if there is no consciousness?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the OP. I don't think matter suddenly springs into being only when it is being observed. But I'm not sure what existence means without any consciousness to realize it exists.

Trust me on this one. When you die you won't know the difference between something and nothing. They are the same.

Well, you can't know anything when you're dead.

[reverebison]

Rand Fan: By God you get it man. I could not have said anything better myself. Now I don't want to laud you too much as unpopular as I am with these thinkers, that might give you a bad name. And I am not saying you agree with me. But at lease you understand what I am saying. the other thinkers just don't.

Nothing just happens without an ultimate explanation. There is a logical explanation for everything that happens in our universe. Eventually we will discover the why gravity happens and why there are subatomic forces. We know zilch now.

There is a reason for consciousness. existence and consciousness are married. Consciousness doesnt just happen anymore than gravity does. And the universe produces consciousness, not out of accident.

Thinkers.....Understand this....in the universe, accidents don't exist.


The fact that there may have been times in our universe when no consciousness existed, means nothing. The fact that you are now conscious does. The fact that conciousness ever existed at all means everything.

[Twiler]

Rand Fan: By God you get it man. I could not have said anything better myself. Now I don't want to laud you too much as unpopular as I am with these thinkers, that might give you a bad name. And I am not saying you agree with me. But at lease you understand what I am saying. the other thinkers just don't.

Nothing just happens without an ultimate explanation. There is a logical explanation for everything that happens in our universe. Eventually we will discover the why gravity happens and why there are subatomic forces. We know zilch now.

There is a reason for consciousness. existence and consciousness are married. Consciousness doesnt just happen anymore than gravity does. And the universe produces consciousness, not out of accident.

Thinkers.....Understand this....in the universe, accidents don't exist.


The fact that there may have been times in our universe when no consciousness existed, means nothing. The fact that you are now conscious does. The fact that conciousness ever existed at all means everything.

Suppose that I state 'Everything that happens has no explanation, everything is an accident. Consciousness was never meant to exist except for the anomalous occasions when it does exist.'

What makes your statements any more valid?

[Mashuna]

What is existence? What is the difference between something and nothing if there is no consciousness?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the OP. I don't think matter suddenly springs into being only when it is being observed. But I'm not sure what existence means without any consciousness to realize it exists.

Trust me on this one. When you die you won't know the difference between something and nothing. They are the same.

If a universe exists with no consciousness in it, does it still make a sound?

[RandFan]

If a universe exists with no consciousness in it, does it still make a sound?:)

[RandFan]

Well, you can't know anything when you're dead.Yeah, that's the point. Setting aside idealism for the moment, existence is only a state of mind. Yep, even if we assume materialism over idealism it still doesn't change the fact that the world out there only exists in our minds. Something isn't any different than nothing unless there is something to appreciate it.

[The Man]

Yeah, that's the point. Setting aside idealism for the moment, existence is only a state of mind. Yep, even if we assume materialism over idealism it still doesn't change the fact that the world out there only exists in our minds. Something isn't any different than nothing unless there is something to appreciate it.

Philosophical claptrap, the fact is that our minds only exist in our minds as for the existence of everything else; well you can pay that no mind if you want but that is not advisable. If you think a hammer does not exist (except in your mind) then try to think the hammer away as you bash yourself in the head with it (or have someone else do it if they don’t mind) until you prove the hammer does not exist, your mind does not exist or you finally choose to mind the existence of the hammer (and perhaps the other person) outside of your mind and bashing you in the head. I doubt you will execute the first blow before you recognize the existence of the hammer over the existence of your mind. Should you execute one or more blows and even choose the claw side of the hammer to strike with, then I might doubt the applicability of the existence of your mind but not the applicability of the existence of the hammer.**


** This research project is not recommended and would be considered illegal under existing law.


How does “something to appreciate it” constitute nothing? So, “Something isn't any different than nothing” when nothing is not nothing because you choose to require “something to appreciate it” for it to be nothing?

[RandFan]

...the fact is that our minds only exist in our minds as for the existence of everything else; well you can pay that no mind if you want but that is not advisable. If you think a hammer does not exist (except in your mind) then try to think the hammer away as you bash yourself in the head with it (or have someone else do it if they don’t mind) until you prove the hammer does not exist, your mind does not exist or you finally choose to mind the existence of the hammer (and perhaps the other person) outside of your mind and bashing you in the head.I'm not arguing idealism but your little experiment doesn't disprove idealism. FTR: I'm neither idealist nor a solipsist. I'm not even nihilist.

I doubt you will execute the first blow before you recognize the existence of the hammer over the existence of your mind. Having debated folks like Lifegazer at length using similar arguments (I prefer the idea of putting someone in a room without food, water or toilet until they accept reality. Less violent than your hammer example.)

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

How does “something to appreciate it” constitute nothing?It doesn't. The lack of a conscience renders the difference between something and nothing moot.

I'm a materialist. I accept a material reality. That said, I can't prove a material reality. Neither can you even if you do bash your skull in with a hammer. Further, without consciousness the difference between existence and non existence is inconsequential. You can call it clap trap but it is inarguable.

[Twiler]

Yeah, that's the point. Setting aside idealism for the moment, existence is only a state of mind. Yep, even if we assume materialism over idealism it still doesn't change the fact that the world out there only exists in our minds. Something isn't any different than nothing unless there is something to appreciate it.

I'm pretty sure the point of materialism is that the world DOES NOT only exist in our minds.

I'd say the existence of sensory data indicates that there exists a world outside our minds.

[RandFan]

I'm pretty sure the point of materialism is that the world DOES NOT only exist in our minds.Yes. That IS the point. And yours?

I'd say the existence of sensory data indicates that there exists a world outside our minds.Doesn't prove it.

[Twiler]

Did you not state:

Yep, even if we assume materialism over idealism it still doesn't change the fact that the world out there only exists in our minds.

[RandFan]

Did you not state:Yes. Look closer at the statment. It's an existential statement. I know it appears contradictory and a bit of a "depnds on what the definition of 'is' is".

Yep, even if we assume materialism over idealism it still doesn't change the fact that the world out there only exists in our minds.

Even if we assume that mater exists externaly from our minds it has no meaning outside of our minds. If no conscience ever existed, what would be the difference between something and nothing?

[Twiler]

Yes. Look closer at the statment. It's an existential statement. I know it appears contradictory and a bit of a "depnds on what the definition of 'is' is".



Even if we assume that mater exists externaly from our minds it has no meaning outside of our minds. If no conscience ever existed, what would be the difference between something and nothing?

It depends on your definitions. If you accept that only the activities of conscious lifeforms are meaningful, then yes, existence is meaningless without consciousness.

Some people might argue that a universe without consciousness is meaningful, or that any universe is meaningless.

[RandFan]

...a universe without consciousness is meaningful... I'm not even sure what that means. Meaningful to what? Meaning is a conscious construct. Take away consciousness and you have no construct.

[Twiler]

People could consider a hypothetical universe with no consciousness and attribute meaning to it.

[The Man]

I'm not arguing idealism but your little experiment doesn't disprove idealism. FTR: I'm neither idealist nor a solipsist. I'm not even nihilist.

I wasn’t claiming that it proves or disproves any philosophy just that it proves it is a test not worth executing, since it terminates with your termination.


Having debated folks like Lifegazer at length using similar arguments (I prefer the idea of putting someone in a room without food, water or toilet until they accept reality. Less violent than your hammer example.)

Fair enough I prefer avoiding violence but I do like to get things done quickly.



Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

When you die as well, but that is not provable for anyone dead (as far as we can currently prove) anyway. However, one does not need to believe in an auditory or visual hallucination that may not “go away”. A simple persistence of what we do not believe in is sometimes not an accurate definition of reality, I am not sure if there is a completely consistent definition of reality, but that one sure comes close.


It doesn't. The lack of a conscience renders the difference between something and nothing moot.

Not at all, it only renders something’s ability to “appreciate” moot.



I'm a materialist. I accept a material reality. That said, I can't prove a material reality. Neither can you even if you do bash your skull in with a hammer.

I did not claim to be able to and that wasn’t the point. The point was given then lack of provability, or the ability to distinguish, which ascription presents less risk. If everything is just in my mind no problem, if in someone else’s mind then I had better make sure they stay healthy. If in no one's mind and an objective reality then I better behave accordingly. With no way to distinguish between the three, the latter is the safest bet as it accommodates the other two while the other two do not accommodate it..


Further, without consciousness the difference between existence and non existence is inconsequential. You can call it clap trap but it is inarguable.

Oh, some things may not be provable but they certainly are arguable, especially those things that aren’t provable. Non existence has no consequences while existence does, so the difference is specifically consequential, even without consciousness.

[The Man]

Even if we assume that mater exists externaly from our minds it has no meaning outside of our minds. If no conscience ever existed, what would be the difference between something and nothing?


The same difference then had before “no conscience ever existed” (and now that consciousness does exist). Are you asserting that consciousness has always existed? From all current indications, at some point consciousness may no longer exist within the universe and the difference between something and nothing will still remain. Please provide some indication that this “difference between something and nothing” has changed once consciousness developed and will change again if it is gone or that consciousness has always and will always exist.

[RandFan]

Oh, some things may not be provable but they certainly are arguable...Not this one. Existence is only substantive to a conscious entity.

Non existence has no consequences while existence does...
Only to a conscious entity.

[RandFan]

The same difference then had before “no conscience ever existed” (and now that consciousness does exist). Are you asserting that consciousness has always existed? From all current indications, at some point consciousness may no longer exist within the universe and the difference between something and nothing will still remain. Please provide some indication that this “difference between something and nothing” has changed once consciousness developed and will change again if it is gone or that consciousness has always and will always exist.?

If there is no consciousness there is no difference between something and nothing. I posit no claims as to how long consciousness has existed or will exist. That there has been or always will be consciousness is irrelevant. My point is only hypothetical given that there is no consciousness.

[Hokulele]

:D One, Two, Three, Four, Five......


Keep counting and let me know when you reach infinity.

[reverebison]

Thinkers:

I have a true reality statement for you. You are the universe. You are not you. You are the universe. Every bit of matter and energy that compose you (your consciousness) is the same as any other bit of matter and energy of the universe.

If you think you are special, somehow disconnected from the rest of the universe, you are living a dillusion.

Your consciousness is the universe understanding itself. If you were a chicken, you would simply be the universe aware. Any form of concsiousness will do. It is fascinating to me that consciousness gets as complicated as it does. The universe outdoes itself it seems. And I am sure it can get even better.

You were produced by the universe which you are a part of.

This production was not an accident, as accidents don't exist in the universe.

Everything has a reason, an explanation.

You, your consciousness has an explanation.

For existence, there must, I repeat must, be awareness. Nothing can exist without awareness.

Proof.... The universe produces consciousness.

Do you thinkers know that the universe could certainly exist without consciousness, yes you know this, only while you are conscious though. That is the point....only when you are conscious do you know.

What would you know if there was no consciousness at all in the unverse. thinkers.....what would you know.

[Mashuna]

This production was not an accident, as accidents don't exist in the universe.


I hit my thumb with a hammer yesterday.

I refute you thus.

[Hokulele]

I hit my thumb with a hammer yesterday.

I refute you thus.


That wasn't you, that was the universe. Or a chicken.

[Mashuna]

That wasn't you, that was the universe. Or a chicken.

Ok then, I hit my chicken with a universe yesterday. Better?

[Hokulele]

Ok then, I hit my chicken with a universe yesterday. Better?


That's certainly a new euphemism...

[arthwollipot]

Your consciousness is the universe understanding itself.I think someone's been watching too much Babylon 5.

[Mashuna]

That's certainly a new euphemism...

Gah! Tricked into smutty postings again!

[lupus_in_fabula]

I think someone's been watching too much Babylon 5.

That shouldn't be possible! :jaw-dropp

[Scazon]

I left the Solipsist Society when it split - as you will remember, the resulting factions were the Solipsist Worker's Party, and the Solipsist Action Group (Marxist-Leninist)- but the major issue was whether the universe could exist with less than one, or more than one, consciousness. The issue resolved itself when the SAG(ML) accidentally stepped in front of a bus, and the Solipsist Worker won the lottery.

I have revised my opinions since, and I'm going to join the Procrastinationalists when I get round to it.

[Twiler]

....You are not you....

This contradicts the law of identity (A=A), and can't be a part of any reasonable statement.

If we are the universe, why do we not know all that our neighbours know? What separates our minds?

[Dancing David]

Thinkers:

I have a true reality statement for you. You are the universe. You are not you. You are the universe. Every bit of matter and energy that compose you (your consciousness) is the same as any other bit of matter and energy of the universe.

Yes.


If you think you are special, somehow disconnected from the rest of the universe, you are living a dillusion.

Yes. I would not use the word delusion.


Your consciousness is the universe understanding itself.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

If you were a chicken, you would simply be the universe aware. Any form of concsiousness will do. It is fascinating to me that consciousness gets as complicated as it does. The universe outdoes itself it seems. And I am sure it can get even better.

You were produced by the universe which you are a part of.

Yes.


This production was not an accident, as accidents don't exist in the universe.

Assertion without evidence.


Everything has a reason, an explanation.

Not really, everything is interdependant and therefore might be labled as having a cause, but not always a reason.


You, your consciousness has an explanation.
[/qyote]
Yep, a brain.
[quote]

For existence, there must, I repeat must, be awareness. Nothing can exist without awareness.

that depends on the defintion of existance.



Proof.... The universe produces consciousness.

Do you mean:

Poof .... The universe produces consciousness?

BTW consciousness is a rubric for a bunch of other things.
Sensations, perceptions, thoughts, emotions, memories, associations and habits , they all exist. Consciousness does not.

Do you thinkers know that the universe could certainly exist without consciousness, yes you know this, only while you are conscious though. That is the point....only when you are conscious do you know.

they are two interpentrating sets one depends upon the other, the universe is not evidenced to be dependant upon consciousness. If wars kill consciousness they don't seem to shatter reality.


What would you know if there was no consciousness at all in the unverse. thinkers.....what would you know.

Not much, how about you?

[reverebison]

This contradicts the law of identity (A=A), and can't be a part of any reasonable statement.

If we are the universe, why do we not know all that our neighbours know? What separates our minds?


Twiler: You and I and everyone else, are each one part of the universe. We are the same type of parts, yet we are each unique. We are forever seperated from the rest. We may try and touch, see, smell the other parts. But we can never be them. We are basically born alone and die alone.

Often, we seem desperate to be one with other parts,which is alwyas a fruitless effort. When we touch our spouse, we try our utmost best to connect. We kiss, we touch, we even have sex. All attempt to join. All attempts to connect with each other. As satiisfying as they often are, they never truly succeed.

[Hokulele]

Often, we seem desperate to be one with other parts,which is alwyas a fruitless effort. When we touch our spouse, we try our utmost best to connect. We kiss, we touch, we even have sex. All attempt to join. All attempts to connect with each other. As satiisfying as they often are, they never truly succeed.


Nope, that's reproduction.

Our utmost best to connect was the ritual cannibalism found in some Polynesian cultures.

[Piscivore]

Yes. I would not use the word delusion.

He didn't, he said "you are living a dillusion"- meaning something like "quite the fine pickle you are in". I'm hard pressed to argue against that.

[godless dave]

but there is one other law of nature that to my knowledge has not yet been fully appreciated, although I am sure it has been contemplated by many.


