Define Consiousness

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
[B]Mr E,

I applaud your response. You've completely come over to greet me where I'm at. Plenty of food for thought and some good horse sense thrown in. I almost started my response: Mr. Ed. ;)To cite an authority, not as a point of debate, you probably don't know how true that is, wink or no wink.

Later against my definition of Consciousness you will throw the "kitchen sink" at me. All of that is fair and I enjoy thinking about these things. I don't adhere to the principle that we know everything and discover it in the dialectic but that's how I approach topics like this. I engage in the discussion more to discover what I think I know than to convince someone that I do know.I hope, and have faith, that I am a student and a teacher. The problem with the kitchen sink is that the drain gets clogged and then all hell might break loose. As I said casually to H' recently, higher consciousness warrants discriminating distinctions. This is a very important point for the serious student of consciousness, in my experience. The attempt to convince someone is an act of assault. As a former pacifist, I tend to avoid such, even when asked to perform unnatural acts.

Anyway I had unconsciously (pun not intended) structured my definition in agreement to what you make explicit. That consciousness is fluid or flux in a dynamic exchange process as subject/object (requestor/receiver) with the hidden symmetrical side of a wholeness of mind I called the unconscious. We can keep it almost simple. Synthetic Consciousness is solid as a rock and more fluid than many people might suppose.

I've posted 4 or 5 times in different threads my take on the question of whether there is a God. I have found a middle way in my thinking that confirms and denies this existence. For me, no supernatural being overlords us, but every culture down through time has one. So, of course the concept exists, but it is more. People feel God. They feel what they know is the touch of God in every daily blessing. As I've stated in this thread, feelings are their own proof. God is a feeling.If I may, the existence of the *notion* is unarguable to most. In a strict sense the question of the existence of the concept depends both on the question of existence, both in particular and in general, as my first post to this thread stated openly, as well as the question of concept in general and the particular concept which "God" is assumed to represent. You and I might have very similar takes, re "confirms and denies" but if I may use the power of suggestion, reconsider your phrasing.

The concept of God is useful then (although hopelessly contaminated.) It can be a key to other elevating feelings that we possibly throw away when we dismiss and destroy God.The kitchen sink stinks, speaking of stinky pits. But I don't believe the notion of God well-informs the general discussion on consciousness, if that's how you meant this. That said, what it left unsaid there is no less intended than what the text strings ought to convey at first glance.

Does Consciousness really exist? I would answer: As much as God. A line might yet be drawn there, and it's not clear to me which strand of the double helix you might be affirming there.

That is, Consciousness is a useful concept.Useful for what, besides banter on the internet? Words and concepts are distinguishable.

If someone shows me that my version is flat and can bring me the spherical of it I will change concepts.See my position on the use of force, as noted above.

I may have more to say later but I'm already going long and I want to add comments of my own on your thoughts of my definition. I look forward to your further posts as long as I last here.

Symbols are associations but they grow through association as well.Maybe but what of it, in that prior context of clarifying the terms of discussion? Why clutter up the definition with internal distractions when there are plenty of trolls about with their own distractions already? :)

When we are 3 we have a concept of the world and man and God.3 years old, The Trinity of Christianity, 3 spatial dimensions, silly wordplay? All? Where is time in all this?

As far as subconscious self, I like the word conscience but I'm not sure that I'd go so far as to equate the terms. Perhaps if dreams were a product of conscience. I wouldn't say that but I would say dreams are a product of the subconscious self.How does what you take to be common usage significantly and necessarily deviate from my stated usage on this board, please?

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I do know something about Dual Dualities in this context.

Thanks much for the exchange. Good luck with your way.

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
I am jumping into this debate without having read most of the dialogue between Mr. E, Atlas, H'ethetheth, BillHoyt and co. Welcome, speaking for myself. :)

I believe there are people working as we speak on the possibility of experience of photosynthesis, in an attempt to make it not be merely metaphorical. That is, "plant consciousness" and the like. I'm not taking sides, merely pointing out something - there may be no scientific debate, but I've seen postings, well-thought or not, to that effect.

It may be widely accepted that the neural correlates of consciousness are only correlates of the experiences to which they seem to be correlated. That represents an unncessary assumption at this point.

With all physical descriptions there is a duality.

ME

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Mr. E
"Points of truth trump all."

I want my money. No excuses please. You know what I mean.

ME

PS - Thanks for being civil in an obvious way for once.

Answers, mystery, where are the answers? You keep making unsuportable assertions and ducking out when called on for answers. Now, I see, you're back to the double-helix nonsense. Using science to puff up shallow fluff is a hallmark of crankdom.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Welcome, speaking for myself. :)

I believe there are people working as we speak on the possibility of experience of photosynthesis, in an attempt to make it not be merely metaphorical. That is, "plant consciousness" and the like. I'm not taking sides, merely pointing out something - there may be no scientific debate, but I've seen postings, well-thought or not, to that effect.[/quote
Do cite this evidence for us, mystery. Research papers from respected, peer-reviewed journals, please.

[quote]It may be widely accepted that the neural correlates of consciousness are only correlates of the experiences to which they seem to be correlated.
Flum-flum-flummery wrapped in a layer of tautology and topped with a dollop of appeal to pastry.

Start making sense and citing evidence.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Answers, mystery, where are the answers? You keep making unsuportable assertions and ducking out when called on for answers. Now, I see, you're back to the double-helix nonsense. Using science to puff up shallow fluff is a hallmark of crankdom. Oh really?

I note your first excuse. Shame on you, especially after what now proves to have been only an uncharacteristic outburst of almost civil and meaningful text strings.

I'm waiting. You said that truth trumps all, even order. Prove it or go back to your hideous hole in the ground where you never existed anyway.

Ask a real question, get a real answer, Troll.


ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Flum-flum-flummery wrapped in a layer of tautology and topped with a dollop of appeal to pastry.

Start making sense and citing evidence.

Yes, that does seem to adequately describe your modus operandoofus. Theatrical nonsense parading about as honest debunking of what looks like cr*p, but in this case isn't. I'm glad you recognize who you are, Bill, lost in your Advanced Degree in Cr*pology, evidencing being stuck in your own pattern-misrecognition filter. It's sad in a way, but let's not get personal here, this is a thread about Consciousness, not about you.

Stop making appeals to denial, Bill. You know the rules.

Now.

I'm waiting for my money.

ME

PS - If you want to break the rules, deny denial. Good luck, but I'm still waiting...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Oh really?

I note your first excuse. Shame on you, especially after what now proves to have been only an uncharacteristic outburst of almost civil and meaningful text strings.

I'm waiting. You said that truth trumps all, even order. Prove it or go back to your hideous hole in the ground where you never existed anyway.

Ask a real question, get a real answer, Troll.
Mystery,

I and others have repeatedly asked you real questions and have repeatedly received nonsense in return. You repeat your claims and persist in trying to deflect. When is this going to stop?

Yes, that does seem to adequately describe your modus operandoofus. Theatrical nonsense parading about as honest debunking of what looks like cr*p, but in this case isn't. I'm glad you recognize who you are, Bill, lost in your Advanced Degree in Cr*pology, evidencing being stuck in your own pattern-misrecognition filter. It's sad in a way, but let's not get personal here, this is a thread about Consciousness, not about you.
As was previously pointed out to you by another poster, I have been debunking. Rather thoroughly.

Stop making appeals to denial, Bill. You know the rules.

Now.

I'm waiting for my money.

ME

PS - If you want to break the rules, deny denial. Good luck, but I'm still waiting...
If you want to try for the JREF prize, then contact JREF. If you think I'm breaking the rules, then contact JREF.

[Mr. E]

I note BillHoyt's further excuses and humor his atopical silliness with a reply. "truth trumps all, even order" Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]Mystery,

I and others have repeatedly asked you real questions and have repeatedly received nonsense in return. You repeat your claims and persist in trying to deflect. When is this going to stop?Probably when you get serious about it. And stop addressing "Mystery" as though Mr. E had your personal answers. I'm discussing Synthetic (and other) Consciousness and demonstrating it; your personal psychotherapeutic or spiritual needs are hardly a good topic for this forum. Or do you want to make yourself a test case subject? I don't recommend it.

The only bunk you've helped point out so far, that I've noticed, was your complete misreading of two phrases in Standard English in an aside which was presented as an OPTIONAL excercise. You've also been pouting about some matrix which you misunderstood as an ordinary mathematical object when it wasn't presented in an ordinary mathematical context, except in your fallacious thinking. Good for you.

Now go get someone else to deny your denial, Denier.


ME

PS - "If you want to try for the JREF prize, then contact JREF. If you think I'm breaking the rules, then contact JREF." That advice is unwarranted and if you read the prior parts of the thread, you will see why, if you read them critically and for meaning. I'm still waiting for you to get real, Bill. And I'm still waiting for the money.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
... If I may, the existence of the *notion* (of God) is unarguable to most. In a strict sense the question of the existence of the concept depends both on the question of existence, both in particular and in general, as my first post to this thread stated openly, as well as the question of concept in general and the particular concept which "God" is assumed to represent. You and I might have very similar takes, re "confirms and denies" but if I may use the power of suggestion, reconsider your phrasing.

The kitchen sink stinks, speaking of stinky pits. But I don't believe the notion of God well-informs the general discussion on consciousness, if that's how you meant this. That said, what it left unsaid there is no less intended than what the text strings ought to convey at first glance.
My thoughts on God and most topics are in a constant state of reconsideration. I was not using God to inform the discussion about Consciousness but moreso about concept. But I will try to make to make an explicit parallel. Both God and Consciousness are part of the human experience. I make that statement in it's self-evident meaning. I submit that the source of a supernatural entity of God is a very real felt experience. People that have the experience name the feeling and rationalize about it and teach their children some very mistaken things. That is, the feeling that is suddenly realized to be the touch of God is conflated out of reasonable proportion into something that it is not, but there remains a very real set of felt experiences that go by other names as well as the name God by the individual with the smaller vocabulary.

Consciousness, poetically called the light of mind, is similar in that it is a very real sensed experience. We "see" our formed thoughts. And like we "see" God in the actions of a Mother Theresa caring for the sick, we "see" consciousness in the building of a skyscraper or a hundred other things.

DavidSmith73 takes issue with Darat's comparison of consciousness with photosynthesis. I'm in agreement but from another angle. While I agree that photosynthesis is a remarkable phenomenon, it is one that is not directly a part of the human experience (though without it my diet would most certainly suffer.) Consciousness is part of the human experience as DS points out. Darat has deflated the light of mind to chemical gushings where DS and I would not. Our experience is too wonderful and too real to choose to accept such a deflated view.

Back to my discussion of God for a moment. I choose a Darat type deflation of what others have accepted as a wonderfully full and rich concept of a supernatural deity. I choose to deflate it, to collapse it down into something that is inside, not outside, the human experience. For me, the human experience is rich enough, wonderfully rich enough in and of itself to choose the fairyland version. But I see nothing useful either is postulating that we are nothing but talking meatbags. It's not a useful way of thinking for me. That's why I even included a definition of "soul" with my others. It's is a useful concept because it is in such common usage. I like to know what I think those terms mean when I deflate them into my understanding of the human experience.

