Consciousness and Definition

[plumjam]

So there have been several very long threads recently trying to elucidate what consciousness is; trying to define it.

I have to wonder: what word or string of words could possibly help in this task?

e.g. :
1. consciousness is...err.. awareness
2. ... awareness is ...err.. knowing...
3. .. knowing is... err.. being cognizant of...
etc... ad infinitum.
Does this kind of process help in any way?

I guess, in simple terms, what I'm saying/asking is:
"You are conscious. Simply by virtue of that, you know exactly what consciousness is."
In that case, why do you think that the emergence of a particular string of connected words would help you to understand what consciousness is?

For further elucidation consider our dear p-zombie.
Feed a particular string of words into the noggin of the non-conscious perfect p-zombie and it might provoke some satisfactory outputs that are more or less in line with conscious human outputs.. but the p-zombie would have less (zero) understanding of what consciousness is than a human baby, or a dolphin, or a dog, or an elephant - none of whom can supply those p-zombie outputs.
In relation to humans the p-zombie is in an analogous position to a blind-from-birth human trying to know what light or colour or visual beauty are.

So the above are some objections.

But the main objection to do with trying to define consciousness is, I think, the fact that all meaningful definitions of consciousness occur within consciousness.

The processes of meaningful definition and understanding of definition do not and can not occur outside of consciousness. They are merely contents of it.
Therefore, when you are trying to define consciousness you are doing something analogous to:

Trying to define a planet within the terms of an ocean or a continent or an island. (Oceans, continents or islands can only exist within the context of a planet, and thus they are powerless in helping to define what a planet is)

Trying to define a vehicle within the terms of an engine or a tyre or a gear stick.

Trying to define a 70s disco within the terms of flared trousers, chest hair, or medallions..
etc..


So, folks, you already well know what consciousness is.
By virtue of it being exactly what you are.

No string of words will ever improve or deteriorate your consciousness of consciousness.
Goodnight. Thanks to the band.

[six7s]

So there have been several very long threads recently trying to elucidate what consciousness is; trying to define it.

I have to wonder: what word or string of words could possibly help in this task?Try http://forums.randi.org/cis_ignore_forum.php?do=ignoreforum&f=4

[arthwollipot]

So, folks, you already well know what consciousness is.
By virtue of it being exactly what you are.I agree.

[PixyMisa]

I agree.
I disagree.

[arthwollipot]

I disagree.Knowing something and being able to specifically describe it are two different things. Like the old saw about porn - "I can't describe it but I know it when I see it".

I am conscious. Therefore, consciousness is that property that I feel.

I know, I know, I'm agreeing with Plumjam. It's freaking me out too. But there it is.

[PixyMisa]

Knowing something and being able to specifically describe it are two different things. Like the old saw about porn - "I can't describe it but I know it when I see it".

I am conscious. Therefore, consciousness is that property that I feel.
Yeah, but what is it?

I know, I know, I'm agreeing with Plumjam. It's freaking me out too. But there it is.
You certainly know that it exists, but that doesn't mean you know what it is. Indeed, one of the highlights of modern neuroscience is that we didn't know what consciousness is.

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, but what is it?


You certainly know that it exists, but that doesn't mean you know what it is. Indeed, one of the highlights of modern neuroscience is that we didn't know what consciousness is.Well... okay, let me have a go.

Consciousness is that property that arises from sufficiently complex neurology, that makes me feel like I am a "me". Other human beings, to all available evidence, share this property. Less complex neurology gives varying degrees of "meness", to the point where it seems that insects and woms do not possess it at all.

Consciousness is that property that allows a being to come to the conclusion that "I think, therefore I am".

Is any of this helping? It doesn't me. Generally I stay away from the topic of what consciousness is, because it always seems to lead to philosophical dead-ends with no agreed consensus. I commented here because I was so startled at my agreeing with Plumjam.

Ultimately, I don't really care all that much what the exact definition of "consciousness" is. It doesn't really have that much of an effect on my life. So I don't give it all that much thought.

[PixyMisa]

Oops, now you've defined it, thus refuting Plumjam's premise. ;)

[arthwollipot]

Uh, kinda. I've defined it according to Plumjam's premise. Which kinda refutes and falsifies Plumjam's premise, all at the same time! Schrodinger, anyone?

[sphenisc]

That seems to refer to consciousness of self, specifically. Isn't consciousness broader than that?

[arthwollipot]

That seems to refer to consciousness of self, specifically. Isn't consciousness broader than that?I don't know - is it?

[Dancing David]

The problem is defining it as a 'noun' as is 'consciousness' rather than as a behavior IE 'conscious'.

Is that 'fast car' really 'fast' when it is not moving quickly? Or is it an object capable of 'going fast'? What if the car was never driven or never driven of 5 mph. is it a 'fast' car?

[sphenisc]

I don't know - is it?

Well I'd say it I'm conscious of things in my environment and conscious of self and I can tell the two apart, largely learnt on the basis of degree and immediacy of control, I think. I can choose and control movement of my fingers with relative dexterity and my thought processes similarly, so they both come under the label "self".

[Tumblehome]

I can't say I understood your OP that well, so I'll gratuitously offer my own thoughts and hope it's somewhat on topic. I think it relates to the part quoted below.

Therefore, when you are trying to define consciousness you are doing something analogous to:

Trying to define a planet within the terms of an ocean or a continent or an island. (Oceans, continents or islands can only exist within the context of a planet, and thus they are powerless in helping to define what a planet is)

Trying to define a vehicle within the terms of an engine or a tyre or a gear stick.

Trying to define a 70s disco within the terms of flared trousers, chest hair, or medallions..
etc...


Any sentient being's perception of the universe is constrained by the limitations of its senses. Of the whole range of the electromagnetic spectrum, we're "conscious" of only a small portion of it, and even in what we do perceive there's no inherent "truth" to what we're seeing. We see a particular wavelength of the spectrum as "red", but there's no reason to think that red is the true expression of that wavelength. Another life form might see it instead as green, another might hear it, or feel it, or might not sense it at all, depending on the conditions in which it evolved. In other words, our senses are necessarily subjective, so we can't be sure that what we're seeing is the real deal.

The only thing I can think of that might truly, objectively describe the universe for us is purely logical numbers because logic doesn't depend on our senses. No matter how that wavelength is perceived, whether it's seen or heard or felt, it seems that the length of the wave would be the same for everyone (even, I assume, when you take relativity into account, but I'm not sure about that).

But if our consciousness, or awareness, depends on our senses, can we really know anything that our senses can't detect? We're aware, logically, of things like neutrinos and dark matter because the numbers say they exist. But they're still just abstract models that we can't touch or see or hear, so can we ever be sure they're really there?

[arthwollipot]

Plumjam? You coming back, or was this just a post and run?