FOR EXISTENCE, YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS

What is your basis for concluding this is a law of nature?

[The Man]

Not this one. Existence is only substantive to a conscious entity..


Oh, I would argue with that

Substantive meaning “a noun”.

Supports your apparent assertion.

Substantive meaning “independent”

Opposes your apparent assertion.

As your statement is apparently ambiguous, I take it that you might intend your assertion to be as well.


Only to a conscious entity.

So the existence (or specific presence) of gravity only has consequences “to a conscious entity”?


If there is no consciousness there is no difference between something and nothing. I posit no claims as to how long consciousness has existed or will exist. That there has been or always will be consciousness is irrelevant. My point is only hypothetical given that there is no consciousness.

Irrelevant, not at all, if there “has been or always will be consciousness” then you’re hypothetical point is irrelevant. Actually, your point is only hypothetical given consciousness; given no consciousness (and thus no hypotheticals), again, it is your point that is irrelevant.

[The Man]

Do you thinkers know that the universe could certainly exist without consciousness, yes you know this, only while you are conscious though. That is the point....only when you are conscious do you know.

Fortunately the universe is not dependent on what we know or think we know (as has been demonstrated countless times), but what we think we know must depend on the universe and that does not change whether we are conscious or not.

[The Man]

Often, we seem desperate to be one with other parts,which is alwyas a fruitless effort. When we touch our spouse, we try our utmost best to connect. We kiss, we touch, we even have sex. All attempt to join. All attempts to connect with each other. As satiisfying as they often are, they never truly succeed.

Well I do not know what you have been trying to do, but for me and my girlfriend if it’s truly satisfying then it’s truly a success.

[Hokulele]

Existence is only substantive to a conscious entity.


I see it as a little more of a gray area. The best single example I can think of is blindsight. I believe you mentioned reading Ramachandran in the past, and he devoted parts of both of his popular science books to the issue of blindsight. In short, there are two visual pathways in the brain, only one of which passes through the visual cortex. When this path is knocked out, that person is effectively blind from a conscious point of view. They cannot register what they "see". However, the second pathway is still in effect, it just can't communicate with the "conscious" areas of the brain. A person with this type of blindsight can correctly locate things spatially, determine the orientation of objects, and interact with those objects.

The one example that stuck in my mind was the woman who experienced this later in life (so she had already had experience with the world of conscious vision). She could recognize common objects if she could hold them, but could not see and recognize anything visually. However, when the researcher held up a pen, she could easily reach out and take it from his hand in order to determine what it was by touch.

Conscious recognition apparently isn't necessary for living in and interacting with the universe as we know it.

[Twiler]

Twiler: You and I and everyone else, are each one part of the universe. We are the same type of parts, yet we are each unique. We are forever seperated from the rest. We may try and touch, see, smell the other parts. But we can never be them. We are basically born alone and die alone.

Often, we seem desperate to be one with other parts,which is alwyas a fruitless effort. When we touch our spouse, we try our utmost best to connect. We kiss, we touch, we even have sex. All attempt to join. All attempts to connect with each other. As satiisfying as they often are, they never truly succeed.

See, this is the difference between you and me. You think two mutually exclusive statements can be true, I don't.

Anyway, what is the significance of all this? Why should these ideas inspire any difference in our behaviour?

[GreedyAlgorithm]

Even if we assume that mater exists externaly from our minds it has no meaning outside of our minds. If no conscience ever existed, what would be the difference between something and nothing?
...wth

You are being quite anthropocentric. Only minds ascribing meaning doesn't imply every counterfactual configuration space without minds is indistinguishable.

[reverebison]

What is your basis for concluding this is a law of nature?

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for consciousness.

You are a part of the universe, that you cannot deny.

FOR YOU, nothing existed before you were born. Nothing will exist FOR YOU after you die.

Now put that easy to understand statement into the context of the entire universe.

Do you think it a mistake or accident that the universe produces conscioiusness? As I have stated, the universe does not make mistakes. Consciousness is just an integral part of the universe as any other law of physics. Existence and consciousness are linked and one cannot exist without the other.

[Henners]

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for consciousness.

Or, as my old Papa, Zaphod, used to put it:

An unconscious coffee table cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for coffee tables.

He often applied the same proof to demonstrate that the entire universe must be purple, for otherwise the Queen would have nothing to wear.

[KingMerv00]

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for consciousness.

I don't understand how you can assert that. Gravity exists yes. But I can imagine a universe without gravity. It would be a big gas cloud made of light elements. A universe without consciousness is even easier to imagine.

[The Man]

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for consciousness.

No, we do not have accept the fact that “Gravity just exists” but we can demonstrate the effects of what we call gravity and attempt to find the cause of those effects. Can you demonstrate the cause and effects of consciousness? Until you can, you can not claim it as a “law of nature” or an indispensable part of this or any conceivable universe.




You are a part of the universe, that you cannot deny.

How does that make me or consciousness an indispensable part?


FOR YOU, nothing existed before you were born. Nothing will exist FOR YOU after you die.

So let’s just ignore the pre-requirement of your parents, some specific activity, particular biology and the universe in general “FOR YOU” before you were born.


Now put that easy to understand statement into the context of the entire universe.

The universe had parents? Lucky for this universe that they weren’t using a contraceptive.



Do you think it a mistake or accident that the universe produces conscioiusness? As I have stated, the universe does not make mistakes. Consciousness is just an integral part of the universe as any other law of physics. Existence and consciousness are linked and one cannot exist without the other.

Not being a mistake does not make something indispensable or an “integral part” some things are just or become superfluous without any mistakes.

[godless dave]

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist.

Why not?

Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact.

We accept it because we see evidence that it exists.

The same for consciousness.

We see evidence that consciousness exists in humans, and possibly in some dolphins and chimpanzees. In other words, we only see consciousness in a small subset of animals on one planet.

You are a part of the universe, that you cannot deny.

I never have.

FOR YOU, nothing existed before you were born. Nothing will exist FOR YOU after you die.
Now put that easy to understand statement into the context of the entire universe.

It doesn't transfer, because there is no evidence the universe is conscious.


Do you think it a mistake or accident that the universe produces consciousness?

It's sort of like an accident. It doesn't seem to have been intentional.

As I have stated, the universe does not make mistakes.

The concept of a "mistake" only makes sense in a context where there is intent.

Consciousness is just an integral part of the universe as any other law of physics.

Consciousness isn't a law of physics at all, and it's no more an integral part of the universe than photosynthesis is.

Existence and consciousness are linked and one cannot exist without the other.

What is your basis for concluding that?

[westprog]

No. I recently read "The Infinite Book" by John Barrow, where he talks about the universe possibly being infinite in space. He is a Professor of Mathematics with some credibility. I will have another look at the book.

It's a fraud. It actually finishes page 328.

[westprog]

Define cosciousness.

It's a necessary stage on the way to consciousness.

[Silentknight]

No, we do not have accept the fact that “Gravity just exists” but we can demonstrate the effects of what we call gravity and attempt to find the cause of those effects. Can you demonstrate the cause and effects of consciousness? Until you can, you can not claim it as a “law of nature” or an indispensable part of this or any conceivable universe.

Sure I can. I close my eyes and reverebison's assertions disappear from sight, therefore they no longer exist to me. Now where was that Reply button...?

Aw damnit, there's his post again!

[The Man]

Sure I can. I close my eyes and reverebison's assertions disappear from sight, therefore they no longer exist to me. Now where was that Reply button...?

Aw damnit, there's his post again!

Ah, but you were still conscious after you closed your eyes. What you need to do is bash yourself in the head with a hammer until you are in a persistent vegetative state. At that point reverebison's assertions or posts loose their significance (as if they had any), yet you still exist.

[doronshadmi]

I see it as a little more of a gray area. The best single example I can think of is blindsight. I believe you mentioned reading Ramachandran in the past, and he devoted parts of both of his popular science books to the issue of blindsight. In short, there are two visual pathways in the brain, only one of which passes through the visual cortex. When this path is knocked out, that person is effectively blind from a conscious point of view. They cannot register what they "see". However, the second pathway is still in effect, it just can't communicate with the "conscious" areas of the brain. A person with this type of blindsight can correctly locate things spatially, determine the orientation of objects, and interact with those objects.

The one example that stuck in my mind was the woman who experienced this later in life (so she had already had experience with the world of conscious vision). She could recognize common objects if she could hold them, but could not see and recognize anything visually. However, when the researcher held up a pen, she could easily reach out and take it from his hand in order to determine what it was by touch.

Conscious recognition apparently isn't necessary for living in and interacting with the universe as we know it.

Does Conscious recognition must be a 0,1 game (0-recognition, 1-recognition whare there is nothing in between)?

Does consciousness has to be treated differently than any other existing thing in the universe?

I do not think so. By using this attitude Consciousness is not something that other things depends on it, but it is simply some property of any existing thing that can be found in any degree of self-reference.

In that case the name of the game is self-reference, that may be found by any [0,1] degree, where 1-degree (full self awareness) is nothing but some particular case of the general concept of Consciousness.

For one thing I am quit sure, what is known as Universe, is not just a 0,1 game (where there is nothing in between).

[Hokulele]

Does Conscious recognition must be a 0,1 game (0-recognition, 1-recognition whare there is nothing in between)?


For the purposes of discussing the OP, yes. For the real world, no.

[westprog]

Does consciousness has to be treated differently than any other existing thing in the universe?


For the time being, yes.

[doronshadmi]

For the purposes of discussing the OP, yes. For the real world, no.
Again you are using yes\no.

Why is that?

[doronshadmi]

For the time being, yes.

Please provide more details.

[Hokulele]

Again you are using yes\no.

Why is that?


Brevity is the soul of pith.

[doronshadmi]

Brevity is the soul of pith.

I personally, hope not to be such a soul (you know, an 0,1 game).

[Hokulele]

I personally, hope not to be such a soul (you know, an 0,1 game).


You needn't worry.

[doronshadmi]

You needn't worry.

Thanks.

[Hokulele]

You are welcome. :)

[doronshadmi]

You are welcome. :)

I like your style.


Can you say more things about http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125175&postcount=84 ?

[Hokulele]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3857708#post3857708

[doronshadmi]

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3857708#post3857708

Your viewpoint please.

[Hokulele]

It is in that thread and, like many other things, is best viewed in context.

[doronshadmi]

It is in that thread and, like many other things, is best viewed in context.

By using http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125175&postcount=84, let us take a closer look of http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4118816&postcount=54 .

Do you think that concepts like Uni-verse or Con-text are equivalent?

[westprog]

Please provide more details.

We have a physical theory of matter and energy, gravity and electricity. We have a physical theory of human behaviour. We don't have a physical theory of consciousness. Therefore it is something different to the rest of what we deal with.

When we have a physical theory of consciousness, then we can consider it in the same way as everything else.

[doronshadmi]

We have a physical theory of matter and energy, gravity and electricity. We have a physical theory of human behaviour. We don't have a physical theory of consciousness. Therefore it is something different to the rest of what we deal with.

When we have a physical theory of consciousness, then we can consider it in the same way as everything else.

What do you think are the outlines of such a theory (please be aware of the fact that any physical theory must survive well formulated experiments of its predicted results)?

[Dancing David]

Godless:

An unconscious universe cannot exist. Just like a universe without gravity cannot exist. Gravity just exists, we must accept that fact. The same for consciousness.

You are a part of the universe, that you cannot deny.

FOR YOU, nothing existed before you were born. Nothing will exist FOR YOU after you die.

Now put that easy to understand statement into the context of the entire universe.

Do you think it a mistake or accident that the universe produces conscioiusness? As I have stated, the universe does not make mistakes. Consciousness is just an integral part of the universe as any other law of physics. Existence and consciousness are linked and one cannot exist without the other.






...imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Douglas Adams


Sorry RB, you have demonstrated that we have

a. existance of sentient beings
b. existance of the universe

but I do not see that b. follows from a.

Knowledge of the universe may follow from b. but you haven't proven you rpoint.

[Dancing David]

It's a necessary stage on the way to consciousness.

Argh, a plauge on speeling...

[Hokulele]

Do you think that concepts like Uni-verse or Con-text are equivalent?


When I am sober, no.

The biggest challenge in understanding the universe is that there is nothing to compare it to. How would context apply?

[Silentknight]

Ah, but you were still conscious after you closed your eyes. What you need to do is bash yourself in the head with a hammer until you are in a persistent vegetative state. At that point reverebison's assertions or posts loose their significance (as if they had any), yet you still exist.

Reported, for advocacy of suicide!

...Oh wait, you said persistent vegetative state, not dead. Well, I guess I can let that one slide. Though I must admit that hammer does seem awfully inviting every time I read through one of reverebison's arguments. :D


I'm still waiting for evidence from him that existence is contingent on consciousness and not the other way around. Otherwise, as the old joke goes, anyone who tried to argue with Descartes' famous line by saying, "I think not!" would vanish into thin air.

[doronshadmi]

When I am sober, no.

The biggest challenge in understanding the universe is that there is nothing to compare it to. How would context apply?
Maybe the biggest challenge is to under-stand how comparison is possible, in the first place.

What do you think?

[westprog]

What do you think are the outlines of such a theory (please be aware of the fact that any physical theory must survive well formulated experiments of its predicted results)?

I have no idea. There have been prolonged debates on this forum about the status of consciousness, but the only thing I'm fairly sure of is that the papers written about it aren't being written by physicists. We are a long, long way from a physical theory, and it's that fact that makes consciousness separate from other observed phenomena.

[doronshadmi]

I have no idea. There have been prolonged debates on this forum about the status of consciousness, but the only thing I'm fairly sure of is that the papers written about it aren't being written by physicists. We are a long, long way from a physical theory, and it's that fact that makes consciousness separate from other observed phenomena.

Some one (I don't remember his name) wrote something like this:

It is quit trivial to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of the body of a dead bird thrown in the air.

It is maybe impossible to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of a living one.


Do you think that "I have no idea" is closely related to the problem mentioned above?

[The Man]

Reported, for advocacy of suicide!

...Oh wait, you said persistent vegetative state, not dead. Well, I guess I can let that one slide. Though I must admit that hammer does seem awfully inviting every time I read through one of reverebison's arguments. :D


I'm still waiting for evidence from him that existence is contingent on consciousness and not the other way around. Otherwise, as the old joke goes, anyone who tried to argue with Descartes' famous line by saying, "I think not!" would vanish into thin air.


Thanks for the pass, Silentknight and I am still waiting for that evidence as well. However I think it will just be the common misinterpretation of the anthropic principle, since the universe contains what we call “consciousness” then the universe must somehow need what we call “consciousness”. Also "I think not" is my favorite philosophical joke, although sometimes it is hard to tell what is philosophy and what is just a joke, fortunately only philosophers need to (or it seems can) make that distinction.

[Hokulele]

Maybe the biggest challenge is to under-stand how comparison is possible, in the first place.

What do you think?


If comparison was generally impossible, you would not be editing your posts so often.

[JimBenArm]

Is it just me, or do the random hyphens seem just a bit odd?

[Hokulele]

Is it just me, or do the random hyphens seem just a bit odd?


Not in context.

[JimBenArm]

Not in context.
Okay. What's the proper context? I'm a bit confused. Not that that's anything unusual for me.

[The Man]

Some one (I don't remember his name) wrote something like this:

It is quit trivial to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of the body of a dead bird thrown in the air.