Anyway, that is my bias. I am human and I don't like my consciousness compared to a plant. I gotta be at least twice that smart. I am human and I don't like granting all the natural laws to a whimful sky god. Like I said, I'm smarter than than that. My phrasing "God is a feeling" is an overstatement that means to me much more than it says. Rightly or wrongly, I use it to separate myself succinctly from the two extremes of the general debate.

Moving on... When I said: Consciousness is a useful concept - you asked (strangely in my opinion)Useful for what, besides banter on the internet? Words and concepts are distinguishable. Yes they are. Words stand for concepts. Every concept has one. Or if not one, several. It's how we think. Consciousness is a term we use in shorthand recognition of a variety of aspects of the way in which we think. By the way, put your definition up again so that we can review the stinkiness of my kitchen sink description and your own side by side.

You went strange on me again when I responded to your expressing that symbols were associations. I said: Symbols are associations but they grow through association as well. To a 3 year old, man is any grown up who is not a woman. As we age the concept of man retains that distinction but becomes larger with more association. Maybe but what of it, in that prior context of clarifying the terms of discussion? Why clutter up the definition with internal distractions when there are plenty of trolls about with their own distractions already? :) You are the one being surrounded by perceived trolls, not me. Yet to my mind we say things equally outrageous. Your style brings out more opposition. These guys are not all trolls but they have no affinity for psuedoscientific sound. When they hear it they land on it. You win them over by clear explanations. A word of unsolicited advice: Don't let it go on too long. The joys of these exchanges are dramatically reduced when you've got other posters willing to mince every word of every post you make.

3 years old, The Trinity of Christianity, 3 spatial dimensions, silly wordplay? All? Where is time in all this? When I said 3 I meant, Just 3 years old - No double meaning intended.

I'm not sure I understood this next demand. I had posted the definitional attributes of the subconscious self. You combined them saying: In a word, Conscience. I was unwilling to equate the two terms, that is all. But you ask this...
How does what you take to be common usage significantly and necessarily deviate from my stated usage on this board, please? I don't know how to answer. I don't understand what I'm being asked to provide. I'm not dodging and will clarify if you can lay out what you believe our two positions are for me.

I don't know much about Buddhism, but I do know something about Dual Dualities in this context. I've been tripped up in discussions of Duality in the past. I can't seem to discuss it without lapsing into it. Discussion of Dual Dualities is an obstacle course I'm as yet unprepared to maneuver in. As far as Buddhism goes, for me anyway, if one is Idealistic by nature Buddhism will be just like going home.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Consciousness is different. If we were to describe the neurochemical pathways that are attributed to consciousness in as much detail as that for photosynthesis, we would be left with two things - the physical description and the associated experience. David, good post. I used it in my example to Mr E above. (My previous post).

I don't mean to put words into anyone's mouth however and I did in a way align your views with mine. Since there are very few who actually think like me, I invite you to set me and the record straight.

[Mr. E]

Re perceived trolls: I don't know what else to call uncivil "trolling behavior". If someone takes what you say, turns it inside out, and then proclaims that it is inside out while demanding you prove it isn't, and persists even when you pat them on the head, what do you call that if not an insult to intelligent discourse, no matter how much or how little reasoned critical thinking went into the inversion operation? I've seen no sound reasoned arguments, only dissembling and/or empty denial, from trolls. I also figure this could be mistaken as troll bait, so I hereby explicitly disclaim that.

Originally posted by Atlas
Both God and Consciousness are part of the human experience. I make that statement in it's self-evident meaning.You mean that people at large have pretty much all heard talk about God and Consciousness at one time or another. I would accept that as self-evident; people are conscious to some extent but have widely varying relationships with God and with 'God' ranging pretty much all over the general map of consciousness. It's a generalization which doesn't hold up well under particular examination.[/quote]

Consciousness, poetically called the light of mind, is similar in that it is a very real sensed experience. We "see" our formed thoughts.Lose the metaphor of the scarequotes, if I may be blunt... I "see" conflation in your statement. I don't see my thoughts unless you call visual qualia "thoughts", and I seldom bother to recognize particular qualia experiences as such, rather relying on habit to recognize faces as such, and sometimes faces as friendly and well-known. I don't see my suppositions unless they are imaged in imagination. This is an informal statement of my formal notion of suppositions, that supposition is as close to nothing in active mind as it gets - no "visible" object, but object nonetheless. There may yet be more subtle aspects of mind than supposition fields, but let's not quibble.

And like we "see" God in the actions of a Mother Theresa caring for the sick, we "see" consciousness in the building of a skyscraper or a hundred other things. How is this not mere metaphorical speaking or extrapolation from the domain of discourse into other domains?

For me, the human experience is rich enough, wonderfully rich enough in and of itself to choose the fairyland version.Symmetry breaking alert? You do choose the fairytale, for the reason stated? That is, in addition to having your plate overflowing, you choose more.

Moving on... When I said: Consciousness is a useful concept - you asked (strangely in my opinion) Yes they are. Words stand for concepts. Every concept has one. Or if not one, several. It's how we think. I'm resisting the temptation to simply respond, "No they are not!" to your "Yes they are." :) Concepts might be called the general objects of thought; dunno about "how". Words are taken to stand for concepts. Ambiguity is a necessary aspect of natural language.

By the way, put your definition up again so that we can review the stinkiness of my kitchen sink description and your own side by side.You mean this building block: "Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness"?

You went strange on me again when I responded to your expressing that symbols were associations. I said: Symbols are associations but they grow through association as well.I'm questioning the use of 'symbol' in the definition in which it appeared as being redundant there and thus perhaps confusion-generating material, that's all. What are associations which don't grow? Do they get a name as a class/category?

I don't know enough child psychology to comment further on the 3 year old comment.

I'm not sure I understood this next demand. I had posted the definitional attributes of the subconscious self. You combined them saying: In a word, Conscience.My request was for you to help me understand how my usage might run against what you take to be the "grain" of common usage of that term, since you didn't accept it immediately (whether in its role in my system or as "equatable" somehow to yours) which might help both of us get at perhaps minor differences/latent issues in our systems.

~~

ME

edit PS -"I've been tripped up in discussions of Duality in the past. I can't seem to discuss it without lapsing into it. Discussion of Dual Dualities is an obstacle course I'm as yet unprepared to maneuver in." Discussion from "within" is not impossible. The "trick" is simply to recognize how course and dis-course can be reconciled in a way which might seem miraculous to those who believe in miracles. Of course, heh, it might not be easy at first, and that's only a hint, not necessarily a full-on recipe for disaster in the making.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Lose the metaphor of the scarequotes, if I may be blunt... I "see" conflation in your statement. I don't see my thoughts unless you call visual qualia "thoughts", and I seldom bother to recognize particular qualia experiences as such, rather relying on habit to recognize faces as such, and sometimes faces as friendly and well-known. I don't see my suppositions unless they are imaged in imagination. This is an informal statement of my formal notion of suppositions, that supposition is as close to nothing in active mind as it gets - no "visible" object, but object nonetheless. There may yet be more subtle aspects of mind than supposition fields, but let's not quibble.

[QUOTE][B]How is this not mere metaphorical speaking or extrapolation from the domain of discourse into other domains? Visual qualia... I wasn't thinking of that but to me the brain pumps thought and I would put visual qualia as one of the things on the input side of that pump. I was thinking more of the imagination space. I think I could have been called on using or not using quote marks. I haven't read all your stuff on supposition fields but I agree that much thought is unaccompanied by visualized information.

Symmetry breaking alert? You do choose the fairytale, for the reason stated? That is, in addition to having your plate overflowing, you choose more. Ya think? I celebrate man. All his fragility and power. Poets are needed to give voice to the greatness man is. That there are religions and woo and gods and souls in the belief patterns of man is undeniable and must be embraced to appreciate who we are and why our civilization is what it is. I embrace all the faults, foibles, fantasys and fallacies along with all that is mundane and wonderful. But I do so to understand man not God. That said, I'll switch gears. The brain does produce an illusion of self and the world. In that sense we all live in a fairy tale of our own making. I can be persuaded to look both ways here on the middle way.

You mean this building block: "Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness"? You should expand on this for me. To me it is still quite spare. You call the statement a building block rather than a definition. Are you building toward a more robust and complete definition that will leave out the kitchen sink? Is the statement equivalent if you'd leave out "a matter of" or is that where all the magic happens.

I'm questioning the use of 'symbol' in the definition in which it appeared as being redundant there and thus perhaps confusion-generating material, that's all. What are associations which don't grow? Do they get a name as a class/category? Symbols are words, letters, math characters like pi, mental replacements for physical objects like books, fire, horses, anything. I don't know about associations which don't grow. They all can except perhaps forgotten or suppressed ones. I say they grow by including others in their construct or being included in another construct.. The letter A may be learned by drawing it. It becomes associated to B by sound and rote learning. To "alpha" by equivalence. By being included with other letters in an alphabet and in words. It may at sometime be associated with Bay by rhyme or by a triangle by shape. I believe association is the basic value that the unconscious uses in the evaluation of symbols (or concepts) for storage. I don't know how concepts are stored. But many symbols can be written on a chalkboard or a street sign. These can also be imaged in the consciousness. There are concepts that are difficult to image without symbols. The squareroot of minus 1. I don't know if that's a good example. I don't think symbol is necessarily redundant to concept. I invite comments on this from others.

My request was for you to help me understand how my usage might run against what you take to be the "grain" of common usage of that term, since you didn't accept it immediately (whether in its role in my system or as "equatable" somehow to yours) which might help both of us get at perhaps minor differences/latent issues in our systems. My initial reticence was just as I said. Conscience does not seem to be the producer of dreams the way that subconscious in common usage might be said to be. I would offer too that conscience, in common usage, is more often associated with conscious activity. "No you shouldn't eat that brownie or the last piece of pizza." Likewise the many moral choices we make each day are done consciously rather than subconsciously though, I'm sure, many choices are not done consciously. If I'm broke and somebody buys me coffee and leaves a tip at the table when they get up to pay, I may be faced with a moral dilemma. Or not. It might never occur to me that I could pick that money up because subconsciously or unconsciously it is already someones else's money. To me though, common usage conscience has always had a conscious aspect to it in the face of a dilemma.

Perhaps you should explain how you believe common usage subconscious and conscience are equivalent. If it was discussed earlier you can link the post. I don't know how else to continue.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Mr. E
I note BillHoyt's further excuses and humor his atopical silliness with a reply. "truth trumps all, even order" Probably when you get serious about it. And stop addressing "Mystery" as though Mr. E had your personal answers. I'm discussing Synthetic (and other) Consciousness and demonstrating it; your personal psychotherapeutic or spiritual needs are hardly a good topic for this forum. Or do you want to make yourself a test case subject? I don't recommend it.
Get something straight, mystery. The last thing I would do is look to you for personal answers about anything. This is especially true every time I read rants like this.

Something else you need to get straight is you are demonstrating nothing here. You keep trying to prop up this pap with a combination of pseudoscience and metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

And for the last time, I have written nothing atopical. You continue to bring up matrices and vectors and the double-helix and symmetry operations. Each time, I pose completely on-topic questions and each time you launch into a rant. This is the most pathetic non-presentation of nonsense I have ever read. You take the cake for intellectual bottom-fishing.

The only bunk you've helped point out so far, that I've noticed, was your complete misreading of two phrases in Standard English in an aside which was presented as an OPTIONAL excercise. You've also been pouting about some matrix which you misunderstood as an ordinary mathematical object when it wasn't presented in an ordinary mathematical context, except in your fallacious thinking. Good for you.
Now, mystery, I am going to begin counting the lies, as well as the self-contradictions. The first one I will record is your claim about the matrix and mathematical context. A quick search of your posts on this thread shows no less than 21 posts in which you used "math" or some variant. The first one included this passage:
If you know vector math you might consider the cross-product, for a beginners analogy
Kind of sets a "math" context, doesn't it? A context you reinforced with this:
Some people are more hip to math than others, so I don't want to make complex numbers the starting point here. Could you please show your understanding of the analogy so I could figure out how to try to shine more light your way?

So there is the context, and now a quick analysis. You started, pages of blather ago, with your assertion that consciousness is the vector cross product of sensation and awareness. Then you describe your "matrix"

"Under my "axioms" (as hinted or stated earlier) we have a 2x2 matrix of sorts:

being informed which I have called awareness
becoming informed which I called sensation
being expressed
becoming expresse

Well smack me on the butt with a lemon and call me vodka, but there are those words again! Do you see them? The matrix is discussing the same horsepucky as the cross-product! Silly us, though, for seeing a connection between them.

8 semesters of math? Hah. You couldn't rub two variables together to start an equation.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]The last thing I would do is look to you for personal answers about anything. Consciousness is a very personal thing; I take it you are not asking me, or mystery for guidance, illumination or etc. in the matter of SC when you post text strings with "?" at the end of sentences. That seems odd but could be true. It seems some people think we all know perfectly what it is, but that strikes me as an unwarranted assumption.

Bill, I'm sorry if something I wrote misled you needlessly, but remind you of my first reply to you in this thread. I recall asking "Was that necessary?" to which I recall you replying "Yeah, it was". I agree that Synthetic Consciousness might contain what could be (mis)taken to be bunk, after all if it's a model it should well-model "real life" where people seem to have a need to debunk things. You seemed to indicate it was necessary.

If your post was aimed at my didactic approach, thanks for the metatopical feedback. Otherwise it doesn't seem to be aimed at anything topical about SC 'per se', and is only some vague series of text strings by you and what look like out of context excerpts from my posts arranged in a rather unconvincing pattern - hardly reasonable proof of anything other than that a post was made.

ME

PS - Each of my posts is a demonstration of my ability to reply to posters on this board, so "you are demonstrating nothing" is a rather cute way of showing how you (mis)use language.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
[B]This pat on the back thing is not clear to me. How is being interested in almost nothing a compliment?We are talking about almost nothing, aren't we? You seem to be taking it seriously. It's tough for many to tread the edge of absolute foolishness, in my experience. Or, in other terms, how does one know when something is an insult vs. a compliment, in a universe which contains irony? You said you took something as an insult.

Enough?


[Yes, so you noted. But if you emulate in an extraordinary sense, you might want to provide reasons and explanation to your sense of emulation. Misunderstanding might otherwise occur (cough).We all start somewhere, even if only "with" the past. I don't want to get into an explicit defense of my didactic processes here, for one thing because I'm more or less only human and therefore subject to error so as you know I have welcomed your constructive feedback in/from the past.

Enough?


I'd say both. I thought it was fairly presumptuous of you to say that there are only people without content in mind here who would try to explain supposition fields to me (not to say arrogant).Any arrogance on my part is accompanied by a dose of humility (being a student and a teacher, as stated), so I will take your comment to read "fairly" as meaning that any presumption was, to be fair, quite correct. This avoids nit-picking, apparent ad hominem, and any unnecessary implication such as "looking down ones nose at someone else".

Enough?

Yes, but since I'm interested in this topic too, it would be nice if it would be sufficiently clear to everyone, including me. Wouldn't that assume the conclusion?

Let's try a different approach, shall we?

When I post to this forum, I am writing from the future, to the past, to the presently best of my embedded abilities. Other things might also be "going on", seriously or otherwise. If that's not clear, then perhaps we should work any junk out of it for you - for instance if the goal is to make progress. If it is clear enough, then we can build on that bit of almost nothing. If it is "crystal" clear then we are just some jokers on the internet passing time passing gas, so to speak.

Enough?

Conservatives and progressives are well known to have different senses of humor, no kidding!

I look forward to your eminently sensible reply, on topic if serious, off topic if not.

Got topic?


ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
[B]Visual qualia... I wasn't thinking of that but to me the brain pumps thought...or thought pumps the brain if one isn't too heavily planted in dogmatic materialism.

and I would put visual qualia as one of the things on the input side of that pump.I believe some people question whether much of what passes for consciousness is merely epi-phenomenal. I'm not up to date on this, so maybe the past 7 years of hibernation have left me out of the loop too much.

I was thinking more of the imagination space. I think I could have been called on using or not using quote marks. I haven't read all your stuff on supposition fields but I agree that much thought is unaccompanied by visualized information.Good enough.

Ya think? I celebrate man. All his fragility and power. Poets are needed to give voice to the greatness man is.Poetry is an essential aspect of the human experience, and may be well allowed for by Synthetic Consciousness. That said, "Ya think?" strikes me as deliberately vague, and so I believe we can leave it there for now.

But I do so to understand man not God. That said, I'll switch gears. Looks like we agree about the "God" salvo issue from before

The brain does produce an illusion of self and the world.Does it? Are the questions of nature vs. nurture solved in the general case - maybe acculturation "produces" that illusion, rather than the brain (or at least in concert with it). Sure, we may say there are illusions, and most have experienced them.

In that sense we all live in a fairy tale of our own making. I can be persuaded to look both ways here on the middle way.Nice reading. I believe some people have said something about looking both ways before jumping into the future (my terms referencing their terms in this thread). If you mean that such people are in effect viewable from two external viewpoints more or less simulatneously, then you seem to have at least an intuitive grasp of Synthetic Consciousness. They look to the left and right for oncoming traffic, we are the traffic looking at them looking left and right... in/from two "places" at the same time.

You should expand on this for me. To me it is still quite spare. You call the statement a building block rather than a definition. Are you building toward a more robust and complete definition that will leave out the kitchen sink? Is the statement equivalent if you'd leave out "a matter of" or is that where all the magic happens.The kitchen sink will be put in its proper place, if it isn't already more or less eternally there. As I have said in this thread, my contribution is partly about a refinement of vocabulary, of dealing with confusions for instance. That's why I asked about "symbols" in one of your offerings to the God of Synthetic Consciousness, if I may be allowed that usage correctly. No, 'matter' is not unnecessary. Perhaps that got lost in the hubbub of the thread.

Symbols are ...So, why does the text string "symbols" need to appear in that definition that way? You are saying that

[whatever] = [something built out of associations] + some things built out of associations

Why not leave out the first part (the second bracket-part) entirely?

[whatever] = some things built out of associations

or,

[whatever] = some things, such as symbols, built out of associations.

It's more general and cleaner that way, I think. It's also more compact conceptually since no explicit reference to 'symbol' is required when the mind is engaged in *using* the construct. It's like leaving out excess subroutine calls... a program can run faster if it doesn't have to duplicate "effort" - redunancy has its value but real-time constraints dictate it not be abused.

I believe association is the basic value that the unconscious uses in the evaluation of symbols (or concepts) for storage.Value? Do you find this construction agreeable:

Understanding is a matter of the association of associations with associated associations.

It strikes me as quite similar to what you wrote, tho' it looks very different and doesn't explicity include 'value'. You will note "with" as being synonymous with "synthesis" here, and thus this fits the Synthetic Method of Synthetic Consciousness nicely. And it is spare on extra terms such as 'symbol', while it is complex and conceptually compact if perhaps wordy if you count characters the hard way.

I don't think symbol is necessarily redundant to concept. I invite comments on this from others.Depends on how you mean it. I think you are trying to say that some associations have a concrete reference in the ordinary material world, and that some [other] associations might be more abstract, that is with less content. The argument over the existence of God can then be understood as a question of whether 'God' has more or less, or zero, ordinary material content. Agreed? So in this sense, calling upon God can indeed be seen to inform the debate about consciousness. Have I got it exactly?

My initial reticence was just as I said. Conscience does not seem I would offer too that conscience, in common usage, is more often associated with conscious activity. "No you shouldn't eat that brownie or the last piece of pizza."Looks like an editing problem with that quote, sorry. I am not equating conscience with all of the subconscious, only with a part which feeds back assent of the mind into perception so that one might know what one believes. Conscience in ordinary use is at the base of what makes conscious moral judgments meaningfully possible, even if people don't generally unpack it that way consciously.

Likewise the many moral choices we make each day are done consciously rather than subconsciously though, I'm sure, many choices are not done consciously. If I'm broke and somebody buys me coffee and leaves a tip at the table when they get up to pay, I may be faced with a moral dilemma. Or not. It might never occur to me that I could pick that money up because subconsciously or unconsciously it is already someones else's money. To me though, common usage conscience has always had a conscious aspect to it in the face of a dilemma.That assumes experiment and is thus a posteriori usage. Perhaps the important choices in this context are precisely the many ones not done with full (pure) consciousness, for they would seem to form the grounds or basis of the possibility of making conscious choices at all. Can we draw a hard line between conscious choices and subconscious choices? I'm saying that hard line or not, there is an important distinction here, and I'd like to label part of this distinction with 'conscience' which as a word refers to that which makes self-knowledge possible and usable (however it may be instantiated or effected in/by the brain). What is a purely conscious choice? Could it have *any* connection to the material world if not via conscience and/or feedback via experiment?

ME

[Atlas]

Mr E,

You make some good points but there is still some disagreement between us. I'm ready to entertain the definitions that you'd like to put up for Consciousness, Synthetic Consciousness, Subconscious, Unconscious, construct, concept, symbol, soul, God, man, thought, or any mix of these that we can use to point up the areas of disagreement between us. I think my subconscious definition could use some shoring up but I'm fairly well satisfied with the construction of the others.

I don't mind you using some math symbols if by '=' you mean "is" and if by '+' you mean "and" and if by '-' you mean "not". But feel free to substitute plain english. If you use other math symbols please identify how we should interpret. That is if you think consciousness is a quantity rather than a product use the '*' or 'x' symbols but if you think it is a product of something but not mathematically quantifiable just say product.

Whatever makes your definitions clearer.

If you say 'a matter of' or similar phrases in your definition, please follow up with a short paragraph of explanation.

We've been making long posts here and I'm ready to see whether your own definition of terms will be as brief as mine or more kitchen sinky. Let's stack 'em up side by side - it'll make DD's job easier if he chooses to attack us both for the same reason.

(An added benefit might be that in doing so you will satisfy Bill Hoyt. -- Just a thought.)

[Atlas]

Here are mine again.Definitions by Atlas
Consciousness: That function of the brain that requests, evaluates, and chooses among it's own symbols and associations and drives the body to action for the organism's survival, comfort and satisfaction and appreciates it's abilities.

Self: A construct of the consciousness that differentiates it's host from the rest of the world.

Soul: That construct of consciousness within the construct of "self" that appreciates the world and itself.