Sure if you account for all the relevant influences, launch trajectory, wind speed and even the rotation of the Earth (depending on the distance).


It is maybe impossible to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of a living one.

Again the same requirement applies, but now you need to consider stimuli, response, neural pathways as well as , launch trajectory, wind speed and even the rotation of the Earth (depending on the distance).



Do you think that "I have no idea" is closely related to the problem mentioned above?

Do you not think that “not so complicated then very complicated” is a better description of the “problem” you mentioned then "I have no idea"?

[Hokulele]

Okay. What's the proper context? I'm a bit confused. Not that that's anything unusual for me.


Serious answer: doronshadmi seems to be obsessed with the idea of dualism, and thus uses hyphens to emphasize the "uni" part of universe and the "con" (as in pro and con) part of context.

Slightly less serious answer, but intended by my post nonetheless: Something weird in a sea of weird isn't really odd at all.

[The Man]

Serious answer: doronshadmi seems to be obsessed with the idea of dualism, and thus uses hyphens to emphasize the "uni" part of universe and the "con" (as in pro and con) part of context.



Yes, but his is a singular dualism.

[RandFan]

Oh, I would argue with that You could try.

So the existence (or specific presence) of gravity only has consequences “to a conscious entity”? Yes.

Irrelevant, not at all, if there “has been or always will be consciousness” then you’re hypothetical point is irrelevant.No. Simply declaring it irrelevant doesn't make it so. Given that there is no consciousness my point stands. I don't need to prove that conciousness has not always existed. That said, you have no evidence that it has. I can't prove a negative.

[RandFan]

I see it as a little more of a gray area. The best single example I can think of is blindsight. I believe you mentioned reading Ramachandran in the past, and he devoted parts of both of his popular science books to the issue of blindsight. In short, there are two visual pathways in the brain, only one of which passes through the visual cortex. When this path is knocked out, that person is effectively blind from a conscious point of view. They cannot register what they "see". However, the second pathway is still in effect, it just can't communicate with the "conscious" areas of the brain. A person with this type of blindsight can correctly locate things spatially, determine the orientation of objects, and interact with those objects.

The one example that stuck in my mind was the woman who experienced this later in life (so she had already had experience with the world of conscious vision). She could recognize common objects if she could hold them, but could not see and recognize anything visually. However, when the researcher held up a pen, she could easily reach out and take it from his hand in order to determine what it was by touch.





Conscious recognition apparently isn't necessary for living in and interacting with the universe as we know it.I can't argue with anything that you've said. The problem is that it is irrelevant. Anything that does not have consciousness (yes we can get into a semantical argument but let's stick to the conventional view) doesn't care. It doesn't appreciate. There is no meaning. Planets and rocks and dust don't know that they exist and don't care one way or the other.

We can conceptualize (a) something.
We can conceptualize (b) nothing.
When we do this it is human nature to do so from the perspective of our own consciousness. Take that away and the difference between a and b is null. It is only consciousness that can deduce a difference between the two. End of story.


One more thing, sorry if I'm sounding snarky. I don't mean to. It's a philosophical position. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's just that it's my hill and these are my beans. :)

[Hokulele]

I can't argue with anything that you've said. The problem is that it is irrelevant. Anything that does not have consciousness (yes we can get into a semantical argument but let's stick to the conventional view) doesn't care. It doesn't appreciate. There is no meaning. Planets and rocks and dust don't know that they exist and don't care one way or the other.

We can conceptualize (a) something.
We can conceptualize (b) nothing.
When we do this it is human nature to do so from the perspective of our own consciousness. Take that away and the difference between a and b is null. It is only consciousness that can deduce a difference between the two. End of story.


And this is exactly the point I am trying to make by invoking blindsight. Unconsciously we can determine between something and nothing, hence we can react to things we cannot consciously perceive. I will grant you there is nothing we can do about those things, other than simply react, but there is a perceptable difference.


One more thing, sorry if I'm sounding snarky. I don't mean to. It's a philosophical position. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's just that it's my hill and these are my beans. :)


No worries. Maybe you will get lucky and one of your beans will sprout a magic beanstalk. ;)

[doronshadmi]

Serious answer: doronshadmi seems to be obsessed with the idea of dualism, and thus uses hyphens to emphasize the "uni" part of universe and the "con" (as in pro and con) part of context.

Slightly less serious answer, but intended by my post nonetheless: Something weird in a sea of weird isn't really odd at all.
1) The obsession is in the eyes of the reader (as can clearly be seen by your reply style http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125204&postcount=85 to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125175&postcount=84 ) .

2) Since we are talking about consciousness , we are dealing first of all with something that has self-reference.

3) From this point of view, we actually deal with something that enables to integrate between different things (whether they are internal or external of it) as a basis for conclusion, decision, etc … in order to react both on its internal and external environments, as can be seen in this preliminary model ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf ).

4) Concepts like Universe, Context etc … were invented by things that have consciousness, in order to express some essential sense, notion about the experience of reality.

5) Furthermore, these conscious things choosed to integrate between concepts like Unity and Verses (in the case of Universe) and between Connection and Text (in the case of Context) in order to communicate between them.

[Hokulele]

Heh, now I am accused of dualism.

"Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment."

[JimBenArm]

Serious answer: doronshadmi seems to be obsessed with the idea of dualism, and thus uses hyphens to emphasize the "uni" part of universe and the "con" (as in pro and con) part of context.

Slightly less serious answer, but intended by my post nonetheless: Something weird in a sea of weird isn't really odd at all.
Okay. Thanks.

[Dancing David]

1) The obsession is in the eyes of the reader (as can clearly be seen by your reply style http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125204&postcount=85 to http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125175&postcount=84 ) .

2) Since we are talking about consciousness , we are dealing first of all with something that has self-reference.

3) From this point of view, we actually deal with something that enables to integrate between different things (whether they are internal or external of it) as a basis for conclusion, decision, etc … in order to react both on its internal and external environments, as can be seen in this preliminary model ( http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf ).

4) Concepts like Universe, Context etc … were invented by things that have consciousness, in order to express some essential sense, notion about the experience of reality.

5) Furthermore, these conscious things choosed to integrate between concepts like Unity and Verses (in the case of Universe) and between Connection and Text (in the case of Context) in order to communicate between them.


Those are all very nice but they are just what they are, the universe is what it is. Human thoughts and words are approximation (idiomatic and self referential) of the behavior of the universe.

So you can add hyphens, but if they only have personal meaning then they do not add to communication.

[westprog]

Some one (I don't remember his name) wrote something like this:

It is quit trivial to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of the body of a dead bird thrown in the air.

It is maybe impossible to predict (by calculation) the accurate path of a living one.


Do you think that "I have no idea" is closely related to the problem mentioned above?

We can, in principle, imagine that if we knew all the physical processes going on inside the living bird, we'd be as able to predict its path as with the dead one. However, that explanation leaves no place for consciousness. We don't even know whether birds are conscious are not.

[The Man]

You could try.

I can do more then that.


Yes.

Please show how the consequence of gravity is dependent on consciousness, unless of course you are just playing semantic games about the meaning of words like “consequences”.



No. Simply declaring it irrelevant doesn't make it so.

A point you should take for yourself and perhaps expand it to included things you simply declare as inarguable.



Given that there is no consciousness my point stands. I don't need to prove that conciousness has not always existed. That said, you have no evidence that it has. I can't prove a negative.

Your claim is that given no consciousness there is no difference between something (like consciousness) and nothing (no consciousness), so given the lack of consciousness is no different then given consciousness. It is your self inconsistent point that is inarguable, but you can keep trying.

[The Man]

I can't argue with anything that you've said. The problem is that it is irrelevant. Anything that does not have consciousness (yes we can get into a semantical argument but let's stick to the conventional view) doesn't care. It doesn't appreciate. There is no meaning. Planets and rocks and dust don't know that they exist and don't care one way or the other.

We can conceptualize (a) something.
We can conceptualize (b) nothing.
When we do this it is human nature to do so from the perspective of our own consciousness. Take that away and the difference between a and b is null. It is only consciousness that can deduce a difference between the two. End of story.


One more thing, sorry if I'm sounding snarky. I don't mean to. It's a philosophical position. It doesn't amount to a hill of beans. It's just that it's my hill and these are my beans. :)


Planets or rocks do not need to “know that they exist”, “care” or “appreciate” in order for there to be consequences of their existence or lack thereof. You seem to be limiting things to “the perspective of our own consciousness”.

[RandFan]

Please show how the consequence of gravity is dependent on consciousness...Not a position that I hold.

Your claim is that given no consciousness there is no difference between something (like consciousness) and nothing (no consciousness), so given the lack of consciousness is no different then given consciousness. It is your self inconsistent point that is inarguable...No. If there is no consciousness then there is no appreciable difference.

[RandFan]

Planets or rocks do not need to “know that they exist”, “care” or “appreciate” in order for there to be consequences of their existence or lack thereof. What difference is there between consequences and no consequences? You seem to think that is important for some reason.

You seem to be limiting things to “the perspective of our own consciousness”.I only limit the significance to consciousness.

There is no significance of existence to the planets or rocks.

[The Man]

So the existence (or specific presence) of gravity only has consequences “to a conscious entity”?


Yes.



Please show how the consequence of gravity is dependent on consciousness, unless of course you are just playing semantic games about the meaning of words like “consequences”.


Not a position that I hold.

So I guess you’re just playing semantic games about the meaning of words like “Yes”.



No. If there is no consciousness then there is no appreciable difference.

So the self inconsistency of your claim does not matter as long as you keep making that claim and now reverting back to your requirement that the difference be “appreciable”?


What difference is there between consequences and no consequences? You seem to think that is important for some reason.

If you do not think that difference is important then bash yourself in the head with a hammer. Now you might “care” or “appreciate” the consequences of being bashed by the hammer where the hammer does not, but there will still be consequences for both.



I only limit the significance to consciousness.

Where as I limit the significance of consciousness to consciousness.




There is no significance of existence to the planets or rocks.

But there is significance to the existence of the planets or rocks.


We can play all the semantic games you want, but it only demonstrates that you are more then willing to argue about a point you claimed was inarguable.

[RandFan]

So I guess you’re just playing semantic games about the meaning of words like “Yes”.No. You are playing the game. I'm talking about consequences that have meaning. You think there is significance to space time outside of the realm of consciousness. Significance is a human construct. That something happens doesn't mean that it is significant absent consciousness.

So the self inconsistency of your claim does not matter as long as you keep making that claim and now reverting back to your requirement that the difference be “appreciable”? It's not self inconsistent. Asserting ad nauseam that it is doesn't make it so.

If you do not think that difference is important then bash yourself in the head with a hammer. Now you might “care” or “appreciate” the consequences of being bashed by the hammer where the hammer does not, but there will still be consequences for both. You make my argument for me. I care only because I'm conscious. When I cease being conscience I won't care. Neither will you and that is the salient point.

Where as I limit the significance of consciousness to consciousness.The significance or limits of consciousness is not at issue. If you are interested in that I would suggest you start another thread.

But there is significance to the existence of the planets or rocks. Really? Prove that without consciousness.

We can play all the semantic games you want, but it only demonstrates that you are more then willing to argue about a point you claimed was inarguable.I'm not playing a semantical game. I can argue that there is no gravity but that doesn't make the argument reasonable and it isn't reasonable to say that the existence of gravity is arguable. You can believe in anything you want but I don't have to pretend that it is reasonable.

Just because you flap your gums doesn't mean that you are making logically valid arguments.

[The Man]

No. You are playing the game. I'm talking about consequences that have meaning. You think there is significance to space time outside of the realm of consciousness. Significance is a human construct. That something happens doesn't mean that it is significant absent consciousness.


You assert that you are not applying semantics (the study of meaning) by claiming to be “talking about consequences that have meaning”?

So now you want to play semantic games about “significance” and “meaning”


“That something happens” is sufficient to make it “significant” even “absent consciousness”.



It's not self inconsistent. Asserting ad nauseam that it is doesn't make it so.

You are claiming that based on the difference between consciousness and non-consciousness (your “significance”) that given non-consciousness there is no difference between consciousness and non-consciousness. Repeating that “ad nauseam” does not make it any less self inconsistent.


You make my argument for me. I care only because I'm conscious. When I cease being conscience I won't care. Neither will you and that is the salient point.

I’ve got news for you, I don’t care now (about a lot of things) yet I am still consciousness. Caring may require consciousness but consciousness does not infer caring. Try a different consideration; hold your breath until you pass out, at that time you will begin to breathe again, although you are unconsciousness. The existence of oxygen in the atmosphere is still “significant” to your existence in spite of your lack of consciousness.



The significance or limits of consciousness is not at issue. If you are interested in that I would suggest you start another thread.

I don’t know what thread you think you’re on but this one is about “Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics” making “The significance or limits of consciousness” precisely the issue at hand. If you want to discuss something else then “I would suggest you start another thread”.


Really? Prove that without consciousness.

Well then do not go to sleep tonight or you will stop breathing, your body temperature will become unregulated, all the rocks and the planet will disappear. If you should wake up tomorrow then it proves “that without consciousness” at least you still existed. Should you find a planet under you and some rocks around you then “without consciousness” they still existed as well.


I'm not playing a semantical game. I can argue that there is no gravity but that doesn't make the argument reasonable and it isn't reasonable to say that the existence of gravity is arguable. You can believe in anything you want but I don't have to pretend that it is reasonable.

Apparently you do “pretend that it is reasonable” because that is precisely your argument that “the existence of gravity” or its “significance” (if you keep playing your semantic game) is dependent on consciousness.


You think there is significance to space time outside of the realm of consciousness


Just because you flap your gums doesn't mean that you are making logically valid arguments.

Perhaps, but when “you flap your gums” you clearly demonstrate that you are not “making logically valid arguments”.

[RandFan]

“That something happens” is sufficient to make it “significant” even “absent consciousness”. Why is it sgnificant? Significant to whom? Significant to what?

[doronshadmi]

We can, in principle, imagine that if we knew all the physical processes going on inside the living bird, we'd be as able to predict its path as with the dead one. However, that explanation leaves no place for consciousness. We don't even know whether birds are conscious are not.
Two quotations:

1) Can you prove that any observation has no influence (what so ever) on the observed?

2) How can the observed be known, if there is no interaction between be observed and the observer.

I'll give you some example:

We can use passive tools like thermo detectors in order to research something in the darkness, by simply get his body temperature, which enables us to distinguish between him and his environment, which may have a different temperature than him.

The fact that there is more than a one state of temperature is a direct result of the asymmetric states of temperatures that enables hot bodies to radiance their hit to a colder environment and a part of it is detected by thermo detectors, where this detection actually changes the pattern of the detected radiance.

So also in the case of passive observation, any measurement is based on a game called "changing the observed".

This was a macro example. By a micro example, we actually cannot predict when some electron jumps form one level of energy to another level of energy, and also in this case our measurements tools have an influence on the observed.

So, please show us even a single physical theory that enables to research something (macro or micro) by totally ignore the interactions between the observed and the observer.

[doronshadmi]

Those are all very nice but they are just what they are, the universe is what it is. Human thoughts and words are approximation (idiomatic and self referential) of the behavior of the universe.

So you can add hyphens, but if they only have personal meaning then they do not add to communication.
Again, why are you looking at things as if they are a 0,1 interaction where there is nothing in between?