Construct: A conceptual assembly of symbols and associations.

Concept: An abstract or general idea of a class of entity (from dictionary)

Conscious Self: That "Self" which is called "I" and accepts as fact that it is an awake, logical, feeling human being.

Subconscious Self: A term the "Conscious Self" uses to describe that part of "Self" shrouded in mystery... (A term for the dreamer or producer of any woo, strange, weird, poetic or unexplained ideas or powers.)

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
You make some good points but there is still some disagreement between us. I'm ready to entertain the definitions that you'd like to put up for Consciousness, Synthetic Consciousness, Subconscious, Unconscious, construct, concept, symbol, soul, God, man, thought, or any mix of these that we can use to point up the areas of disagreement between us. I think my subconscious definition could use some shoring up but I'm fairly well satisfied with the construction of the others.Except for your admission ("could use some shoring up"), I'm not aware of any immediate point of disagreement between us here.

I don't mind you using some math symbols if by '=' you mean "is" and if by '+' you mean "and" and if by '-' you mean "not". But feel free to substitute plain english. If you use other math symbols please identify how we should interpret. That is if you think consciousness is a quantity rather than a product use the '*' or 'x' symbols but if you think it is a product of something but not mathematically quantifiable just say product. My kernel definitions as stated in this thread, similar to your litany of definitions, as such do not include such math symbols. Don't chase red herrings, please, that's Bill's job it seems. I do use math symbols in exposition from time to time, didactically, consistent with my stated goal of formalizing the informal. If the student persists in misunderstanding, what is the teacher to do? One can't just go around bashing people on the head when they don't behave properly, can one? If you want to criticize specific instances of some particular symbol, such as '=' in a recent reply of mine to a post of yours, fine. I'm happy to elaborate in such situations. Let me know explicitly please. My true vocabulary involves equations of terms in many instances, and to suggest that I might use common symbols with associative power in responding to a student's apparent request for insight into the power of Synthetic Consciousness. Please see my recent post to our comrade in arms, H'ethetheth, for more on this.

Whatever makes your definitions clearer. Again: To whom? If there is no confusion, there is no need. If there is particular confusion, there is particular need. Each confusion warrants its own attention to resolve the attention deficit disorder. Your confusions might be different from BillHoyt's confusions, again assuming either or both has any. There is no general debunking tool except assault or assault and battery. Socrates is said to have said, "Know thyself." I suggest the serious student follow that advice, seriously and playfully. I did.

If you say 'a matter of' or similar phrases in your definition, please follow up with a short paragraph of explanation. In general, I am working on the sub/unconcious level, attempting to avoid presuming the existence of consciousness in my terminology, as stated explicitly in my first post to this thread. I don't get what's remarkable about my usage of 'a matter of' in any instance. In fact it seems to have been taken for granted until you mentioned it. Can you use it, in good conscience, in a sentence to show me how it isn't already clear to you?

Is that a "short paragraph of explanation" to you?

We've been making long posts here and I'm ready to see whether your own definition of terms will be as brief as mine or more kitchen sinky. Let's stack 'em up side by side - it'll make DD's job easier if he chooses to attack us both for the same reason.Your request is out of order. See the Randi Challenge please, for instance. Or consider that brevity is not the criterion of interest. Compact, concise, complex, and functional are my criteria, what are yours? Shall we make DD's job easier??

(An added benefit might be that in doing so you will satisfy Bill Hoyt. -- Just a thought.) [/B]Please don't mention that name in a serious discussion of consciousness. Bill gets satisfaction from slinging mud at what he (mis)perceives to be bunk, if satisfaction means anything understandable here, and if satisfaction is possible via indefinite denial of denial. Let Bill deny denial for himself, he's said that Mr. E is the last person he'd ask, if I read his recent post right. I say, he's the first one to know what he's talking about.

Agreeably yours,

ME

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Am I "that Metaphor Monster"? If so, yes, I lurk still, and will continue to do so for some time and eat your face if I don't like your analogies or metaphors.
However, even though you failed to include any obscene bodily functions in this analogy, I find this one very easy to relate to. I know what a boat is, I know what a wake is.
I will not eat your face.

Also, I object to the title Metaphor Monster.

Goodness no! I have quite enjoyed your participation! As I have the opaque Mister E, I was making reference to the one who I also called Troll Bane, who got their undies in a bunch over the use of the analogy, of a vector or something.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
Here are mine again. Here, again is my question:

"Construct: A conceptual assembly of symbols and associations."

Construct: A conceptual assembly of associations.

Why/how is your phrasing more effective than mine, since this has been exposed to the light already in this thread? I believe you basically defined 'symbol' as a kind of association, yes? So perhaps I am taking some wrong reading there, unless the apparent redundancy is/was deliberate as a didactic tool of some kind.. There are many ways to mis-parse even a simple text-string there, so I could see it as having that kind of value, but it then lacks in its own "value".

BTW, as to 'is', it's been said that it depends on what 'is' is.

ME

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Your request is out of order. See the Randi Challenge please, for instance. Or consider that brevity is not the criterion of interest. Compact, concise, complex, and functional are my criteria, what are yours? Honest. Honest would be good enough for me.

The thread is Define Consciousness. I didn't come early enough to see why you were being called guilty of the old 'bob and weave' but you were clear enough for me in that last post.

It's rather disheartening for me. I like to think that the posters here do try to explore subjects honestly. Especially when they claim to be teacher and student and offer advice like 'Know thyself'. You're certainly smart enough but just not wise enough I guess.

Well, perhaps you just crave attention, I don't know. Good luck. I hope you find what you're looking for.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Goodness no! I have quite enjoyed your participation! As I have the opaque Mister E, I was making reference to the one who I also called Troll Bane, who got their undies in a bunch over the use of the analogy, of a vector or something. Yikes. "As I have the opaque Mister E..."

One might hope that if that refered to *ME* that it could translate agreeably into standard lingo as "As also have I enjoyed the posts presented by Mr. E, clearly a fine fellow he!..."

Agreeably yours, and sorry about the relative opacity of my clarity,

ME

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Here, again is my question:

"Construct: A conceptual assembly of symbols and associations."

Construct: A conceptual assembly of associations.

Why/how is your phrasing more effective than mine, since this has been exposed to the light already in this thread? I believe you basically defined 'symbol' as a kind of association, yes? So perhaps I am taking some wrong reading there, unless the apparent redundancy is/was deliberate as a didactic tool of some kind.. There are many ways to mis-parse even a simple text-string there, so I could see it as having that kind of value, but it then lacks in its own "value".

BTW, as to 'is', it's been said that it depends on what 'is' is.

ME Not all associations are symbolic. But if you want that as your definition, use it. I might be persuaded. Put your definitions together and see if they are consistent with each other.

Well, that's what I was trying to do anyway. I like it when the conversation goes someplace. Start your own thread maybe to talk about talkin about stuff. I've become skeptical you're trying to reach a conclusion. You dodge along the marathon. It makes the whole thing longer.

I'll rest here awhile.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
Honest. Honest would be good enough for me.

Well, perhaps you just crave attention, I don't know. Good luck. I hope you find what you're looking for. Honesty is about telling the truth. But the truth is that the truth of becoming is not necessarily the truth of being. Let me cite something, perhaps that will "satisfy" some discouraged soul on this forum:

"We tend to take the truth of being for granted.
The truth of becoming is in deed a thing of awe."

Thanks for your good wishes. I in deed have indeed been getting a lot personally from my posts to the forum. The tenor of your post, as I read it seriously, suggests that you are dissatisfied or just giving up on understanding. I hope that reading is only terminal and not real in the ordinary real-world sense, for us both.

Any student of consciousness should crave attention, but not be greedy for it, for attention is at the heart of the synthesis of sensation with awareness which makes consciousness possible in the first place.

"The great thing about logic, is that if you persevere with it you can not go wrong."

Let your conscience be your guide, and as they used to say, "Godspeed".

Agnostically yours, or not,

ME

PS - As a personal aside, some things of value for me here:

Rust out of the "machinery" of my mind.
Marginal increments in Synthetic Consciousness.
Finding 'God' and putting it in its proper place in the Synthetic Order of things, thanks in part to your help.
Fun
Profound reorientation of key "constructs" leading to awesome possibilities
Didactic practice
Participation in a discussion of Definitions of Consciousness and the alleged existence thereof, an old pet topic of mine.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
[B]Not all associations are symbolic.Check for ambiguity of negation: Likely readings -

Not (all are symbolic), or (not all) are symbolic:

[I am] denying that all are symbolic. Or,
Some or none, but not all, are symbolic.
All symbols are associations.
Some associations are not, in themselves, symbolic.

Okay, since 'symbolic' refers to associations with concrete items and I accept the possibility of associations with non-concrete items (even tho' I tend to be a concrete thinker perhaps like David). But a given association must eventually be associated/associatable with concrete items if the associations are to have what I believe David referred to as "external validity" (I have not seen a reply to my post about this).

Did I suggest otherwise? I was, again, simply trying to help you with your stated vocabulary of consciousness as understandable to me. I didn't yet understand the definition of construct as stated by you. Why is 'symbolic' in there explicitly?

What conclusion? This was (had been) only round one, for me, as stated in passing somewhere in the thread.

ME, or Mr. Ed

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Goodness no! I have quite enjoyed your participation! As I have the opaque Mister E, I was making reference to the one who I also called Troll Bane, who got their undies in a bunch over the use of the analogy, of a vector or something.

Aha! They are one and the same. I guess that was my guilty conscience speaking, as I have seen myself forced to discuss analogies quite frequently. I must admit that my undergarments have also been creeping up every once in a while during this discussion.

I must say though that I have enjoyed most of this discussion, however I feel that my opinion on this matter needs further thinking and reading, since I had never come to ponder the inner workings of consciousness before this discussion.
It appears that that has become the topic though, so I'm going to withdraw for a bit.

Mr. E,

To most of your "enough?" questions I say yes, and I will not debate you on the correctness of your presumptions concerning "content in mind". However I myself presume that Daniel Dennet has the better teaching skills, so I've taken up his "consciousness explained".
After that I believe I shall be concentrating on topic.


regards,

H'ethetheth

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
I must say though that I have enjoyed most of this discussion, however I feel that my opinion on this matter needs further thinking and reading, since I had never come to ponder the inner workings of consciousness before this discussion.
It appears that that has become the topic though, so I'm going to withdraw for a bit. I will miss your inspiring presence while you read the prose of that other DD character! But you have clearly got the essence of my starting position, about trying to consciously get at consciusness from the inside, so to speak. A lot of people seem to get paid good money to write books about such things. I've got it down pretty well myself, heh, so if DD raises something of, uh, interest for you, post it here or drop me a line otherwise!

Dennet has more of a reputation than I do, if you like argument from authority, but, no offense taken here.

May your eyestrain be worth the price of admission to Dennet's World!


ME

edit PS - H' wrote: "I thought it was fairly presumptuous of you to say that there are only people without content in mind here who would try to explain supposition fields to me (not to say arrogant)."

I don't recall saying that. Is this trivial beyond possibility of parole, or something to work out a bit while you read elsewhere? My text strings might have been dense or mis-stated, but when I read yours above, it doesn't seem to say the same as what I recall stating and meaning.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Mr. E
I read this as you not asking me to explain this further, and shall therefore await the no doubt delightful attempts of others to explain a matter of something of no content in mind to someone who doesn't seem to understand understanding itself!

I see I've indeed misread this, although now that I've really read it, I have no idea what you mean by "a matter of something of no content in mind".
Anyway, I remember I read something like: "[...]the delightful attempts of others of no content in mind[...]
I guess I really am a bonehead, and that presumption makes for inaccurate reading.

Sorry, 'see' you in couple of days, that is, on topic. I will be following the discussion though, and probably commenting on things like this.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
[B]I see I've indeed misread this, although now that I've really read it, I have no idea what you mean by "a matter of something of no content in mind".If you had taken me up on my twice indicated offer about that essay, the one about understanding understanding, the one I didn't want to burden the list with if there was no explicit call for it, the meanings represented by that text might have been clearer. I could try to summarize in a shorter post if you would like ME to.

Anyway, I remember I read something like: "[...]the delightful attempts of others of no content in mind[...]
I guess I really am a bonehead, and that presumption makes for inaccurate reading.Ah! Thanks for the explanation. If an excuse is warranted, I would accept the one you mentioned already about 'Dutch' and 'dutch'. I do love puns!! My rule of thumb is to read with both humility and arrogance at the same time; it ain't instantiated purrr-fectly all the time, not to be catty about it. I believe you agree. Reading deep sh*t across a native language barrier can indeed be problematic for the serious student. Or maybe you "misread" on purpose as a test of the teacher phase of our discourse on the course of SC. [shrug] I trust this reply covers both options well enough. After all, this is taken to be a Critical Thinking forum by some...

Speaking of which, I seem to recall you posting something about "don't pretend" as a kind of maxim. One of what might be maxims for ME, as you may recall, is that "our language" is necessarily ambiguous, both self-referentially and with respect to most other aspects. But I trust you knew that already. Anyway, in case anyone else is not there here, "don't pretend" is a good rule and a bad rule when it comes to Consciousness. It depends on how you mean it. If a hyphen is inserted, a minor act of symmetry breaking, it becomes clearer: "don't pre-tend". Both (or Bothersome) meanings are "contained in" 'pretense' if one stops to think carefully about ordinary usage.

Without pre-tense, consciousness is pretty dull, immaterial, non-existent for all practical purposes, for being conscious is almost precisely a matter of having a certain kind of tension in mind/brain - it may lead or lag, that is there is a phase relation to attention, but without attention what consciousness would be left to speak of?

But with pretense, consciousness can lead one on flights of fancy which seem to rather lose touch with the ordinary world and some end up in delusional states. The balancing act between fantasy and reality is another aspect of Synthetic Consciousness(tm) as hinted at by the double helix suggestion.

So, when attention is distracted or directed at imagination, we say the pour soul is not paying attention, because we, arrogantly or presumptuously or not, each have our own perspectives, and as someone pointed out, we can't communicate with "you" if "you" are not paying attention to "us". But of course that's because said "pour soul" might be paying attention to imagination. There are confusions of attention as well, such as mis-direction, short-circuits, denial, and other pathologies of consciousness as I believe I mentioned and have caused to be demonstrated earlier here.

Want more?

That said, I'm waiting for the OP to respond further, whether seriously on topic, or in the punny spirit of the contents of the OP as a scarecrow for Trolls. And Bill, I'm waiting ... but since you think this might be about the Randi Challenge, it could well be. Either way, "I want my money" stands. On your premise, I have demonstrated a paranormal phenomenon in this thread. Since truth trumps order, according to you, it should be clear that the usual formalities need not apply.

ahem.

Have a thoughtful day!


ME

edit: PS - All posts by "ME" to this thread Copyright 2004. Publication and distribution under Fair Use allowed with attribution, no commercial use rights granted. ~~

[Atlas]

Please repeat the paranormal claim or a link to it.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
Please repeat the paranormal claim or a link to it. You mean the premise I mentioned is a "claim"? Bill stated that truth trumps order. If so, why is a stated claim necessary here?

Let's not lose site of the topical thread, but if you are a formal representative of JREF and the Randi Challenge folks, we could discuss this further. You sure seemed to jump on that line of thinking pretty quickly if you are only an ordinary critical thinker (and further I don't see any reply or rebuttal to my recent posts other than what I quoted above, so my working hypothesis is that you accept everything I stated there as the truth). Here is a pointer to part of it. I don't know how to easily link to specific posts in this thread...

"PS - "If you want to try for the JREF prize, then contact JREF. If you think I'm breaking the rules, then contact JREF." That advice is unwarranted and if you read the prior parts of the thread, you will see why, if you read them critically and for meaning. I'm still waiting for you to get real, Bill. And I'm still waiting for the money."

I have done both.

I'm still waiting.

Regards formally,

ME

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
You mean the premise I mentioned is a "claim"? Bill stated that truth trumps order. If so, why is a stated claim necessary here? I should have quoted. You seemed to be making a claim based on some premise by another poster....

You said...On your premise, I have demonstrated a paranormal phenomenon in this thread. That sounded like you were making the claim that you have demonstrated a paranormal phenomenon.

What did your words mean if not what they say?

I was just saying that I had missed the interchange you were referencing and wanted to read it. You seem quite willing to challenge others but are unwilling to accept challenges from others as if the "teacher" that you are is not trying to promote critical thinking but to jam "text strings" down our throats.

Did you or did you not demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon, and if not, what was the meaning you were trying to convey?

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
[B]I should have quoted. You seemed to be making a claim based on some premise by another poster.... I was making two "arguments in one". And yes, everyone who posted constructively to the Synthetic Consciousness aspects of this thread did provide some basis for what you are calling a claim. I'm not clear on the point of pursuing this angle. Are you a formal representative as noted?

What did your words mean if not what they say? I suppose they meant whatever else you read them to mean. Are you asking me to define 'meaning' explicitly?

I was just saying that I had missed the interchange you were referencing and wanted to read it.This entire thread, or a bit less, plus some emails with people who seem to be randi.org authorized representatives (to which you might not have access at this time).

You seem quite willing to challenge others but are unwilling to accept challenges from others as if the "teacher" that you are is not trying to promote critical thinking but to jam "text strings" down our throats. What it seems to you is in your head only, tho' others may also have similar such seemings in their heads, as far as I can tell the tale of conscious experience.

In the interest of cutting down verbiage, what challenges remain unanswered? Please be specific.

Did you or did you not demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon, and if not, what was the meaning you were trying to convey? Isn't that first part the very point? "To whom?" is my reiteration of my effective earlier text string.

3 Options: It was demonstrated, not demonstrated, or both. Who wants to know and why?

I am "solving" what might amount to a pair of simultaneous equations. I don't mind trying give you an idea (but likely won't elaborate a lot immediately):

1) The BillHoyt thing, with the RC as leverage.
........... This includes other data too.
2) The RC thing with the BillHoyt thing (and more) as leverage.

I'm still waiting.

It is possible that the Randi Challenge itself is bunk. Your inquiry is what it is making it topical here and giving it more meaning, thanks.

In a day or so, if there is not further attempted challenge to the first building block of SC, I intend to proceed further on phase two of defining consciousness and "challenging" its existence as tho' this thread meant anything at all like that. In the meantime I'm available daily to deal with issues raised about my first post in this thread and elaborations of the necessary aspects in further posts in this thread.

Thanks for your contributions to the demo of SC so far. Synchronicity can be awesome!

ME

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
In the interest of cutting down verbiage, what challenges remain unanswered? Please be specific.

The only challenge I put out was to put some definitions up next to mine so that we could compare and further the discussion. You seem dodgy and unwilling. Then contrary and preachy. I took that to mean you really have nothing to offer but empty text strings. There are a few others who say things but quail when asked for explanations. They evade. They have no depth. You are proving every bit their equal.

I then had a personal request. You said: I have demonstrated a paranormal phenomenon in this thread. I certainly missed it and it seems so did everyone else. I asked again. You evaded.

Isn't that first part the very point? "To whom?" is my reiteration of my effective earlier text string.

3 Options: It was demonstrated, not demonstrated, or both. Who wants to know and why? I want to know. Why not? We were having a pleasant exchange but then I asked you to show me what you've got. You made a claim. Is it odd that someone took an interest?

Then you move to obfuscation.I am "solving" what might amount to a pair of simultaneous equations. I don't mind trying give you an idea (but likely won't elaborate a lot immediately):

1) The BillHoyt thing, with the RC as leverage.
........... This includes other data too.
2) The RC thing with the BillHoyt thing (and more) as leverage.
Those are hardly equations. They aren't even sentences.
Plain and simple it's bunk.

But ironically you say...It is possible that the Randi Challenge itself is bunk.

Finally you say: ... I intend to proceed further on phase two of defining consciousness and "challenging" its existence ... Will phase 2 of defining consciousness include a definition? If we are to take your challenge of it seriously it might help us to know what you believe it is. Otherwise how will anyone be able to assess whether you offer anything but bunk?

[BillHoyt]

Mystery Crank Oil,

You're waiting for nothing. You continue to make claims involving mathematics while blathering on, whining about the Randi challenge for some bizarre reason and ignoring skeptical inquiry.

Now we must add this "simultaneous equations" crap to the bunk list, but, of course, it is couched in weasel words to give you an out:

I am "solving" what might amount to a pair of simultaneous equations. I don't mind trying give you an idea (but likely won't elaborate a lot immediately):

1) The BillHoyt thing, with the RC as leverage.
........... This includes other data too.
2) The RC thing with the BillHoyt thing (and more) as leverage.

As Atlas has already indicated, this is sheer bunk. Frankly, mystery, you haven't elaborated on any of your pseudoscientific claims. Frankly, you have run away from each one like a scared little girl. Frankly, you know you have no basis for your assertions. You know you also have precious little knowledge about matrices, vectors, symmetry operations or the DNA double helix. You also know, as do all cranks and all who love to play with metaphysical fog machines, that the crank ideas you are trying to sell require "scientific-souding stuff." Absent real science, you just make it up and hope your audience's acumen is about as dull as your own.

Go peddle this stuff elsewhere. There are plenty of websites out there with similar nonsense, that use a similar blend of scientific illiteracy and metaphysical bafflegab.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
You're waiting for nothing.No.
You continue to make claims involving mathematics while blathering on, whining about the Randi challenge for some bizarre reason and ignoring skeptical inquiry.Bill continues to blather on about his fantasies instead of demonstrating clear-cut ordinary critical thinking. Whooopeee. But isn't part of the notion of the paranormal that it might seem bizarre to many? And the truth about consciousness might also seem bizarre.

Now we must add this "simultaneous equations" crap to the bunk list, but, of course, it is couched in weasel words to give you an out:Don't mistake a topical argument for what it isn't, Bill. If you'd just get off your high horse and show some horse sense, there'd be less verbiage in this thread.

As Atlas has already indicated, this is sheer bunk.You aren't doing a good job of focussing on the topic, Bill.

Frankly, mystery, you haven't elaborated on any of your pseudoscientific claims.Frankly, Troll, you just keep trolling as long as you like.