Or in other words, why "...if they only have personal meaning" (or its complement that is "...if they only have a non-personal meaning") has to be considered as the only possible states?

[doronshadmi]

Heh, now I am accused of dualism.

"Knowing others is wisdom;
Knowing the self is enlightenment."

And you use a clear dichtomy batween "others" and "self".

In that case, please show us how "others" and "self" are compared with each other, in the first place.

[doronshadmi]

Sure if you account for all the relevant influences, launch trajectory, wind speed and even the rotation of the Earth (depending on the distance).

Again the same requirement applies, but now you need to consider stimuli, response, neural pathways as well as , launch trajectory, wind speed and even the rotation of the Earth (depending on the distance).

It does not change the fact that a living bird's path is much more complex than the path of it dead body thrown in the air.

Furthermore, you have missed the most important word in my post, which is "to predict", which means that indeed the same requirements apply, but the requirements of what (or who)?


Do you not think that “not so complicated then very complicated” is a better description of the “problem” you mentioned then "I have no idea"?

Yes, we may have some idea, where completely no idea, or a complete idea are nothing but extreme cases and rare (and dramatic).

[doronshadmi]

Yes, but his is a singular dualism.

No, it is a singular X-alism, where X is any standard or non-standard element that can be found in [0,1].

[ddt]

No, it is a singular X-alism, where X is any standard or non-standard element that can be found in [0,1].

So, pray tell us, what is a half-alism? Or a one-third-alism?

(for the less mathematically inclined: [0, 1] is the interval of all real numbers between 0 and 1).

Oh, and may I remind you there's some unanswered questions to you in the Deeper than primes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125220) thread? We're all anxiously awaiting clarification.

[The Man]

Why is it sgnificant?

Because that is one of the meanings of “significant”: of consequence (or the outcome of something occurring earlier)



Significant to whom?

To whom it happens to.


Significant to what?

To what it happens to.


To clarify, things happen all the time that we are not conscious of. In fact most of the functioning of our bodies that enable us to have what we perceive as consciousness, we are not conscious of. Without the significance of these unconscious consequences we would not have what we perceive as consciousness. So our consciousness depends on these unconscious consequences and they do not depend on our consciousness. The only way we can become conscious of those unconscious consequences (as well as others that our consciousness does not depend on) is because they persist despite our lack of consciousness of them. Also, when we lose consciousness the only way we can regain consciousness is again due the persistence of these unconscious consequences despite our current lack of consciousness. So what we perceive as consciousness is only significant (or consequential) due to in some cases a specific lack of consciousness or conscious involvement. How long do you think your consciousness would last if your breathing (or other body functions) were entirely dependent upon your conscious involvement? Alternatively, were you, unknowingly, to be at ground zero just before an atomic blast you would be vaporized, your consciousness would end before your conscious recognition of that impending consequence. In short consciousness is always dependent on consequences while consequences are not always dependent on what we perceive as consciousness.

[doronshadmi]

So, pray tell us, what is a half-alism? Or a one-third-alism?

(for the less mathematically inclined: [0, 1] is the interval of all real numbers between 0 and 1).

Oh, and may I remind you there's some unanswered questions to you in the Deeper than primes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=125220) thread? We're all anxiously awaiting clarification.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4061617&postcount=2161

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4054871&postcount=2116

[doronshadmi]

In short consciousness is always dependent on consequences while consequences are not always dependent on what we perceive as consciousness.

Not if consciousness is not an 0,1 game.

In that case, any given degree of [0,1] is a possible state of consciousness, where no state totally depends on other states.

Furthermore, some consciousness is usually a collection of [0,1] elements, related to each other by several distinct states, that are dynamically changed.

This flexibility is essential to the survival (and reproduction) of complex organism in a non-trivial environment.

In my opinion, any 0,1 dichotomist model of consciousness is nothing but a sterile viewpoint of this concept.

[RandFan]

Because that is one of the meanings of “significant”: of consequence (or the outcome of something occurring earlier) "Meaning"? Please to explain how there is meaning without consciousness? Where can I find this "meaning" in nature sans consciousness? Don't I need consciousness to find "meaning"?

To whom it happens to. How can there be a "whom" without consciousness?

To what it happens to. Please to explain? How does the "what" assess either "meaning" or "significance"?

You simply assert that there is "meaning" and "significance" a priori but you don't explain what "meaning" and "significance" is without consciousness.

You are going to need to do that to prevail in your argument.

[The Man]

"Meaning"? Please to explain how there is meaning without consciousness? Where can I find this "meaning" in nature sans consciousness? Don't I need consciousness to find "meaning"?

It is those unconscious consequences that give your perception of consciousness “meaning” in the first place, as I mentioned before.


How can there be a "whom" without consciousness?

When whomever is unconscious.


Please to explain? How does the "what" assess either "meaning" or "significance"?

Assessment is not a requirement of ““meaning” or “significance”” as already exemplified.


You simply assert that there is "meaning" and "significance" a priori but you don't explain what "meaning" and "significance" is without consciousness.

You are going to need to do that to prevail in your argument.

I gave specific examples of the relevance of “"meaning" and "significance" a priori” for you to have what you choose to perceive as consciousness. Would you care to address them (“You are going to need to do that to prevail in your argument”) or should we just continue to play your semantic games?

[The Man]

Not if consciousness is not an 0,1 game.

In that case, any given degree of [0,1] is a possible state of consciousness, where no state totally depends on other states.

Furthermore, some consciousness is usually a collection of [0,1] elements, related to each other by several distinct states, that are dynamically changed.

This flexibility is essential to the survival (and reproduction) of complex organism in a non-trivial environment.

In my opinion, any 0,1 dichotomist model of consciousness is nothing but a sterile viewpoint of this concept.


So unconscious is “a possible state of consciousness”, that would make them not “related to each other by several distinct states” as even just those two states would not be distinct.

[Hokulele]

And you use a clear dichtomy batween "others" and "self".

In that case, please show us how "others" and "self" are compared with each other, in the first place.


Heh, again. I would suggest you read the source of that quote and learn a bit about Chinese dualism and how it differs from Descartes. Hint, the word Tao is important in such a conversation.

[The Man]

It does not change the fact that a living bird's path is much more complex than the path of it dead body thrown in the air.

Those were the facts of my point why should my point, well, change my point.



Furthermore, you have missed the most important word in my post, which is "to predict", which means that indeed the same requirements apply, but the requirements of what (or who)?

No I did not, which is why I stated “the same requirements apply”. So you’re claiming “you have missed the most important word in my post” because I stated some of the relevant requirements “of what (or who)” “to predict”?



Yes, we may have some idea, where completely no idea, or a complete idea are nothing but extreme cases and rare (and dramatic).


What makes an idea complete, some idea about what makes an idea complete?

[ddt]

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4061617&postcount=2161

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4054871&postcount=2116

Linking again to previous posts - in this case, from an entirely different thread about an entirely different subject matter? Those posts don't have any relevancy to consciousness or to dualism.

(and they don't have relevancy to the Deeper than Primes thread either - but you should post about that over there. Keep an eye on the thread for updates ;))

[RandFan]

It is those unconscious consequences that give your perception of consciousness “meaning” in the first place, as I mentioned before.This is not an answer to anything. It is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. You are engaging in fallacy. Flight isn't feathers and/or wings. A chair isn't wood and nails. That something is composed of constituent parts doesn't make the constituent parts the self same thing.

Let me be clear. I'm not arguing dualism. I accept materialism. But if we go back to your hammer and skull example. If you smash your head to bits it won't keep working.

When whomever is unconscious. ? This doesn't make any sense.

Assessment is not a requirement of ““meaning” or “significance”” as already exemplified. ? Again, this makes no sense. You are talking in circles and I suspect being obtuse. How can there be "meaning" without consciousness? Meaning is a construct of consciousness. Please to show meaning without consciousness? I've asked you this over and over and you obfuscate and won't answer.

I gave specific examples of the relevance of “"meaning" and "significance" a priori”... ? When? Where? You've done no such thing. Rocks don't contemplate meaning. Rocks don't perceive meaning. There is no such thing without consciousness. Rocks exist and roll down hills a priori. The cause and effect are a priori but meaning is a perception. It doesn't exist a priori and you can't demonstrate that it does.

Would you care to address them (“You are going to need to do that to prevail in your argument”) or should we just continue to play your semantic games? I have nothing to prevail in. Meaning can only be assessed or quantified or perceived by a consciousness. That's not arguable. I know you think you are arguing against it but you aren't. You might as well argue that there is no such thing as gravity.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Awareness of consciousness is the main reason people question consciousness and existence in the first place, and the main reason people believe in purpose.

And animal never does that.

One of the many aspects in which we should try to learn more from them.

[doronshadmi]

Heh, again. I would suggest you read the source of that quote and learn a bit about Chinese dualism and how it differs from Descartes. Hint, the word Tao is important in such a conversation.

Again you use dichotomy between Descartes and Tao.

Im talking about Descartes\Tao interaction as complements of a one framework.

[doronshadmi]

So unconscious is “a possible state of consciousness”, that would make them not “related to each other by several distinct states” as even just those two states would not be distinct.

This is a conclusion of anyone how gets Consciousness as only 0,1 game (which is not my game).

[doronshadmi]

What makes an idea complete, some idea about what makes an idea complete?

Again, your viewpoint of Consciousness is:

0 (No Consciousness at all)

1 (Complete Consciousness)

where there is nothing in between.

I call this 0,1 game Dichotomy.

My idea of Consciousness is incomplete, as any researchable thing is.

[doronshadmi]

Linking again to previous posts - in this case, from an entirely different thread about an entirely different subject matter? Those posts don't have any relevancy to consciousness or to dualism.

(and they don't have relevancy to the Deeper than Primes thread either - but you should post about that over there. Keep an eye on the thread for updates ;))
This is another example of your inability to get the elegant idea of atom's self-reference.

About self-reference and consciousness: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125175&postcount=84

[doronshadmi]

Awareness of consciousness is the main reason people question consciousness and existence in the first place, and the main reason people believe in purpose.

And animal never does that.

One of the many aspects in which we should try to learn more from them.
I agree with you.

We are generally more self-referenced than other animals, which gives us more power to manipulate our shared environment.

As I get is, there is a direct proportion between self-reference degree and the ability to manipulate the shared environment, simply by being aware of the fundamental principles that stand in the basis of this environment.

[Dancing David]

Again, why are you looking at things as if they are a 0,1 interaction where there is nothing in between?

Or in other words, why "...if they only have personal meaning" (or its complement that is "...if they only have a non-personal meaning") has to be considered as the only possible states?


Why is that your read things into statements, that were not stated?.

Be sure to add false dichotomies, don't ask questions and if you do ask a question be sure to make it a leading one. You have mistaken me for someone else.

[Dancing David]

This is a foolish intrusion of a very abstracted process of mathematical description into a messy organic process. It has meaning for you, but have you conveyed that meaning to others?
Not if consciousness is not an 0,1 game.

You are correct, but your use of this foolish mathematical language adds nothing to the discussion, try stating it in clear terms that have common usage, then perhaps I can see where I agree with you.

Consciousness is not a state, it is a label applied to complex interactions of organic neural networks.


In that case, any given degree of [0,1] is a possible state of consciousness, where no state totally depends on other states.

that is more silliness, an easier way to state this is: Consciousness is a rubric applied to multiple processes of an organic neural network, one can not define finite states in such a network. To say that such states exist is silly, there are multiple channels and ways that the neural networks combine to produce the multiple processes called consciousness. One can not put it on any sort of spectrum, unless one wishes to define the substrate processes first, and then use a weighted model for describing the interaction of a particular process in the mixture.

there is no such single entity as consciousness.


Furthermore, some consciousness is usually a collection of [0,1] elements, related to each other by several distinct states, that are dynamically changed.

that has no meaning or context to interpret your personal use of those terms, try to use common language, then I may be able to agree with you.


This flexibility is essential to the survival (and reproduction) of complex organism in a non-trivial environment.

In my opinion, any 0,1 dichotomist model of consciousness is nothing but a sterile viewpoint of this concept.

In my point of view your insistence on labeling other people with out asking them the meanings of their usage is pointless mental masturbation. Further your use of terms that have no common usage and meaning makes understanding you very difficultfor me.

Try using ordinary language and terms, if you must, borrow from neurology rather than some abstracted mathematics based upon some bizarre use of logic.(I find that logic while a useful tool is often the hammer on the screwhead.)

I have a strong feeling that you and I are actually in agreement with each other, yet your personal idiomatic use of language makes it difficult for me to understand you. I am sure that it makes sense to you and others who you have developed it with.

So please I would like you to try again.

Some questions that will help clarify the questions , where I don’t make sense of what makes sense to you:

1. Does consciousness exists and how do you define it?
2. Are you using some sort of merged quantum language when it comes to observer vs. observed?
3. Why should questions 1 and 2 matter to you?
4. Do you believe that the universe exists absent an observer?
5. Do you believe that a mind exists or is it just a semantic label?

[Dancing David]

I agree with you.

We are generally more self-referenced than other animals, which gives us more power to manipulate our shared environment.

As I get is, there is a direct proportion between self-reference degree and the ability to manipulate the shared environment, simply by being aware of the fundamental principles that stand in the basis of this environment.


I am not sure I follwo your logic, so before I can offer and agreement or critique i would like to ask what you mean by this, why should self ereference make this difference?

I would think that there is an element of selfreference but i don't see it as part of the manipulation of the enviroment, how does your train of thought go?

I see humans as developing many stances, tools and survival skills prior to the advent of abstracted thoughts and references, so I am curious as to how your thoughts go in this direction?

[The Man]

This is not an answer to anything. It is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. You are engaging in fallacy. Flight isn't feathers and/or wings. A chair isn't wood and nails. That something is composed of constituent parts doesn't make the constituent parts the self same thing.

You are the one engaging in fallacy, the fallacy of the strawman. If you simply want to argue with yourself then go right ahead if you want to address what I have said then please read it first (preferably when you are conscious)


Let me be clear. I'm not arguing dualism. I accept materialism. But if we go back to your hammer and skull example. If you smash your head to bits it won't keep working.

Likewise without those unconscious consequences I referred to “it won't keep working” either. If the need for the continued functioning of “your head” for what we call consciousness is not a bizarre concept to you then why the flight of fancy (or fallacy in this case) to assertions I never made, when you are clearly capable of understanding the assertions I was making?



? This doesn't make any sense.

When you are unconscious it will.



? Again, this makes no sense. You are talking in circles and I suspect being obtuse. How can there be "meaning" without consciousness? Meaning is a construct of consciousness. Please to show meaning without consciousness? I've asked you this over and over and you obfuscate and won't answer.

It was given to you before, that you choose to ignore it, call it irrelevant and claim obfuscation, without addressing the specific examples makes you the one who is being obtuse.

Indeed the word “Meaning” is a construct of consciousness but it was constructed to represent non conscious aspects as well as the conscious aspects you seem to fixate on.




? When? Where? You've done no such thing. Rocks don't contemplate meaning. Rocks don't perceive meaning. There is no such thing without consciousness. Rocks exist and roll down hills a priori. The cause and effect are a priori but meaning is a perception. It doesn't exist a priori and you can't demonstrate that it does.

And here we have your fallacy, the inclusion of modifiers like “contemplate” and “perceive”. Meaning can be perceived or contemplated, but it does not have to be. I never claimed that rocks “contemplate” or “perceive” but just “The cause and effect are a priori” which in and of itself, without the inclusion of your consciousness requiring modifiers, denotes “meaning”: to bring, cause, or produce as a result : To have as a consequence; bring about (in effect “cause and effect” or cause meaning effect). So you demonstrate that yourself by claiming “cause and effect are a priori”. You seem to have all the requisite knowledge, but simply choose to focus on the conscious applications of “meaning”.




I have nothing to prevail in. Meaning can only be assessed or quantified or perceived by a consciousness. That's not arguable. I know you think you are arguing against it but you aren't. You might as well argue that there is no such thing as gravity.

I don’t care what you think you know I think, you could just address, specifically, what I have said. So, since claiming your point was inarguable then arguing it, you persist with the strawman fallacy of ascribing to me augments I have not made so you can continue to argue that your point is inarguable and claiming “I know you think you are arguing against it but you aren't”. I know I’m not, because the assessment, qualification and perception of “meaning” without consciousness are not arguments that I have made.

Again with the qualifiers that denote consciousness “assessed”, “quantified” or “perceived”. Your use and need of such qualifiers to infer consciousness indicates that you do understand (if not consciously) that “meaning” in and of itself does not have to denote consciousness.

[TMiguel]

It is going a bit too far just to suggest that conscious has to do whit anything. First of all you can not even define what is “conscious” in a restrict way. Suggesting it to be the main criteria to everything is just completely and utterly nonsense.
The universe was the universe long before you were here, and it will still be long after you are gone. It is totally indifferent either or not you realise anything in a conscious manner, or if you perceive events in a retroactive fashion appearing to be conscious but without you even realising them.


Ps. Doron, I taught you mentioned you would be gone for good, apparently you have recopied your reason into another tread after you have been completely intellectually eviscerated on the subject you are trying to sneak in here again.
Some one else would have leaved this forum for ever to hide somewhere in a dark cave out of complete shame. But your persistence in packing the same rubbish again (literally trying to smack it into other peoples brain, and don’t forget the pearl of trying to deprive kids out of proper education for your own sake) makes me believe that you are not a sane person and your place is in a mental institution.

[The Man]

This is a conclusion of anyone how gets Consciousness as only 0,1 game (which is not my game).

You are the one who claimed “several distinct states” while asserting “any given degree of [0,1] is a possible state of consciousness”. I just pointed out that does not make them very distinct if at all.

Yes, your same old game of ascribing anyone who questions or points out flaws as being single (or in this case “0,1”) minded.



Again, your viewpoint of Consciousness is:

0 (No Consciousness at all)

1 (Complete Consciousness)

where there is nothing in between.

I call this 0,1 game Dichotomy.

My idea of Consciousness is incomplete, as any researchable thing is.


So your response to the question is that no idea is compete because of some idea you have about what “any researchable thing is”?

[calebprime]

...makes me believe that you are not a sane person and your place is in a mental institution.

TMiguel, I love you man, but easy there, dude.

[doronshadmi]

I am not sure I follwo your logic, so before I can offer and agreement or critique i would like to ask what you mean by this, why should self ereference make this difference?

I would think that there is an element of selfreference but i don't see it as part of the manipulation of the enviroment, how does your train of thought go?

I see humans as developing many stances, tools and survival skills prior to the advent of abstracted thoughts and references, so I am curious as to how your thoughts go in this direction?
By self-reference I am talking about the ability reinforce the interaction between the external and internal environments of some complex phenomenon, that has the ability to replicate itself in non-trivial ways.

Please look at my preliminary model http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf , which demonstrates the relationss between Cybernetic Efficiency, distinction, and consciousness.

[RandFan]

Likewise without those unconscious consequences I referred to “it won't keep working” either. Whether it works or not is irrelevant.

If the need for the continued functioning of “your head” for what we call consciousness is not a bizarre concept to you..."Bizarre concept"?

When you are unconscious it will. How will I know?

It was given to you before...You might think so but it wasn't.

Indeed the word “Meaning” is a construct of consciousness...Not just the word. Please to show meaning absent consciousness. You claim to have done that but I can't prove a negative. You've only explained that events take place whether or not there is consciousness. a.) You can't prove that. b.) You can't prove a material world. c.) You can't show meaning without consciousness.

....the inclusion of modifiers like “contemplate” and “perceive”. They are not modifiers. Words are used to convey meaning. I chose these words to convey meaning. That meaning can only be conveyed, understood, contemplated or perceived via consciousness.

Please to show meaning conveyed, contemplated or perceived without consciousness? What does it mean to say there is meaning without consciousness? It doesn't mean anything.

You are in essense saying that colors exist without light.

[doronshadmi]

It is going a bit too far just to suggest that conscious has to do whit anything. First of all you can not even define what is “conscious” in a restrict way. Suggesting it to be the main criteria to everything is just completely and utterly nonsense.
The universe was the universe long before you were here, and it will still be long after you are gone. It is totally indifferent either or not you realise anything in a conscious manner, or if you perceive events in a retroactive fashion appearing to be conscious but without you even realising them.
Unless it is not a 0,1 game, as suggested in http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4125175&postcount=84 .

[TMiguel]

TMiguel, I love you man, but easy there, dude.
My opinion may seam a bit extreme, but I’m not compliant whit people that have no notion of moral/ethics, and people that try to forces their nonsense on to other people by whatever means. Take the document ORGANIC MATHEMATICS for which he is co-author, special the following sections:
A favorite from amongst the questions asked of pre-school children is: "Are
there more Eyes, or more People?" The children's answers and explanations are
often surprising. For instance, one child explained that there are more people
because “people are bigger than eyes”. Another one explained that “there are more
people than eyes because people are more important”. It is important to really
listen to these answers even if some of them appear to be incorrect.
The fact that the children haven't yet been exposed to the formal education
systems - hence their thought process is free and unblemished – gave us the
feeling that the work with them could be utilized in our research.
We came to the conclusion that kindergarten children have a different way of
grasping concepts and a different way of thinking than do adults. While the socalled
"adult Mathematical thinking" is based mostly on Logic, children think in a
way that is balanced somewhere in-between logic, intuition, emotion and
imagination.

If you have any doubts about the term using kids could mean something else, the doubts fade away latter on the same papper.

Education: Mathematical Dialogs with pre-school children – Interaction between
child and adult. We believe that kindergarten is the natural environment for a
growing mind to be trained to think parallel AND serial simultaneously, where
Parallel thinking is more intuitive and Serial thinking is more analytical. In order
to be developed both ways are needed and Organic Mathematics is focused on the
educational methods that have to be developed in order to reinforce the bridging
between Intuition (parallel thinking) and Analysis (serial thinking).

I personally believe that my opinion was to kind.

[Hokulele]

Again you use dichotomy between Descartes and Tao.


Inability to distinguish and contrast multiple elements is guaranteed to lead to a failure of logic and/or the scientifc method.

In addition, your insistence on disagreeing with my statements rather than trying to determine the continuity between those and yours indicates an inflexible [0,1] mindset (dualism/not-dualism).

Im talking about Descartes\Tao interaction as complements of a one framework.


Please describe a Descartes/Tao interaction.

[doronshadmi]

Inability to distinguish and contrast multiple elements is guaranteed to lead to a failure of logic and/or the scientifc method.

In addition, your insistence on disagreeing with my statements rather than trying to determine the continuity between those and yours indicates an inflexible [0,1] mindset (dualism/not-dualism).




Please describe a Descartes/Tao interaction.

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/UR.pdf

[Hokulele]

Hmm, nothing on either Descartes or Taoism there.

[doronshadmi]

My opinion may seam a bit extreme, but I’m not compliant whit people that have no notion of moral/ethics, and people that try to forces their nonsense on to other people by whatever means. Take the document ORGANIC MATHEMATICS for which he is co-author, special the following sections:


If you have any doubts about the term using kids could mean something else, the doubts fade away latter on the same papper.



I personally believe that my opinion was to kind.

TMiguel,

You are off topic.

Again, by using the pedagogy of the unknown, the kid and the adult are both pupils and teachers of each other.

In other way, you have no idea about the thing that you are criticizing, in this case.

[doronshadmi]

Hmm, nothing on either Descartes or Taoism there.
Not by names but by notions.

[The Man]

Whether it works or not is irrelevant.

"Bizarre concept"?

How will I know?

You might think so but it wasn't.

Not just the word. Please to show meaning absent consciousness. You claim to have done that but I can't prove a negative. You've only explained that events take place whether or not there is consciousness. a.) You can't prove that. b.) You can't prove a material world. c.) You can't show meaning without consciousness.

Well that is what words do they represent things, some conscious and some not, one of the “meanings” that word is used to convey is “cause meaning effect”. If as you have asserted “Rocks exist and roll down hills a priori” and “The cause and effect are a priori” or with out conscious observation then the meaning of “rocks” “exist” “roll down hills” “cause”, “effect” and thus even “meaning” are the same given a lack of consciousness as given consciousness. Without consciousness only the ability to convey meanings goes away but meaning themselves, what the words were constructed to represent, remain.

You do not have to prove a negative just prove your assertion that “meaning” requires consciousness. So far you have mostly argued that the conception, contemplation, assessment, qualification and perception of “meaning” require consciousness, which I have not argued with. Then you’ve made an assertion that claims meaning (cause and effect) without consciousness.

a.) I do not have to, since it is what is consistent with the evidence. If you have a better way to explain the evidence please provide it.
b.) I do not have to, since it is what is consistent with the evidence. If you have a better way to explain the evidence please provide it.
c.) I do not have to, since it is what is consistent with the evidence and your more recent assertions. If you have a better way to explain the evidence and your more recent assertions please provide it.



They are not modifiers. Words are used to convey meaning. I chose these words to convey meaning. That meaning can only be conveyed, understood, contemplated or perceived via consciousness.

Indeed, but words are not the meanings that they convey but only represent them. Remember


This is not an answer to anything. It is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. You are engaging in fallacy. Flight isn't feathers and/or wings. A chair isn't wood and nails. That something is composed of constituent parts doesn't make the constituent parts the self same thing.

If constituent parts are not “the self same thing” then representations are not either. Without consciousness the word “chair” would not be able to convey meaning but the meaning that word represented, the chair itself, remains and has meaning or consequences (cause and effect). By later including words specifying only the conscious aspects of meaning you of course limit your relevance of meaning to what we call consciousness. Those words were not included in your original assertion that brought us to “meaning”.


No. You are playing the game. I'm talking about consequences that have meaning. You think there is significance to space time outside of the realm of consciousness. Significance is a human construct. That something happens doesn't mean that it is significant absent consciousness.

Their introduction was a modification of the applicability of “meaning” to specifically limit it to only your preferred conscious applications. If all you care to refer to now are the conveyance, conception, contemplation, qualification, assessment and/or perception of “meaning” requiring what we call consciousness, then I do not see an issue.



Please to show meaning conveyed, contemplated or perceived without consciousness?

I never made those claims, repeating them will not change that.


What does it mean to say there is meaning without consciousness?

I have said it before, if you need it repeated I’ll let you do it this time.



Rocks exist and roll down hills a priori. The cause and effect are a priori…


It doesn't mean anything.

It means just what you said. Also it means what I have said before that such “a priori” “cause and effect” enables what you choose to perceive as consciousness.



You are in essense saying that colors exist without light.

My car is blue that color is due to absorption, reflection and scattering properties of its surface, those properties do not change just because of the absence of light.

[TMiguel]

TMiguel,

You are off topic.

Again, by using the pedagogy of the unknown, the kid and the adult are both pupils and teachers of each other.

In other way, you have no idea about the thing that you are criticizing, in this case.

Because you do not realise the seriouse of your proposal, that is why I belive your place is in a mental hospital.

[calebprime]

It would be rather ironic if I reported you, because I agree that you know something about math, and I understand your frustration.

But attack the argument, not the poster--membership agreement.

It's particularly tempting to call a crank insane, but--how would you express it--they are just partially overlapping sets--the cranks and the insane, that is.

No, I get mad myself when someone pretends to use technical vocabulary about music that they don't understand.

But don't get yourself banned. We'd be down one good mind, and still be trying to figure out what the **** he's talking about.

eta: i shouldn't play mod. but I'm bothered by some JREF poster's naivete' about mental-health issues, and I don't like the accusation of real insanity as a rhetorical device--because mental illness and the suffering it causes is real.

carry on.

[RandFan]

My car is blue that color is due to absorption, reflection and scattering properties of its surface, those properties do not change just because of the absence of light.:rolleyes:

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Properties, in and of themself, do not color make. No light, no color.

You do not have to prove a negative just prove your assertion that “meaning” requires consciousness.There's nothing to prove. It's axiomatic. You can't have one without the other.

Demonstrate meaning sans consciousness. It can't be done. If you are unconscious you can't even make an argument.

[ddt]

It's particularly tempting to call a crank insane, but--how would you express it--they are just partially overlapping sets--the cranks and the insane, that is.

[...]

But don't get yourself banned. We'd be down one good mind, and still be trying to figure out what the **** he's talking about.

I second that. Don't get yourself banned, TMiguel! Don't attack the arguer. Don't even attack the argument - see Skeptic's advice in the Deeper than primes (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4124384#post4124384) thread.

TMiguel,

You are off topic.
Of course, your peddling of your PDF's is totally off-topic too. They're about mathematics, not about consciousness.

And it's obvious that Doron's "mathematical" theories are total crackpottery. He's been peddling them on various internet fora since begin 2003 and has never been able to explain them satisfactorily - not in 1600+ posts here, nor in 2600+ posts on IIDB, or in 458 posts on skepticalcommunity.com, or in 1800+ posts on physicsforums.com, or else. Various posters on those fora have tried to reason with him, to no avail. Laugh at him, ignore his arguments and he'll go away. Don't try to argue with him, it leads to nothing.

Read the post of Skeptic I linked to above, and the post after it.

And of course, it has nothing to do with consciousness either.

[The Man]

:rolleyes:

Your argument is fundamentally flawed. Properties, in and of themself, do not color make. No light, no color.

That was not the argument. The properties remain only your perception of them (what you perceive as color) is dependent on light.


There's nothing to prove. It's axiomatic. You can't have one without the other.

So pick the axiom you prefer and there is nothing to prove (including your axiom)?



Demonstrate meaning sans consciousness. It can't be done. If you are unconscious you can't even make an argument.

It is one of the meaning of “meaning” (your cause and effect a priori) but then why should you let one of the actual meanings of “meaning” stand in the way of your preferred axiom.

[RandFan]

That was not the argument. The properties remain only your perception of them (what you perceive as color) is dependent on light.You are moving the goal posts. Let's stick with my point.

RandFan
You are in essense saying that colors exist without light. That stands. Color does not exist without light.

So pick the axiom you prefer and there is nothing to prove (including your axiom)? Meaning is a construct of consciousness. It doesn't exist outside of consciousness.

It is one of the meaning of “meaning” (your cause and effect a priori) but then why should you let one of the actual meanings of “meaning” stand in the way of your preferred axiom.What are you talking about? There is no meaning without consciousness.

[TMiguel]

But don't get yourself banned. We'd be down one good mind, and still be trying to figure out what the **** he's talking about.

Good point. Some things just doesn't worth it.

[Twiler]

That stands. Color does not exist without light.