Frankly, you have run away from each one like a scared little girl.No, I have engaged much of your sad sh*t with generosity and kindness, since you are making value judgments here. And I'm still waiting. No excuses, Bill. You know what I mean. Time is running out.

Absent real science, you just make it up and hope your audience's acumen is about as dull as your own.Bill, in his terribly rude and uncivil way is almost correct on this one. Art, Religion, and Science all seem to be about truth. But for some reason, they don't all seem to be on the same page. Some people believe in Synchronicity. I find Found Art to be a stepping stone to higher consciousness, as indicated in this thread.

Go peddle this stuff elsewhere. There are plenty of websites out there with similar nonsense, that use a similar blend of scientific illiteracy and metaphysical bafflegab. The path which took me here might or might not be relevant. But this forum is supposed to be about critical thinking. Throwing virtual mud doesn't prove anything except that you can post trash talk posing as argument. I've been kindly making sense of your nonsense plenty, Bill.

And I'm still waiting. Bill's silence on that matter is deafening.



ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
The only challenge I put out was to put some definitions up next to mine so that we could compare and further the discussion. If that's the only thing missing, it seems you are asking me to summarize the thread in one short post. Let's see what I can do in a moment. Meanwhile:

You seem dodgy and unwilling. Then contrary and preachy. I took that to mean you really have nothing to offer but empty text strings.I asked if you needed a definition of "meaning", since you use the term, and here in an odd and disrespectful way. I haven't seen such a request from you yet. If one prefers what "seems" so to what is so, then one prefers illusions to reality or truth (or both), in common usage. That would mean you prefer bunk, as I get the usage of the term. Did you get the point about "Shall we [make it easy for DD]?" If one skips questions, sometimes it leads to misunderstanding, whether internally or in political matters such as communication breakdowns.

There are a few others who say things but quail when asked for explanations. They evade. They have no depth. You are proving every bit their equal.High praise coming from you? "Quail" is a cute term coming from a bird brain, but what's it doing coming from you here?

I then had a personal request. You said: I have demonstrated a paranormal phenomenon in this thread. I certainly missed it and it seems so did everyone else. I asked again. You evaded.Don't pretend to quote me, quote in context if you want to make it topical and show attention to detail.

I want to know. Why not?But who are you in that matter? Are you an illusion of your conscious mind, some vague construct with apparent confusions parading as thoughtful definitions of who you are? btw, 'why' and 'why not' are both good questions for the serious student to ask, nice point. Being aware of irony is definitely part of higher consciousness. Using it effectively is something else!

We were having a pleasant exchange but then I asked you to show me what you've got. You made a claim. Is it odd that someone took an interest? What/which claim? I posted a post in this thread, containing textual evidence of Synthetic Consciousness, and since then we have mostly BillHoyt-like trash talk, and Dymanic, H'ethetheth, and Atlas-like apparently sincere discussions (some of which have petered out for whatever personal reasons) in response to my post(s). Do you think you could be a bit more vague in your references here?

Then you move to obfuscation. Those are hardly equations. They aren't even sentences.
Plain and simple it's bunk.Plain and simple, people tend to see what they are looking for if they miss the fine details of the point. Good point about consciousness, again, Grasshopper! I am only your assist-Ant here, so don't take offense please.

But ironically you say... That's a fine way to be skeptical, good for you! Thanks for confirming the supposition that "the Randi Challenge is bunk" is topical to the thread. It is both topical and probably true, but the proof of the latter is not necessarily topical to the core of this thread.

Finally you say: Will phase 2 of defining consciousness include a definition? If we are to take your challenge of it seriously it might help us to know what you believe it is. Otherwise how will anyone be able to assess whether you offer anything but bunk? Your posts are beginning to look more and more like Bill's in their evident lack of attention to detail and lousy humor.

I "came over to your side", challenged your presentation, and here we are with you. Are you mad at me for not posting a litany of trash alongside yours right away?? I still don't have a solid answer from you as to my polite challenge about issues in definition. You had said you might be persuaded... well?

I take it that you accept my reply to your challenge about 'honesty' without quarrel or reservation. Do you?


ME

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
I "came over to your side", challenged your presentation, and here we are with you. Are you mad at me for not posting a litany of trash alongside yours right away?? I still don't have a solid answer from you as to my polite challenge about issues in definition. You had said you might be persuaded... well?ME I said often that your posts were difficult to understand. Then you posted something clear to show that in fact you are able to do so if you want. I did appreciate that.

But as soon as I politely asked you to present the definitions that you work from everything changed. I hadn't read the entire thread and didn't know why Bill Hoyt and others were calling you on stuff. I don't know math as well as those who were saying that you don't know it as well as you think you do. That argument was over my head.

I came to offer my 2 cents about an issue that is interesting to me. When I use words, words like consciousness, what do I think I mean when I us them and what is it that others think it is.

DD laid out the challenge in the first post. Define it and then he word argue against it. You've kinda taken the thread over. Insodoing you've shown flashes of intelligence but you use your intelligence to achieve a petty end.

You could treat others with respect. But fear that would unseat you from your perch. No one is able to question you about anything you say without getting doubletalk. You do not seek to engage the topic with integrity or intellectual honesty. All you want to do is teach but you won't even answer questions about that.

I very much enjoy the exchanges of others whenever they cause me to think about what is behind my beliefs. Often I disagree with another poster's expressed opinion respectfully, but never when the poster refuses to stand up and explain his own words.

You are that poster. Bill Hoyt is only one that has called you on it. You bob and weave and shuck and jive and then cast aspersions on Bill and anyone else who dares ask you what you really stand for.

I did put up my definitions and answered several of your questions. Several seemed strange to me and I said so finally asking you to present your definitions so that it would be apparent how we differ. You have refused. You've Obfuscated, You have dodged. All the while making pronouncements on others as being low and small.

I will show my good faith and address any of your questions when you quit acting childish and stand behind your words with a little integrity.

TELL US WHAT YOU MEAN. Put up your definitions of Consciousness, Synthetic consciousness, Conscience, Meaning or anything else you think will further the discussion. As you say, you have written things down and merely need to summarize your own posts. What is the problem?

Here is a hint. Start with the words you can define. I admit it's not easy, but it does let others know where you stand and it let's us know that you know where you stand as well. Since I believe you are intelligent enough to do it, especially with my examples and the dictionary and your books to guide you, I feel like your agenda is not to engage and inform.

Do the right thing Mr E. Reengage the topic with honesty, integrity and respect for the questions of the other posters. It's the fair thing too. There is no need to be condescending or didactic. We are open enough to embrace new ideas when they have merit. It's not about debate and skepticism - It's about the ideas presented by those means.

I'll answer all your questions of me when I know where you are coming from. Otherwise it's an exercise in futility. You mince my words and throw them back mixed with a strange gibberish. You won't explain where you firmly stand. I'm left believing that you really don't know what you're talking about but have a need to puff yourself up as if you were a deep thinker. But unless you tell us where your foundation is - It's all bunk, Mr E. It's all Bunk!

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
But unless you tell us where your foundation is - It's all bunk, Mr E. It's all Bunk! Am I supposed to just dump it on the thread, or is critical thinking a matter of people drawing it out of me, as perhaps H'ethetheth was doing? If by "It's all bunk" you mean something like the common phrase "garbage in, garbage out" I'm generally agreeable. Your definitions read closer to bunk than to clearly stated insights into the deeper meaning of 'consciousness'.

As I read your text there, you could be saying that your posts are all bunk, Atlas. I've tried politely to engage you about them as noted in my previous post, and now I'm getting a long lecture in how you seem to think I am not playing fair here.

I have stated something about my "foundation" as I suppose you mean it, a number of times in this thread, along these lines (paraphrased in some places, so look at the original usage for guidance if there seems to be a problem):

I am writing from the future, as best as I presently can, and talking with/to the past - you might imagine that could produce some communication issues. I offered one poster a bridge, seriously and in good humor, but s/he went away silently after that. It could be a two-way street, that "bridge". Don't misread that to say that I am some ordinary time-traveller, it's more a manner of speaking than something like StarTrek, d'oh! I'm sure some will find a way to laugh, and let them have their fun. Just remember that quote from Schopenhauer when they do.

Synthetic Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness. "a matter of" has been accepted as common usage; 'sensation' and 'awareness' have been defined in terms of information theory; 'synthesis' doesn't seem to be at issue. I've stated that there is a distinction between conscious self and subconscious self, and described that some. I've noted 'attention' and the notion of 'phase' in the Synthesis. I've actively demoed the Synthetic Method in this thread, including the use of Found Art, the incorporation of terms brought in by other posters (eg, 'attention', 'God') and so on.

That's my foundation. When pressed I also stated some "axioms" about reality and value and the world and so on. Jeff made a bird-brain joke and dropped it when I called what looked like the bluff. He's been silent since as far as I can tell.

I'm waiting for DD to respond to a number of inquiries, if I'm to take his ironical OP seriously.

I'm waiting for BillHoyt to get real, in the ordinary sense.

I'm waiting for someone to defend the Randi Challenge. If nobody can, then it's bunk. If someone can at least state how it is relevant to this thread, that'd be great too! It's not irrelevant, just not on the main path, as stated from the past.

I want my money.

I'm losing patience.

Is that clear enough?

Is the air too thin here for you or what? Man does not live by irony alone.


ME

[Dymanic]

At first I was thinking either Profundus Maximus or Artful Dodger. After a while, I was more inclined to go with Tireless Rebutter, or maybe Furious Typer (which is about when I bailed). Right now, I'm still torn between Loopy and Bong. (I consider it cheating to propose hybrids; one must choose).

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Dymanic
At first I was thinking either Profundus Maximus or Artful Dodger. After a while, I was more inclined to go with Tireless Rebutter, or maybe Furious Typer (which is about when I bailed). Right now, I'm still torn between Loopy and Bong. (I consider it cheating to propose hybrids; one must choose). Hey look who's back! How goes the emulation?

Got topic?

ME

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

Hey look who's back!
I am not back.


...DOH!
How goes the emulation?
I wouldn't know where to begin.
Got topic?
You missed it? There's more to the forum than this one thread, you know.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Dymanic
There's more to the forum than this one thread, you know. [/B] Whatever turns you on, Dude!


ME

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mr. E

... I've stated that there is a distinction between conscious self and subconscious self, and described that some.
ME
Let's explore that one point. I can agree that I have something I feel OK about calling a "conscious self", as I defined on page 1 of this thread. Other people tell me that they have one, and our descriptions of what we experience tend to agree.
But a "subconscious self"? Perhaps you are referring to the
Freudian notion of the unconscious. If not, let me know before I start quoting Popper.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Let's explore that one point. I can agree that I have something I feel OK about calling a "conscious self", as I defined on page 1 of this thread. Other people tell me that they have one, and our descriptions of what we experience tend to agree.
But a "subconscious self"? Perhaps you are referring to the
Freudian notion of the unconscious. If not, let me know before I start quoting Popper. Oh, sorry. I thought I was quite clear about how I handle this: Conscience. Maybe conscience is somewhat unconscious - can you cite Freud on this? BTW, I didn't see an explicit defintion from you on page 1, but I did see three posts there, one of which dully called Interesting Ian a dullard, and one which paraphrased some alleged textbook blathering on about something vaguely related to the topic. Maybe you could state exactly what this "conscious self" is and/or cite your source?