Isn't that arbitrary? You could also argue that colours only exist in human minds, so colours can't exist without humans. Alternatively, you could argue that the way objects reflect light of particular frequencies defines their colour, so that colours are emergent properties of objects, and don't require humans.

[Belz...]

This is why the unknowing, unfeeling, uncaring universe produces consciousness. It produces it infinitely.

It does ? Where ?

[Belz...]

Even if we assume that mater exists externaly from our minds it has no meaning outside of our minds. If no conscience ever existed, what would be the difference between something and nothing?

There would be a difference, just nobody around to appreciate it.

[Dancing David]

By self-reference I am talking about the ability reinforce the interaction between the external and internal environments of some complex phenomenon, that has the ability to replicate itself in non-trivial ways.

Please look at my preliminary model http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf , which demonstrates the relationss between Cybernetic Efficiency, distinction, and consciousness.

That is all well and good but if you would try to discuss it here in short form that would be helpful. Again communication would be facilitated.

You again are just asserting your own words, try to express them again in short form, it may help the communication of ideas, after all if you can't express them in a short form , it may help you to do so. I think you are probably engaging in high level abstraction without reference to biology and data. :)

[Dancing David]

TMiguel,

You are off topic.

Again, by using the pedagogy of the unknown, the kid and the adult are both pupils and teachers of each other.

In other way, you have no idea about the thing that you are criticizing, in this case.

Not by names but by notions.


You are avoiding answering direct questions, trying may help the communication.

:)

[westprog]

So, please show us even a single physical theory that enables to research something (macro or micro) by totally ignore the interactions between the observed and the observer.

There's no requirement that an observer be conscious.

[The Man]

You are moving the goal posts. Let's stick with my point.

Not at all, I am just relating your current point to the discussion at hand.


That stands. Color does not exist without light.

Color is just a perception, the firing of perhaps certain neurons in ones visual cortex. Such perception does not require light. I can visualize the color of my car and I dream in color (just as I sometimes perceive myself to be conscious while dreaming), hallucinations or hallucinogenic chemicals (so I’ve been told) can also stimulate the perception of color without light. As for the physical aspects of color it is just the physical properties of what we are seeing that we perceive as color, without light those properties do not go away but only our ability to perceive them (as color) does. Like most things it is not a simple answer as there are multiple aspects perhaps some physical and some mental (as with “meaning”). In the mental aspect color does not always require light, in the physical aspect light is required to perceive those physical properties of an object that we perceive as the color of that object, but those properties do not change in the absence of light.


Meaning is a construct of consciousness. It doesn't exist outside of consciousness.

Again it was consciously constructed to represent existence “outside of consciousness” (your cause and effect a priori).



What are you talking about? There is no meaning without consciousness.

You keep repeating that but have yet to provide any supporting examples, other then to just repeat it and call it “axiomatic”. I have given physiological, physical, linguistic examples and even your own assertions indicating “meaning without consciousness”. You can repeat your assertion as much as you what, whenever you choose to actually support it, then we might have something to discuss.


Isn't that arbitrary? You could also argue that colours only exist in human minds, so colours can't exist without humans. Alternatively, you could argue that the way objects reflect light of particular frequencies defines their colour, so that colours are emergent properties of objects, and don't require humans.

Pretty much, the perception of color is in our minds, but the source of that perception does not need to be, or can be entirely (as in a hallucination).




There would be a difference, just nobody around to appreciate it.

Precisely, Belz, and what started my current discussion with RandFan.

[rocketdodger]

Since the universe is the very epitome of existence, it follows that it must produce consciousness.

You are basically right, except that consciousness is reducible to the other fundamentals of our universe, so it becomes redundant to include it in any list of fundamentals.

[TMiguel]

There is one question that one needs to ask to address this point:
Would there be any difference in the world if the subject is conscious of what happens, or if he is not conscious but acts like it is?

[The Man]

There is one question that one needs to ask to address this point:
Would there be any difference in the world if the subject is conscious of what happens, or if he is not conscious but acts like it is?

Basically the foundation of Descartes’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes) Dreaming Doubt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreaming_doubt)

The end result is that if the dream is indistinguishable from reality you are really left with little choice then to treat it as reality. A dream treated as real has far fewer consequences (for you) then reality treated as a dream. It has been quite a while but I think Descartes came to a somewhat similar conclusion eventually, I’ll have to check or someone can correct me.



See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy

ETA:

After thinking about it I realized you might have been talking about things like sleep walking, or some of the side effects of current sleep medications Sleep driving, Sleep cooking and Sleep eating. These would probably be considered semi-conscious as opposed to unconscious. In RandFan’s consideration that might indicate that things, at the time, only have semi-meaning.

[rocketdodger]

There is one question that one needs to ask to address this point:
Would there be any difference in the world if the subject is conscious of what happens, or if he is not conscious but acts like it is?

Is there a difference between being conscious and acting like being conscious?

Oh god... here we go again...

[TMiguel]

Is there a difference between being conscious and acting like being conscious?

Oh god... here we go again...

Before you assert that something might be or might not, you must ask what difference it makes, or else you are not able to tell if it is or isn’t.

[Dancing David]

There is one question that one needs to ask to address this point:
Would there be any difference in the world if the subject is conscious of what happens, or if he is not conscious but acts like it is?


Nope. P-zombies are for philosophy only.

[TMiguel]

Nope. P-zombies are for philosophy only.

Then come up whit a good definition for conscious, or else it is all completely pointless.

[Dancing David]

Then come up whit a good definition for conscious, or else it is all completely pointless.

That is what i am saying, we can only define consciousness through behaviors, there is no entity we can label as 'consciousness' it is attributed through different processes and behaviors.

If something acts as though it is conscious, it is conscious.

P-zombies are a philosophical fantasy they are defined as exhibiting all the behaviors of consciousness, yet they are not conscious.

[The Man]

P-zombies are a philosophical fantasy they are defined as exhibiting all the behaviors of consciousness, yet they are not conscious.

Almost sounds like some of the people I work with.

[Dancing David]

Almost sounds like some of the people I work with.


"Unencumbered by the thought process"

Klick and Klack

[reverebison]

FOR EXISTENCE YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS.

This is the real theory of relativity. The heck with every motion being relative to the speed of light.

Everything is relative to consciousness. We cannot escape from this annoying reality. As Randfan brilliantly put it.....without consciousness, something and nothing become the same.

And the really good part is that everythng is relative to you. Yes you. You are the most important thing in your universe. Everything is seen through your eyes. Your thoughts are designed for you, depending on things of which you have no control....like your genetics. Your ability to reason is dependent upon your genetics, and if you can't reason well, you'd be the last to know it. Like you thinkers who try and argue the simple notion that existence is completely dependent on consciousness.

You are conscious, but you have no answer as to why. You think, in your delusion, completely free and independent. Yet in reality, you are a prisoner of your brain, something designed without your slightest input. You are not free. You were designed by the physical forces of the universe, you had no say in anything.

Everything is relative to your consciousness, the entire universe literally begins at your earliest recognition and ends with your last. Everything else you know, you know only when you are conscious.

You see, its all so relative.

[Hokulele]

As Randfan brilliantly put it.....without consciousness, something and nothing become the same.


No. See my comments regarding blindsight.

[JohnG]

Have you ever looked at your hand, man?








No, I mean REALLY looked at it.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Have you ever looked at your hand, man?








No, I mean REALLY looked at it.Awesome. I always aspired to become Dr. Fever. Somehow I can never quite get there. :)

[TMiguel]

FOR EXISTENCE YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS.

This is the real theory of relativity. The heck with every motion being relative to the speed of light.

Everything is relative to consciousness. We cannot escape from this annoying reality. As Randfan brilliantly put it.....without consciousness, something and nothing become the same.

(...)


I’m pretty certain that there is no scientific theory that uses conscious as part of it at all.
We are pretty sure the universe was here before us, and we are pretty sure that it will still be after we are gone. It is pretty selfish and egocentric tough to believe that the universe revolves around us, and that without us there is no universe.

[Belz...]

Maybe the biggest challenge is to under-stand how comparison is possible, in the first place.

What do you think?

I think you need to explain to what you'd compare the universe.

[Dancing David]

FOR EXISTENCE YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS.

Using caps doesn't help.

If you define existance as consciousness, then that is true, but you still haven't made your point.

To have awareness you might need some of the processes conflated with consciousness.


This is the real theory of relativity. The heck with every motion being relative to the speed of light.

Everything is relative to consciousness. We cannot escape from this annoying reality. As Randfan brilliantly put it.....without consciousness, something and nothing become the same.


Not really, awareness of relations, maybe.


And the really good part is that everythng is relative to you. Yes you. You are the most important thing in your universe. Everything is seen through your eyes.

Wow and I thought I was Captain Obvious.

Your thoughts are designed for you, depending on things of which you have no control....like your genetics. Your ability to reason is dependent upon your genetics, and if you can't reason well, you'd be the last to know it. Like you thinkers who try and argue the simple notion that existence is completely dependent on consciousness.

Watch out for wet paper bags, I would hate for you to get trapped.


You are conscious, but you have no answer as to why.

You still have yet to deine that term, why not try?

You think, in your delusion, completely free and independent.

So free will may be an illusion, so?

Yet in reality, you are a prisoner of your brain, something designed without your slightest input. You are not free. You were designed by the physical forces of the universe, you had no say in anything.

Um, the word design has implications you haven't demonstrated yet.


Everything is relative to your consciousness, the entire universe literally begins at your earliest recognition and ends with your last. Everything else you know, you know only when you are conscious.

You see, its all so relative.

Awareness of existance and the potential for things to exist are different?

But please continue to make the worst impression possible.

[The Man]

<snip>

And the really good part is that everythng is relative to you. Yes you. You are the most important thing in your universe. Everything is seen through your eyes. Your thoughts are designed for you, depending on things of which you have no control....like your genetics. Your ability to reason is dependent upon your genetics, and if you can't reason well, you'd be the last to know it. Like you thinkers who try and argue the simple notion that existence is completely dependent on consciousness.

<snip>



Actually the “really good part is that” we are able to consider things relative to someone or something else besides just ourselves or our own perspective. We do not have to be “the most important thing in your universe” if we choose not to be. We will not be the first to understand that we “can't reason well” because it has long been evident that, well, we don’t reason well. So we use tools, common notation or languages, verification, peer review and other methods to help ensure the applicability of our reasoning. In doing so we can in fact gain some control of the things we may now reason that we do not have or can not control.

[rocketdodger]

FOR EXISTENCE YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS.

Not really. Its more like "for the existence of my consciousness I must have consciousness." Well duh.

You are conscious, but you have no answer as to why. You think, in your delusion, completely free and independent. Yet in reality, you are a prisoner of your brain, something designed without your slightest input. You are not free. You were designed by the physical forces of the universe, you had no say in anything.

Not really. Many of us here know exactly what our consciousness is and where it comes from. Neither are we prisoners of our brains -- they can change, or we can build new ones to help where ours fail.

Everything is relative to your consciousness, the entire universe literally begins at your earliest recognition and ends with your last. Everything else you know, you know only when you are conscious.

Not really. For the universe to "begin" with our earliest perception would require us to adjust our notion of "start" and "end" to be observer relative. But they aren't. You wouldn't arrive late at a race and say "the race is now beginning," you would say "I am now beginning to see the race which was already in progress."

[doronshadmi]

There's no requirement that an observer be conscious.
Some machine is an agent of some observer. Also consciousness is not (in my opinion) a 0,1 game.

[TMiguel]

Some machine is an agent of some observer. Also consciousness is not (in my opinion) a 0,1 game.

So is everything in the universe, and that doesn’t bring us closer to an answer.
Are you trying to suggest that some how your molecules that composes your body has some kind of preferential treatment in relation to everything else in the universe?

[Dancing David]

Some machine is an agent of some observer. Also consciousness is not (in my opinion) a 0,1 game.

That still makes no sense, please do not refer me to another website. In simple terms what do you mean by that ? Please use the language of biology.

BTW consciousness does not exist, it a a rubric for a bunch of seperate and conjoined processes. It is like the mind, an antiquated word with excessive baggage.

[doronshadmi]

That still makes no sense, please do not refer me to another website. In simple terms what do you mean by that ? Please use the language of biology.

BTW consciousness does not exist, it a a rubric for a bunch of seperate and conjoined processes. It is like the mind, an antiquated word with excessive baggage.

Consciousness is a self-reference degree of relation\element interaction.

[TMiguel]

Consciousness is a self-reference degree of relation\element interaction.

Meaningless statement.

[rocketdodger]

BTW consciousness does not exist, it a a rubric for a bunch of seperate and conjoined processes. It is like the mind, an antiquated word with excessive baggage.

What? I think you didn't put Nick227 on ignore soon enough -- you sound just like him!

Of course consciousness exists. To say otherwise is like saying "rational numbers don't actually exist, it is merely a rubric for the ratio of two integers."

You probably mean "consciousness isn't what most people think it is... it is a rubric for ...." but that doesn't mean we should get rid of the term -- it is a very useful term if for no reason other than it is much easier to say 'consciousness' than 'the processes and behaviors that uneducated people might call consciousness.'

[Hokulele]

I am pretty sure Dancing David is talking about consciousness not existing as a discrete entity. Rather like the fact that the mind does not exist as an object, but rather as a concept or property.

[Dancing David]

Consciousness is a self-reference degree of relation\element interaction.

You wish!

You are still not even trying.

So the thought "I see red." is what?

So the perception of the color red is what?

You need to start over, sorry, you are still talking in words and phrases that only have meaning for you.

So chose a scenarion, and explain , step by step what these high level absracted disembodied concepts you use mean.
"Standing by a lake, looking at the sunset and the reflection in the water, I experience a sense of contentment."

Now try tpo parse out that as a chain of events without resorting to high level abstractions that have private meaning.

There are the events of 'consciousness' they do not combine to make some magical mish mosh that suddenly has an extra added value. You keep asserting things without any demonstration of the facts.

So please avoid the set [0,1] because it doesn't have any communication in it.

1. There are sensations of an organic body, they include the vestibular, kinesthetic, touch, auditory, olfactory, visual, taste and surface touch.

2. There is the mish mosh of signals called emotions which are partly body states , partly associative conditioning and partly cognitive frameworks. These are all processes in an organic body.

3. There are the thoughts (verbal cognition, associative connections, intutions, conjectures) and rteconstrcutive memories of the organic body.

4. There are the perceptions which are created preconsciously , with focusing and awareness thrown in with some volition.

5. There are the habits which include associations, software patterns and conditioning.

So the body exists by the lake, it has sensations which are turned into perceptions, there are thoughst emotions and habits.

But no where does magical thingamabob arise which is greater than the parts, they dance withe ach other, they interact withe ach other. But they are what they are , exactly, there is no greater.

[Dancing David]

What? I think you didn't put Nick227 on ignore soon enough -- you sound just like him!

Of course consciousness exists. To say otherwise is like saying "rational numbers don't actually exist, it is merely a rubric for the ratio of two integers."

You probably mean "consciousness isn't what most people think it is... it is a rubric for ...." but that doesn't mean we should get rid of the term -- it is a very useful term if for no reason other than it is much easier to say 'consciousness' than 'the processes and behaviors that uneducated people might call consciousness.'

Consciousness exists about as much as the 'orchestra', it is a loose association of different parts, but mainly a semantic grab bag of foolsih notions.

rational numbers can be defined as can the processes of consciousness, what can not be defined is the magical garbage associated with the processes conflated with consciousness.