We may have such different vocabularies of consciousness that understanding one from the other might be rather difficult to do at first.

Conscious self, as a "construct" of belief structures perhaps ala Atlas could be most anything constructable at all, even self-incoherent, self-defeating, confused,... - people can create fantasy selves and the like, for instance. People also might be said to follow their consciences, or not, so clearly any hypothetical conscious self would have to have some grounding in ordinary reality. What is the root of desire?

ME

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
... Conscious self, as a "construct" of belief structures perhaps ala Atlas could be most anything constructable at all, even self-incoherent, self-defeating, confused,... - people can create fantasy selves and the like, for instance. People also might be said to follow their consciences, or not, so clearly any hypothetical conscious self would have to have some grounding in ordinary reality. What is the root of desire?
While I do put forth a definition for discussion of Consciousness, Self, and Conscious Self - do not twist it with words not found there. Especially when your conclusion is not apparent from my definition without an expansion of just how loosely you intend to interpret "grounded in ordinary reality".

Please offer your own definition and reference those.

My conscious self definition said simply this...Conscious Self: That "Self" which is called "I" and accepts as fact that it is an awake, logical, feeling human being.

Mine definitions are here. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44750&perpage=1&pagenumber=268)

(Editted to remove a sentence sure to be misconstrued as support for your position.)

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Oh, sorry. I thought I was quite clear about how I handle this: Conscience[...]

Hehe, I'd think by now you should know that you can't assume that anyone but you understands what you say. Not being rude, just observing :)

Carry on!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Mr. E
No.
Bill continues to blather on about his fantasies instead of demonstrating clear-cut ordinary critical thinking. Whooopeee. But isn't part of the notion of the paranormal that it might seem bizarre to many? And the truth about consciousness might also seem bizarre.

Don't mistake a topical argument for what it isn't, Bill. If you'd just get off your high horse and show some horse sense, there'd be less verbiage in this thread.

You aren't doing a good job of focussing on the topic, Bill.

Frankly, Troll, you just keep trolling as long as you like.

No, I have engaged much of your sad sh*t with generosity and kindness, since you are making value judgments here. And I'm still waiting. No excuses, Bill. You know what I mean. Time is running out.

Bill, in his terribly rude and uncivil way is almost correct on this one. Art, Religion, and Science all seem to be about truth. But for some reason, they don't all seem to be on the same page. Some people believe in Synchronicity. I find Found Art to be a stepping stone to higher consciousness, as indicated in this thread.

The path which took me here might or might not be relevant. But this forum is supposed to be about critical thinking. Throwing virtual mud doesn't prove anything except that you can post trash talk posing as argument. I've been kindly making sense of your nonsense plenty, Bill.

And I'm still waiting. Bill's silence on that matter is deafening.



ME

When am I going to get answers instead of lies? When are you going to stop wasting my time?

An important point you choose to lie about is critical thinking. I am doing that; you are failing to. When you make assertions about vectors, matrices, DNA and symmetry operations, it is the epitome of critical thinking for someone to ask incisive questions.

You made and continue to make pseudoscientific assertions in the middle of your bafflegab. Either back them up, retract them or go away.

[T'ai Chi]

This thread is equationless.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by jzs
This thread is equationless.

I think you missed dozens of posts.

[hammegk]

Perhaps the word jzs was searching for -- in specific regards to Mr.E -- is "meaningless"?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
I think you missed dozens of posts.

Nope, read them all. I'm looking for a real equation from Mr. E, none of this word stuff:

"How it follows:

General case: C = S x A

Particular case (Information):

S = I(becoming), A = I(being)

Therefore Ci = I(becoming) x I(being), or since the context is known explicity, simplifying to C = becoming x being."


For example, what exactly is I(becoming) and I(being),etc.? Can he put actual numbers in these matrices?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by jzs
Nope, read them all. I'm looking for a real equation from Mr. E, none of this word stuff:

"How it follows:

General case: C = S x A

Particular case (Information):

S = I(becoming), A = I(being)

Therefore Ci = I(becoming) x I(being), or since the context is known explicity, simplifying to C = becoming x being."


For example, what exactly is I(becoming) and I(being),etc.? Can he put actual numbers in these matrices?

C = S x A is an equation. Otherwise, I agree with you, and have been asking mystery to back this nonsense up. Quite surprisingly, there has been no back up.

[Mr. E]

Hi Atlas, thanks for continuing.
Originally posted by Atlas
While I do put forth a definition for discussion of Consciousness, Self, and Conscious Self - do not twist it with words not found there. Especially when your conclusion is not apparent from my definition without an expansion of just how loosely you intend to interpret "grounded in ordinary reality". If I do not attempt to use your terms, how are we to find a common language? If you can show a necessary problem ala the "looseness" you allege, by all means lay out the argument clearly. Until then, you are accepting my usage in that context since you didn't deny nor correct it explicitly. I'm glad we have that settled.

Please offer your own definition and reference those.Which one and which "those"? Didn't you just read my reply to your prior similar request for definition?! Stop being recursively silly in such an obvious fashion, please, it is uncivil.

My conscious self definition said simply this...[b]Conscious Self: That "Self" which is called "I" and accepts as fact that it is an awake, logical, feeling human being.That's nice.

"sure to be construed to be support for your position"? So now you are removing truth from the thread, openly! My, isn't this fun!

Hey, David, are you reading this? I don't mean to hijack the thread, and am still waiting for responses from you, but this stuff is too silly to leave alone.

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
C = S x A is an equation. Otherwise, I agree with you, and have been asking mystery to back this nonsense up. Quite surprisingly, there has been no back up. It's shorthand, silly - referencing the prior posts. Even a three year old (per H'ethetheth and maybe others) should have been able to figure that out in context, esp. one which can generate text strings about "R2" or GS orthogonalization and the like. Anyway this was already dealt with by prior posts, so you are now chewing on the musty remains of your imagination, a thoroughly odd act to perform in public. Good for you, Bill!

Truth trumps order.

I'm still waiting. I'm feeling more patient than I was recently, but time is passing. Got watch, Bill? I've got the real McCoy and you know it.

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by hammegk
Perhaps the word jzs was searching for -- in specific regards to Mr.E -- is "meaningless"? Hi again. Please define the term you put in quotation marks.

Thanks.

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Hehe, I'd think by now you should know that you can't assume that anyone but you understands what you say. Not being rude, just observing :)

Carry on! I'd think you'd know by now that while I was born yesterday, I wasn't born yesterday, if you get the idiom. Civility rules this forum at some level, I was trying to be polite.

Thanks for the support!! Any progress with Dennet?

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by jzs
For example, what exactly is I(becoming) and I(being),etc.? Can he put actual numbers in these matrices? [/B] Allowing for the shorthand and your use of "matrices", that's an excellent if metaphysical question. What exactly is an actual number and how does an abstraction effect action in the world? What/how are being and becoming?

But I don't see that it is necessarily relevant to the serious side of the OP - maybe you could concisely outline exactly how it is. OTOH, David seems to be AFK, or at least reading without posting, whether holding his sides from laughing or crying or not. Yo, DD, you got input here?


ME

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Thanks for the support!! Any progress with Dennet?

No need to be offended, just exploring my pathetic sense of humor again.

Dennett's a bit long on making sure I will understand his line of argument, but it's interesting. Lots of analogies too.
About a third of the way through now.

P.S.: Did I spell it Dennet? I did, didn't I? I meant Dennett of course.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
P.S.: Did I spell it Dennet? I did, didn't I? I meant Dennett of course.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22daniel+dennet%22&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&cop=mss&tab= for example: "Consciousness Explained -Daniel Dennet"

Same difference? No harm, no foul. Thanks for your assiduous if overzealous attention to irrelevant detail, Comrade! :) BTW, I *have* considered the possibility of other "typos" in the OP itself at least one of which is REALLY funny in a colloquial sense.

Play on, Puppets!

Silly ME

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Mr. E
It's shorthand, silly - referencing the prior posts. Even a three year old (per H'ethetheth and maybe others) should have been able to figure that out in context, esp. one which can generate text strings about "R2" or GS orthogonalization and the like. Anyway this was already dealt with by prior posts, so you are now chewing on the musty remains of your imagination, a thoroughly odd act to perform in public. Good for you, Bill!
The fact that you cannot supply any meat behind the shorthand is the issue, mystery. Mathematics is, indeed, shorthand. It is a compact notation that means something except when used in a crank manner. Do regale us with your explanation of the shorthand. I've only been asking for days now and you keep up this red herring.

I've got the real McCoy and you know it.

ME
You've got crank so far, mystery, and some mystery crank oil to go with it. When will you provide support for your specious, pseudoscientific claptrap?

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[...] and you keep up this red herring.

Another little off-topic. Being Dutch I'm not familiar with the red herring, and I couldn't find it in my dictionary.
Is it something like when a magician says: "Look! A red herring! I bet you've never seen a red herring before!" And then quickly puts a couple of pigeons up his other sleeve?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by hammegk
Perhaps the word jzs was searching for -- in specific regards to Mr.E -- is "meaningless"?
Originally posted by Mr. E
[B]Hi again. Please define the term you put in quotation marks.
A close enough definition would be BUNK! Why don't you lay out a few definitions so that we can all know what you're talking about. Start with the same definitions I laid out. I think, Consciousness and Synthetic Consciousness would be good. You might try, Conscience. Perhaps: Intellectual Integrity.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]I've only been asking for days now and you keep up this red herring.[b]Show its necessary relevance to the serious topic at hand. Don't just say "It's relevant because I say so" or such silly argument from non-authority. I've been telling you, since about day one, that I don't see how it's relevant in context to elaborate on it, and I courteously even allowed as how maybe you are more interested in emulations on an ordinary computer than in supposition fields and the like, many days ago, and further pointed you to these several issues a number of times since then. As I've stated many times, whatever your purpose in posting here, my bias is towards taking the OP ostensible topic seriously. If you can't accept that, how about not chewing off your own leg so often?

I also allowed as how "I failed" could be true in your estimation at some point; it's now clear to me that you will indeed continue to fail whether for the fun of it or not.

I'm still waiting, and you know what I mean. Tick tock... My patience is now waning.


ME

PS - Not that it's relevant but the analogy is/was adequate for the job.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
Perhaps: Intellectual Integrity.

Coherent Irony In Action?

Next? Did you intend for me to define 'meaning', too? I didn't see your explicit request in the silliness of your post.

"BUNK" doesn't look to me like an effective definition, unless it's an example of "shouting" in ASCII text per common usage. Weak at best, and while emphasis does have something to do with getting a point across that's a pretty thin notion for most. I'd use something like "MEANING youretardedthickskullednetcompoop, you!!!!!!" as if that were the point. Please note that I am NOT saying that. I'm more a pacifist, as stated before.

And it further fails as an effective definition of the term 'meaning' because it is at most a transliteration, using one WORD in place of another. Any child can play that game, as I'm sure you know too well. Building an effective working vocabulary requires effective definitions, as "working" might indicate to some. Your pillow-fight stuff is mere puppetry. Who's pulling your strings, anyway? Are you having a good time? Great!