It can be useful, until you encounter all the archaic magical association placed upon it, then it is no longer useful.

[doronshadmi]

You wish!

You are still not even trying.

So the thought "I see red." is what?

So the perception of the color red is what?

You need to start over, sorry, you are still talking in words and phrases that only have meaning for you.

So chose a scenarion, and explain , step by step what these high level absracted disembodied concepts you use mean.
"Standing by a lake, looking at the sunset and the reflection in the water, I experience a sense of contentment."

Now try tpo parse out that as a chain of events without resorting to high level abstractions that have private meaning.

There are the events of 'consciousness' they do not combine to make some magical mish mosh that suddenly has an extra added value. You keep asserting things without any demonstration of the facts.

So please avoid the set [0,1] because it doesn't have any communication in it.

1. There are sensations of an organic body, they include the vestibular, kinesthetic, touch, auditory, olfactory, visual, taste and surface touch.

2. There is the mish mosh of signals called emotions which are partly body states , partly associative conditioning and partly cognitive frameworks. These are all processes in an organic body.

3. There are the thoughts (verbal cognition, associative connections, intutions, conjectures) and rteconstrcutive memories of the organic body.

4. There are the perceptions which are created preconsciously , with focusing and awareness thrown in with some volition.

5. There are the habits which include associations, software patterns and conditioning.

So the body exists by the lake, it has sensations which are turned into perceptions, there are thoughst emotions and habits.

But no where does magical thingamabob arise which is greater than the parts, they dance withe ach other, they interact withe ach other. But they are what they are , exactly, there is no greater.
Dancing David,

I see that you like to understand things in terms of Dancing.

So 'consciousness' is dancing that is aware of its dance.

I call that Dancing REI (Relation\Element Interaction), which is the Minimal Accepted Form that enables to dance (research) in the first place.

Your personal dancing in the universe cannot fully be shared by other dancers.

[TMiguel]

Dancing David,

I see that you like to understand things in terms of Dancing.

So 'consciousness' is dancing that is aware of its dance.
Dancing in less aware of himself then a rock is aware of the history of teapots, specially because it is an abstract form, a simple word to describe the intrinsic set of actions of a social event of moving to the sound of music that we ended up to describe it has dance.

I call that Dancing REI (Relation\Element Interaction), which is the Minimal Accepted Form that enables to dance (research) in the first place.
Once again you are compelled to use words and terms to state properties that you don’t fully understand or even know what it is.
May you realise or not, your statement doesn’t add up to any minimal reason expected from a sane person. The sentence makes has much has less sense then sentence “Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla Bla”.

Your personal dancing in the universe cannot fully be shared by other dancers.
Only a person like you could have possibly mixed up dance, the universe, conscious and gibberish in to one single set of ideas.

[Dysphemist]

Have only read the first page...

Didn't Orwell cover this 1984? - Choosing what exists and what doesn't, using the mind. (I hope the topic hasn't diverged too much since page 1)

[Belz...]

Consciousness exists about as much as the 'orchestra', it is a loose association of different parts, but mainly a semantic grab bag of foolsih notions.

So... nothing exists except elementary particles ?

[Dancing David]

Dancing David,

I see that you like to understand things in terms of Dancing.

So 'consciousness' is dancing that is aware of its dance.

I call that Dancing REI (Relation\Element Interaction), which is the Minimal Accepted Form that enables to dance (research) in the first place.

Your personal dancing in the universe cannot fully be shared by other dancers.

So you still can't state your position, I ask again , try to explain yourself in common language.

Apparently you believe that abstracted terms have a priori preference of some sort and no apparent relation to observable and testable events.

try using the common language of biology.

[Dancing David]

Have only read the first page...

Didn't Orwell cover this 1984? - Choosing what exists and what doesn't, using the mind. (I hope the topic hasn't diverged too much since page 1)


Welcome geneee!

There are three levels here, there are the events of relity, there are the perceptions of relity and there are the communications of reality.

To some extent the third influences the second, but not the first.

[rocketdodger]

Consciousness exists about as much as the 'orchestra', it is a loose association of different parts, but mainly a semantic grab bag of foolsih notions.

rational numbers can be defined as can the processes of consciousness, what can not be defined is the magical garbage associated with the processes conflated with consciousness.

It can be useful, until you encounter all the archaic magical association placed upon it, then it is no longer useful.

So then try to get rid of the archaic magical associations.

I really don't like this push to abandon perfectly useful words because the uneducated don't fully understand their definitions.

[Dancing David]

So then try to get rid of the archaic magical associations.

I really don't like this push to abandon perfectly useful words because the uneducated don't fully understand their definitions.

try to find a defintion then, have at it.

Most people will come out with garbage, I expect you will not, then consensus may occur.

Consciousness is a vertible grab bag of items, I think your defintion may prove useful.

See ,ost people get stuck in some phrase like 'self awareness' but they have no idea what they are talking about. Usually perceptions....

[rocketdodger]

try to find a defintion then, have at it.

Most people will come out with garbage, I expect you will not, then consensus may occur.

Consciousness is a vertible grab bag of items, I think your defintion may prove useful.

See ,ost people get stuck in some phrase like 'self awareness' but they have no idea what they are talking about. Usually perceptions....

"whatever is going on in the heads of you and I when we are not unconscious"

[Hokulele]

"whatever is going on in the heads of you and I when we are not unconscious"


Considering that a great deal of what goes on inside my head when I am not unconscious is subconscious, meh.

[doronshadmi]

So you still can't state your position, I ask again , try to explain yourself in common language.

Apparently you believe that abstracted terms have a priori preference of some sort and no apparent relation to observable and testable events.

try using the common language of biology.

Dancing David, you are the one who wrote:

But no where does magical thingamabob arise which is greater than the parts, they dance withe ach other, they interact withe ach other. But they are what they are , exactly, there is no greater.
I agree with you, any researchable thing is at least relations between parts ( for example: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4054871&postcount=2116 ), and this Relation\Element Interaction is the only researchable dance.

If Relation\Element Interaction is aware (refers) of itself, it is called consciousness, where consciousness is not an 0,1 game.

[Dancing David]

"whatever is going on in the heads of you and I when we are not unconscious"


Oh, i was hoping for better than that.

Um, that is like saying that the car engine 'is all the processes in a car when it is not turned off', you were saying it was a useful term.

Levels of consciousness/awareness or levels of arousal is a different subject from what people generaly refer to as 'consciousness'. And in fact i went through something recently where I was given a benzodiazeoine, apparently I was able to respond to requests, but have only vague dream like memories of the time.

So part of what is consciousness, the ability to [process and respond to verbal requests was present but another part of consciousness, the ability to form memories, was not.

[Dancing David]

Any researchable things is always the relationship between parts.

There is nothing else, consciousness only exists as a series of behaviors (which includes non-conscious and preconscious processes) that we define as being 'conscious'.

[doronshadmi]

Any researchable things is always the relationship between parts.

There is nothing else, consciousness only exists as a series of behaviors (which includes non-conscious and preconscious processes) that we define as being 'conscious'.
Each Element in this particular model is a distinct Self Reference (SF) that has an exact location along The Self State (TSS), which is not at Self Reference (SR).

By this model no collection of Elements exists without TSS\SR Interaction, where each SR is the local aspect and TSS (that is not at SR state) is the non-local aspect of this Interaction.

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TSSSREAL.jpg

Each SR intersection has cardinal 1.


Cardinal 0 (which is a value some Element) is no SR intersection of TSS\SR Interaction:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TSSSR0.jpg



No collection of SR's can be TSS and any collection is not less than TSS (Non-locality) \ SR (Locality) Interaction.

Any collection (which is TSS\SR Interaction) is stronger than SR-only and weaker than TSS-only.

Therefore no collection is complete, and consciousness, which is the result of TSS\SR Interaction, is opened for further development.

[TMiguel]

Each Element in this particular model is a distinct Self Reference (SF) that has an exact location along The Self State (TSS), which is not at Self Reference (SR).
Meaningless. Reference is an indication, and index to a particular something. Self reference is the same has saying that it points out to himself. State is commonly referred has a collection of different aspects to describe how currently the collective object is, therefore impersonal. Self State is not only meaningless but also contradictory.

By this model no collection of Elements exists without TSS\SR Interaction, where each SR is the local aspect and TSS (that is not at SR state) is the non-local aspect of this Interaction.
In fact I just showed you that such can not possibly be true, has the statement itself is contradicting and nonsensical.

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TSSSREAL.jpg

Each SR intersection has cardinal 1.

This is a perfect example on how not to engage in a logical analysis, first you present a pointless diagram that confuse a “tangent function of determined point of a circle with a line” with “locality” (that by the way could not in any case be applied here).
Then you talk about cardinality (a notion that you don’t know what it is) and mix it whit the already nonsensical statement you already have.

Cardinal 0 (which is a value some Element) is no SR intersection of TSS\SR Interaction:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TSSSR0.jpg

Then you continue along whit the same mistakes, obviously a well embedded mistake in your head.


No collection of SR's can be TSS and any collection is not less than TSS (Non-locality) \ SR (Locality) Interaction.

Any collection (which is TSS\SR Interaction) is stronger than SR-only and weaker than TSS-only.
More nonsense, already explained.

Therefore no collection is complete, and consciousness, which is the result of TSS\SR Interaction, is opened for further development.
Then you come to a conclusion without any relation using statements that are by themselves nonsensical, and you think you have done anything interesting.

Now here is an important question: WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WHIT THE TOPIC AT HAND?

[doronshadmi]

Now here is an important question: WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WHIT THE TOPIC AT HAND?
Try to define consciousness by totally avoid self-reference (which is essential for Cybernetics http://www.pangaro.com/published/cyber-macmillan.html ).

[TMiguel]

Try to define consciousness by totally avoid self-reference.

I just showed you how big a nonsense that is.

[doronshadmi]

I just showed you how big a nonsense that is.
You have showed your current ignorence about this subject, that's all.

Please learn more at http://www.pangaro.com/published/cyber-macmillan.html .

[TMiguel]

You have showed your current ignorence about this subject, that's all.
Your inability to present a coherent sentence to mean anything at all is not in any way a proof of my ignorance, but rather yours.

Please learn more at http://www.pangaro.com/published/cyber-macmillan.html .
Another one of your links to no where. Pointless.
When you are unable to argue it is a very common practice for you to ratter blame some one else lack of knowledge and redirect to some where else pointless to the subject, that adds nothing at all. And you tell other people to “go learn” on the subject that you are incapable to understand or even give a coherent answer, while it is you who failed to answer the question and to present your own point.

[Polgara]

Rand Fan: By God you get it man. I could not have said anything better myself. Now I don't want to laud you too much as unpopular as I am with these thinkers, that might give you a bad name. And I am not saying you agree with me. But at lease you understand what I am saying. the other thinkers just don't.

Nothing just happens without an ultimate explanation. There is a logical explanation for everything that happens in our universe. Eventually we will discover the why gravity happens and why there are subatomic forces. We know zilch now.

There is a reason for consciousness. existence and consciousness are married. Consciousness doesnt just happen anymore than gravity does. And the universe produces consciousness, not out of accident.

Thinkers.....Understand this....in the universe, accidents don't exist.


The fact that there may have been times in our universe when no consciousness existed, means nothing. The fact that you are now conscious does. The fact that conciousness ever existed at all means everything.

Putting on my seatbelt, and breaking out some popcorn, for the ride.

[Polgara]

Yes. Look closer at the statment. It's an existential statement. I know it appears contradictory and a bit of a "depnds on what the definition of 'is' is".



Even if we assume that mater exists externaly from our minds it has no meaning outside of our minds. If no conscience ever existed, what would be the difference between something and nothing?

There would be no one around to identify, label and debate its existence.

[Dancing David]

Each Element in this particular model is a distinct Self Reference (SF) that has an exact location along The Self State (TSS), which is not at Self Reference (SR).

By this model no collection of Elements exists without TSS\SR Interaction, where each SR is the local aspect and TSS (that is not at SR state) is the non-local aspect of this Interaction.

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TSSSREAL.jpg

Each SR intersection has cardinal 1.


Cardinal 0 (which is a value some Element) is no SR intersection of TSS\SR Interaction:

http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/TSSSR0.jpg



No collection of SR's can be TSS and any collection is not less than TSS (Non-locality) \ SR (Locality) Interaction.

Any collection (which is TSS\SR Interaction) is stronger than SR-only and weaker than TSS-only.

Therefore no collection is complete, and consciousness, which is the result of TSS\SR Interaction, is opened for further development.


Okay, that is not common language, nor does it use reference to biology and functioning organic beings, try using common language.

the use of 'non-local' is undefined and looks even worse that what you probably mean.

try reading some texts on psychology and neurobiology.

It sure looks like you are using some magical references there. That may not be your intent.

[Dancing David]

Try to define consciousness by totally avoid self-reference (which is essential for Cybernetics http://www.pangaro.com/published/cyber-macmillan.html ).


So you can't explain your own concepts in common language, or the language of biology.

Do you really understand your own concepts enough to explain them?

[Dancing David]

You have showed your current ignorence about this subject, that's all.

Please learn more at http://www.pangaro.com/published/cyber-macmillan.html .


You have shown that you can link to other web sites, you have not demonstrated that you can explain your own concepts.

try to explain you semsantics in terms that are commonly used and use if need the coomon terms of biology. It looks like magic hoohah at this point, which is not your intentian, but before I ask Jeff Corey or mercutio to come in here: it would help if you were using language and terminology that has meaning to all of us.

My mother taught writing for many years here is what she says
"If you can't write something clearly, you can't think about it clearly. If you can't write about something clearly, how do you know what you think?"

I am suspicious of your inability to use common language and especialy your avoidance of the language of biology. It looks as though you are using a private idiom taht has meaning for you, but i am not sure what it means.

Why do you avoid the language of common usage and resort to these magic looking phrases like, non-local.

the reference in the brain is called 'associative learning' or 'conditioning", it happens in the neurons and the neural networks. the 'reference' in the system occurs in the system as a result of exposure to other situations, this becomes part of the patterns of neural firings. It all happens inside the head and specificaly in brain processes, so why use the term 'non-local' , it is ALL local to the brain.

You should find another term. Do you mean past reference to history, as stored in the biology of the brain?

Explain what you mean by 'non-local', use common language and the language of biology.

[John Freestone]

I have read this whole thread very patiently and with great concentration, and would just like to point out the difference between 'then' and 'than', which, as any fool can see, is that the first has an 'e' and the second an 'a'. What seems less obvious is that 'then' has meanings such as 'afterwards' (as in 'I then smashed myself in the head with a hammer') or 'this implies' (as in 'If I smash myself in the head with a hammer then I may get your point), though personally I consider this an ugly use, and many such sentences make equal sense without it, whereas 'than' is used to relate two qualities or quantities (as in 'you are much more insane than I thought').

Oh, by the way, TMiguel, you keep typing 'whit' when you mean 'with', and could the whole wide world please learn that 'phenomenon' is singular, 'phenomena' plural. I sometimes think that if I did a statistical analysis of the text on all forums on the Internet, these would be used wrongly more often than not.

I just didn't want the afternoon to be completely wasted. ;)

[TMiguel]

Oh, by the way, TMiguel, you keep typing 'whit' when you mean 'with',

I have a few key reversal problems and the "what", "where" and "when" kind of automated in my brained "wh" have to go hand in hand, I’m trying to fix that.

But thx for the heads up.

[doronshadmi]

You have shown that you can link to other web sites, you have not demonstrated that you can explain your own concepts.

try to explain you semsantics in terms that are commonly used and use if need the coomon terms of biology. It looks like magic hoohah at this point, which is not your intentian, but before I ask Jeff Corey or mercutio to come in here: it would help if you were using language and terminology that has meaning to all of us.

My mother taught writing for many years here is what she says
"If you can't write something clearly, you can't think about it clearly. If you can't write about something clearly, how do you know what you think?"

I am suspicious of your inability to use common language and especialy your avoidance of the language of biology. It looks as though you are using a private idiom taht has meaning for you, but i am not sure what it means.

Why do you avoid the language of common usage and resort to these magic looking phrases like, non-local.

the reference in the brain is called 'associative learning' or 'conditioning", it happens in the neurons and the neural networks. the 'reference' in the system occurs in the system as a result of exposure to other situations, this becomes part of the patterns of neural firings. It all happens inside the head and specificaly in brain processes, so why use the term 'non-local' , it is ALL local to the brain.

You should find another term. Do you mean past reference to history, as stored in the biology of the brain?

Explain what you mean by 'non-local', use common language and the language of biology.

About Non-locality and Locality please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf

[ddt]

About Non-locality and Locality please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf

You've introduced that "paper" in the "Deeper than primes" thread so why bring it up here? Why don't you answer the questions raised in that thread?

And the "non-locality" theme, you've brought that up numerous times in nearly every thread you started, and you've never been able to clarify it.

Hint: don't download the "paper", don't try to read it, it's a load of nonsense.

[John Freestone]

Oh, go on then...something other than grammar...

I'm intruiged by RandFan and The Man's semantic battle over - as I see it - first existence, then the conscious apprehension of existence, then the meaning of events, then the apprehension of meaning, even the 'meaning' of 'meaning' (one of my favourite subjects!)...and I'm reminded that someone predicted at the beginning an infinite regression appearing somewhere. I kind of see both arguments regarding whether 'meaning' has any 'meaning' without consciousness or not, but they're utterly dependent, to my mind, simply on semantics, i.e. meaning, i.e. however the terms are defined. The Man seems to be able to equate meaning of events with their happening whether observed or not, by apparently associating 'meaning' very closely with 'cause and effect'. That's reasonable if that's how you see it. RandFan - or was it the other way round, forgive me if so - sees 'meaning' as an effect or property of consciousness. Is that right? I have to say that I define 'meaning' in that sense myself, so I'm with RandFan on that.

However, RandFan, I'm rather baffled by your other argument, that there is no difference between existence and non-existence without consciousness. I accept, of course, that in order to describe or perceive any difference, there has to be an observer or describer, and therefore that 'I' exists in order to make that distinction, but it also seems that (even using my current state of consciousness to do so) I can imagine a state of the universe in which things happen and things exist, and that in other places things don't happen that way, or things don't exist there - the earlier universe people have been talking about before the emergence of consciousness. I can only make sense of your argument so far in these two ways: that because I had to use consciousness to imagine that scenario, the earlier supposed existence of anything can't be thought or proven (i.e. to think or prove is an act of consciousness), or by saying that any 'meaning' or indeed 'existence' of anything depends on it having ulimately producing conscious beings. I can't find either explanation at all convincing compared with the customary one: there existed a universe, and then consciousness developed in it.

By self-reference I am talking about the ability reinforce the interaction between the external and internal environments of some complex phenomenon, that has the ability to replicate itself in non-trivial ways.

Please look at my preliminary model http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/MonadCK.pdf , which demonstrates the relationss between Cybernetic Efficiency, distinction, and consciousness.That's a pretty picture. Does it signify anything? I tend to suspect not. Organic Natural Number 5?

FOR EXISTENCE YOU MUST HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS.

This is the real theory of relativity. The heck with every motion being relative to the speed of light.

Everything is relative to consciousness. We cannot escape from this annoying reality. As Randfan brilliantly put it.....without consciousness, something and nothing become the same.

And the really good part is that everythng is relative to you. Yes you. You are the most important thing in your universe. Everything is seen through your eyes. Your thoughts are designed for you, depending on things of which you have no control....like your genetics. Your ability to reason is dependent upon your genetics, and if you can't reason well, you'd be the last to know it. Like you thinkers who try and argue the simple notion that existence is completely dependent on consciousness.

You are conscious, but you have no answer as to why. You think, in your delusion, completely free and independent. Yet in reality, you are a prisoner of your brain, something designed without your slightest input. You are not free. You were designed by the physical forces of the universe, you had no say in anything.

Everything is relative to your consciousness, the entire universe literally begins at your earliest recognition and ends with your last. Everything else you know, you know only when you are conscious.

You see, its all so relative.That all seems quite self-denying - one minute everything exists relative to my consciousness, the next I'm here because I was 'designed' by the forces of the universe. Nonsense.

About Non-locality and Locality please look at http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/OM.pdf

Well, I'll have a bit more of a read, but I'm not hoping too much after reading this: "The Mathematician is part of the world of phenomena, where thoughts are influenced by the thinkers from whom they emanate."

True, true...

[RandFan]

Color is just a perception, the firing of perhaps certain neurons in ones visual cortex. Such perception does not require light. I can visualize the color of my car and I dream in color (just as I sometimes perceive myself to be conscious while dreaming), hallucinations or hallucinogenic chemicals (so I’ve been told) can also stimulate the perception of color without light. Valid points. Not meaning to move goal posts but this is the biggest flaw in your argument in that we can't even prove that the material world exists in the first place. If we can experience everything without materialism then there might not even be a material world. But I'm happy to stick with my argument.

Let's stick with the material world. Yes. There is no color without perception but there is no electro magnetic waves that will cause us to perceive color without light.

And of course, this brings us back around to my claim and you are making my argument for me. Color is only a perception. By your own argument, without perception (consciousness) there is no color.

You keep repeating that but have yet to provide any supporting examples...You don't have any? Really? Come on dude. That's just being willfully obtuse.


Cogito ergo sum. We can argue the "I" and that is fine but we can't argue whether there is some thinking going on.

You are conscious.
Because you are conscious you are capable of perceiving meaning.
Sans any conscious being there is no meaning.

[RandFan]

However, RandFan, I'm rather baffled by your other argument, that there is no difference between existence and non-existence without consciousness. I accept, of course, that in order to describe or perceive any difference, there has to be an observer or describer, and therefore that 'I' exists in order to make that distinction, but it also seems that (even using my current state of consciousness to do so) I can imagine a state of the universe in which things happen and things exist, and that in other places things don't happen that way, or things don't exist there - the earlier universe people have been talking about before the emergence of consciousness. I can only make sense of your argument so far in these two ways: that because I had to use consciousness to imagine that scenario, the earlier supposed existence of anything can't be thought or proven (i.e. to think or prove is an act of consciousness), or by saying that any 'meaning' or indeed 'existence' of anything depends on it having ulimately producing conscious beings. I can't find either explanation at all convincing compared with the customary one: there existed a universe, and then consciousness developed in it.(emphasis mine) Excellent post. I said early on it is largely a POV.

What is "difference"? Isn't that an observed quantity? Differences can only be stated on the basis of a comparison or categorization. Right?

If we assume that there is nothing to perform the comparing and/or categorizing then please to tell me what difference there is? It always comes back to the fact that you have to imagine the difference. No imagination? No difference.

[Hokulele]

(emphasis mine) Excellent post. I said early on it is largely a POV.

What is "difference"? Isn't that an observed quantity? Differences can only be stated on the basis of a comparison or categorization. Right?

If we assume that there is nothing to perform the comparing and/or categorizing then please to tell me what difference there is? It always comes back to the fact that you have to imagine the difference. No imagination? No difference.


If by difference you mean a value judgement, then I agree. If you simply mean differentiating, I disagree. Tricky's favorite example of sedimentary self-sorting in streams comes to mind.

[The Man]

Oh, go on then...something other than grammar...

I'm intruiged by RandFan and The Man's semantic battle over - as I see it - first existence, then the conscious apprehension of existence, then the meaning of events, then the apprehension of meaning, even the 'meaning' of 'meaning' (one of my favourite subjects!)...and I'm reminded that someone predicted at the beginning an infinite regression appearing somewhere. I kind of see both arguments regarding whether 'meaning' has any 'meaning' without consciousness or not, but they're utterly dependent, to my mind, simply on semantics, i.e. meaning, i.e. however the terms are defined. The Man seems to be able to equate meaning of events with their happening whether observed or not, by apparently associating 'meaning' very closely with 'cause and effect'. That's reasonable if that's how you see it. RandFan - or was it the other way round, forgive me if so - sees 'meaning' as an effect or property of consciousness. Is that right? I have to say that I define 'meaning' in that sense myself, so I'm with RandFan on that.

However, RandFan, I'm rather baffled by your other argument, that there is no difference between existence and non-existence without consciousness. I accept, of course, that in order to describe or perceive any difference, there has to be an observer or describer, and therefore that 'I' exists in order to make that distinction, but it also seems that (even using my current state of consciousness to do so) I can imagine a state of the universe in which things happen and things exist, and that in other places things don't happen that way, or things don't exist there - the earlier universe people have been talking about before the emergence of consciousness. I can only make sense of your argument so far in these two ways: that because I had to use consciousness to imagine that scenario, the earlier supposed existence of anything can't be thought or proven (i.e. to think or prove is an act of consciousness), or by saying that any 'meaning' or indeed 'existence' of anything depends on it having ulimately producing conscious beings. I can't find either explanation at all convincing compared with the customary one: there existed a universe, and then consciousness developed in it.



A fine synapses of the discussion, John Freestone, without detracting from the ‘meaning’ of that discussion, and RandFan’s augment that baffled you was what began our discussion. Which is all I was essentially arguing but I just followed were the semantics of the discussion went. I do notice that in spite of your ascription to the ‘meaning’ of ‘meaning’ as professed by RandFan, you use precisely the argument I was using, in both cases, equating existence with “things happen”, even without consciousness, something RandFan did not assert directly yet still implied with his affirmation of cause and effect without consciousness. The primary difference is I never asserted my position as the correct or only one and even asserted that the two positions on the ‘meaning’ of ‘meaning’ were not necessarily mutually exclusive, but just as an arguable position on something RandFan continually asserted as inarguable.


If one asserts that the ‘meaning’ of ‘meaning’ is not “utterly dependent, to my mind, simply on semantics, i.e. meaning, i.e.” then one must be confused about the meaning of semantics or mean something other then the ‘meaning’ of ‘meaning’.

[The Man]

Valid points. Not meaning to move goal posts but this is the biggest flaw in your argument in that we can't even prove that the material world exists in the first place. If we can experience everything without materialism then there might not even be a material world. But I'm happy to stick with my argument.

Ah but that is not a flaw in the argument, but essential to the argument. Were the material world provable one way or the other then there would be little to argue about.


Let's stick with the material world. Yes. There is no color without perception but there is no electro magnetic waves that will cause us to perceive color without light.

And of course, this brings us back around to my claim and you are making my argument for me. Color is only a perception. By your own argument, without perception (consciousness) there is no color.

You don't have any? Really? Come on dude. That's just being willfully obtuse.

Ok first you want to “stick with the material world” then you argue that I am making your argument for you because “Color is only a perception”. Talk about moving the goalpost. Perception and the material world, these are the aspects of color. If you do not know where the goal post actually are (usually on both sides of the field) then you should not attempt a field goal.





Cogito ergo sum. We can argue the "I" and that is fine but we can't argue whether there is some thinking going on.

You are conscious.
Because you are conscious you are capable of perceiving meaning.
Sans any conscious being there is no meaning.



Nope, there is just no perception of meaning.

[The Man]

(emphasis mine) Excellent post. I said early on it is largely a POV.

What is "difference"? Isn't that an observed quantity? Differences can only be stated on the basis of a comparison or categorization. Right?

If we assume that there is nothing to perform the comparing and/or categorizing then please to tell me what difference there is? It always comes back to the fact that you have to imagine the difference. No imagination? No difference.

Not necessarily difference is exemplified in cause and effect. When forces are opposing and equal the effect tends to be compression (and no net force). When not equal or there is a “difference” between opposing forces then a net force is the result, in some cases cause and effect can be the non-conscious expression of difference.

[RandFan]

Ah but that is not a flaw in the argument, but essential to the argument. Were the material world provable one way or the other then there would be little to argue about.Stating that it is essential to the argument is just gainsaying. You are not advancing anything here.

Ok first you want to “stick with the material world” then you argue that I am making your argument for you because “Color is only a perception”.Yes, and that is consistent with an acceptance of a material world. No moving of goal posts. According to you, without perception of color there is only electromagnetic radiation. No color.

Talk about moving the goalpost. Perception and the material world, these are the aspects of color. If you do not know where the goal post actually are (usually on both sides of the field) then you should not attempt a field goal. This is just rhetoric. It's a waste of your time.

Nope, there is just no perception of meaning.This is nonsense. Please to show me "meaning" without perception? You just state these things and they are utter nonsense. Where is "meaning" in the natural world sans consciousness? Outside of the context of consciousness the word has no meaning.

[RandFan]

Not necessarily difference is exemplified in cause and effect. When forces are opposing and equal the effect tends to be compression (and no net force). When not equal or there is a “difference” between opposing forces then a net force is the result, in some cases cause and effect can be the non-conscious expression of difference. And how is that quantified? I have no idea what a "non-conscious expression" is. I seriously doubt such a thing exists but even I accept such a proposition of what value is it without something to perceive the expression? On the other hand, I suspect we are arguing past each other.

[John Freestone]

(emphasis mine) Excellent post. I said early on it is largely a POV.

What is "difference"? Isn't that an observed quantity? Differences can only be stated on the basis of a comparison or categorization. Right?

If we assume that there is nothing to perform the comparing and/or categorizing then please to tell me what difference there is? It always comes back to the fact that you have to imagine the difference. No imagination? No difference.I think I have to say that this is a fairly reasonable point of view philosophically. It is possible that nothing exists except as projected by a consciousness, or that there can be no judgement of a difference between existence and non-existence without consciousness. I just don't think it's a particularly strong POV. It's like saying that life might all be one big dream. We could make a list of possible ontologies, surely, and assert that disproving them will be impossible: aliens are keeping us in their personal zoo, etc.

It seems a weak argument to me. I can imagine existence and non-existence as independent of my consciousness. I can hardly imagine otherwise.

I wonder if this is your actual belief that you're arguing, since you remind us that it's 'largely' a POV. It reminds me of a time when I wanted to discuss a similar idea, that consciousness might be fundamental to the universe, and many members took that hypothetical suggestion as my religious position and gave me a hard time about it. I think it's important - especially for sceptics - to be able to discuss ideas with the minimum of investment and defensiveness.

The question of colour also seems another semantic argument. To put it another way, I don't think it's really clear whether 'colour' exists or arises due to the physical characteristics of a surface, the presence of light or the processes in a brain - we use the name and classify colours as a product of all of these. And asking, therefore, whether something is still red when there's no light is, to my mind, a matter of opnion and prefered definition, as is the question of whether a tree falling in a forest makes sound when no-one's there. In a similar vein, we can infer from experience that pressure waves exist when we're absent, just as we can infer that the universe existed before we woke up this morning.