I'm still trying not to crack up laughing, but if someone asks me to state an explicit definition of 'meaning', I would be happy to comply even if it's not clear that it's relevant here. But please do ask politely if you want a serious reply.

As I said before, dude, "Whatever turns you on."

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Another little off-topic. Being Dutch I'm not familiar with the red herring, and I couldn't find it in my dictionary.
Is it something like when a magician says: "Look! A red herring! I bet you've never seen a red herring before!" And then quickly puts a couple of pigeons up his other sleeve? Wrong birds. Think Wild Geese, and no magician to chase after them, that should do it for you.

:)

Civilly yours,

ME

[Atlas]

Mr E,

Please give us your definitions of Meaning, Consciousness, Synthetic Consciousness, Self, Self Consciousness, Subconcious, and Unconconsious and Conscience.

Thank you

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Wrong birds. Think Wild Geese, and no magician to chase after them, that should do it for you.

I read this enigmatic post as: "You got it right, but in no way does this phenomenon pertain to me (or ME)."

I'm not going to pass judgement on this red herring matter. However, stating that the analogy in question was "adequate for the job" as a "beginners analogy" is somewhat bold, as nobody who read it believed their eyes or understood it. :)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Another little off-topic. Being Dutch I'm not familiar with the red herring, and I couldn't find it in my dictionary.
Is it something like when a magician says: "Look! A red herring! I bet you've never seen a red herring before!" And then quickly puts a couple of pigeons up his other sleeve?

A "red herring" is a diversionary tactic meant to keep the hounds off your trail. (To put scent hounds off your trail you would go back and smear red herring over your tracks. The scent is so strong, the hounds lose track.)

This is what mystery is doing here; covering his pseudoscience with red herrings about the JREF prize and by posing other questions. It is meant to make us lose track of the fact that he keeps sprinkling in this pseudoscientific bafflegab and hasn't a wit of foundation for it.

Mystery, for the last time: you made the assertions. You keep claiming they are relevant. My questions, therefore, are relevant.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
Please give us your definitions of Meaning,
Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay?

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

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

Best Regards,

ME

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr. E

I will state one serious definition in this post:

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


LOFL. Derrida would love your obfuscatory opaqueness.


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

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by hammegk
LOFL. Derrida would love your obfuscatory opaqueness.


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

..... What moves? Flag, wind, or mind? ..... In your case, apparently bowels move.

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


ME

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr. E

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


Nope.

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
A "red herring" is a diversionary tactic meant to keep the hounds off your trail. Fair enough but you are the one using them here, from the very beginning of your silly replies to my posts. You made it all necessary, remember? Or maybe you speak with forked tongue. Or both. I don't really care, as it isn't all that topical to me.

I'm still waiting.

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

Reminder: "Truth trumps order."

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

ME

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
I will state one serious definition in this post:

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by hammegk
What I find interesting is that you seem to think you have posted a meaningful thought from any source. Gosh, such self-absorption coming from a curmudgeon, whodathunkit!? I've been demoing the Synthetic Method and Synthetic Conciousness (about as far as it can be done in a text-based medium), while playing Janitor, Student, Teacher, and Silly Fool. Feel free to mislabel things to your heart's content, Sir.

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

Got topic?

ME

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr. E

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

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

Can you make sense if you try really really hard?

[Atlas]

Originally posted by hammegk
LOFL. Derrida would love your obfuscatory opaqueness.


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

..... What moves? Flag, wind, or mind? ..... Good to be on the same side my friend. But, if I remember, you backed me into a corner and said: Mu

This guy is Muing all over the place.

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

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
You're not playing teacher or student well either, which has been your claim.Is that supposed to *mean* more than that you can post stupid text strings here for the Janitor to deal with?

I understand why you don't want to locate your own definitions - they don't seem to be there."locate", what is that supposed to *mean*? I've just thought this through more carefully than some it seems, and enjoy shooting the sh*t from/with both sides. There is no way anyone is going to mistake your "serious definition" of meaning for a definition of meaning. Please prove or disprove the definition, not your imaginary notion of what people will or won't do in general; stupid remarks are beneath you. Examine it, try to use it in simple ways, like a three year old child if you must. I find that while its construction is perhap novel, it covers common usage well enough for me.

You mince other's words well and you've been hinting that you wanted to share your definition of meaning for 3 days. If I had written it you would have explained that it is not a definition but would have added: Please define intention, purpose, and consequence in that condescendingly nice way you have about you. Gosh more inconsequential consequences to clean up. Yay for the Janitor!! Or maybe not. Your words do not accurately describe my MO, but I appreciate the effort at humor. Stop arguing your paltry imagination and wasting the Janitor's time. Intention, purpose, and consequence are all quite obvious. Got a dictionary? Purpose = objective in mind. Purpose gives focus to consciousness. Consequence -- con-sequence, that which follows in sequence, either proximally or distally, more or less necessarily. Consequences occur in the world if one acts into the world, consciously or not, but consciousness if used well tends to improve the results with practice. Intention is related to will, free or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live and learn,

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by hammegk
Agreed. Do you think your code can pass the Turing test? I deem results to date iffy.On which side? What code?
Can you make sense if you try really really hard? I usually don't try at all. Good luck misreading that one.

ME

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
C = S x A is an equation.

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

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

[Jeff Corey]

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
And my question about the "subconscious mind" was never satifactorily answered. Did you ask explicitly? Even so: Is asking such questions a demonstration of critical thinking? This psot is an aside at best.
I'll reword it. What is the "subconscious mind"? Is it Freud's "unconscious" or something else? Do you "mind"? For one thing, it, what ME's posts have been talking about, is what you (assuming you are a natural person) had, or had you, before you developed a conscious "I" along the lines of what Atlas wrote. It is there in most people, one presumes, but often conflated erroneously with Conscious Self, or ignored by people who consider themselves conscious but are more likely living an illusion. But since you, Jeff, haven't stated your definition of "I", pardon me, Atlas, if my usage offends your delicate sensibilities.

As for jzs, "Asked and Answered" sufficiently.

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


ME

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
... pardon me, Atlas, if my usage offends your delicate sensibilities. To the extent that you will quote me and say: "I agree with Atlas when he says..." Or "I disagree with Atlas when he says this... Here's why..." you will never need to concern yourself with my sensibilities.

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

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
You know, you might include your own definition of "I" when asking someone to define it.Why not! Somehow I don't recall asking for it yet. You seemed to give it to me along the way, for instance, for which perhaps this thread now has a bit more meaning beyond the assumption that you gave it and I took it with good intention and/or took it and gave it with good purpose. Haven't I thanked you enough? THANKS, DUDE, you are THE BEST!!!!

It is a common word that is used self referentially. If that is not what you take it as, put your definition out there for agreement. "I" is a pronoun in English, for the most part, first person singular subject reference. ME suffers from pronoun deficiency disorder and has been quite aware of this for perhaps years. Think about it. Please post your valuable insights about ambiguity of reference in language.

You could be clear about things if you know what you are talking about.Could be! You can't prove I'm not, because I do know what I am saying. As noted, "Truth trumps order." stands undenied.

If not, its ok around here to say, "I don't know." We've kinda already guessed that about you and are trying to help you see that in yourself. [/B] Thanks for the apparently unnecessary advice. It sounds a bit like that which H' offered about ala "don't pretend". Did you read my response to that, with good attention? Looks like you didn't. What I don't yet know is when/how this thread is going to end. Do you?

ME

[Atlas]

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Please continue defining your terms...Originally posted by Atlas
Please give us your definitions of Meaning, Consciousness, Synthetic Consciousness, Self, Self Consciousness, Subconscious, Unconscious and Conscience.

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

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

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

[Jeff Corey]

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

[Dancing David]

WoW!

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

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

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

PS I am on vacation and just not posting much.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
(edit: I don't remember reading your response to H'. If you'd like me to please link to it and I most certainly will.) Here is the pertinent excerpt. The Search function can take you easily to the fuller context, as you likely know. ME

"
Speaking of which, I seem to recall you posting something about "don't pretend" as a kind of maxim. One of what might be maxims for ME, as you may recall, is that "our language" is necessarily ambiguous, both self-referentially and with respect to most other aspects. But I trust you knew that already. Anyway, in case anyone else is not there here, "don't pretend" is a good rule and a bad rule when it comes to Consciousness. It depends on how you mean it. If a hyphen is inserted, a minor act of symmetry breaking, it becomes clearer: "don't pre-tend". Both (or Bothersome) meanings are "contained in" 'pretense' if one stops to think carefully about ordinary usage.

Without pre-tense, consciousness is pretty dull, immaterial, non-existent for all practical purposes, for being conscious is almost precisely a matter of having a certain kind of tension in mind/brain - it may lead or lag, that is there is a phase relation to attention, but without attention what consciousness would be left to speak of?

But with pretense, consciousness can lead one on flights of fancy which seem to rather lose touch with the ordinary world and some end up in delusional states. The balancing act between fantasy and reality is another aspect of Synthetic Consciousness(tm) as hinted at by the double helix suggestion.

So, when attention is distracted or directed at imagination, we say the pour soul is not paying attention, because we, arrogantly or presumptuously or not, each have our own perspectives, and as someone pointed out, we can't communicate with "you" if "you" are not paying attention to "us". But of course that's because said "pour soul" might be paying attention to imagination. There are confusions of attention as well, such as mis-direction, short-circuits, denial, and other pathologies of consciousness as I believe I mentioned and have caused to be demonstrated earlier here.

"

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Mr. E
But with pretense, consciousness can lead one on flights of fancy which seem to rather lose touch with the ordinary world and some end up in delusional states. The balancing act between fantasy and reality is another aspect of Synthetic Consciousness(tm) as hinted at by the double helix suggestion.

Really? More about the double helix? A "balancing act?" Really? Just how does the double helix represent a "balancing act?"

This is more patent nonsense, mystery. With complete scientific illiteracy, you try to link DNA to yin and yang; some kind of metaphoric tension between polar opposites. Bullsh and bafflegab.

[Jeff Corey]

Mr. E,
What do you mean by a "subconscious mind", if you don't mind?

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Really? More about the double helix? A "balancing act?" Really? Just how does the double helix represent a "balancing act?"

This is more patent nonsense, mystery. With complete scientific illiteracy, you try to link DNA to yin and yang; some kind of metaphoric tension between polar opposites. Bullsh and bafflegab. Asked and answered. Once more: "Bullsh" is necessary and "bafflegab" is possible.

Have a nice wait.

I'm waiting. You know what I mean.

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Mr. E,
What do you mean by a "subconscious mind", if you don't mind? Nice, and nicely put!

Would that be something like the psyche of psychology?

ME

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Mr. E,
What do you mean by a "subconscious mind", if you don't mind? Originally posted by Mr. E
Would that be something like the psyche of psychology?
If you mean it is the psyche of psychology, say that. If you don't know, say that. Jeff is asking an honest question of: What do YOU mean by a "subconscious mind".

Why play this stupid game? If you were being honest with us (or yourself) you would apologize for wasting everyone's time and go away, Or you would try to answer his question straight up.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
If you mean it is the psyche of psychology, say that. If you don't know, say that. Jeff is asking an honest question of: What do YOU mean by a "subconscious mind".

Why play this stupid game? If you were being honest with us (or yourself) you would apologize for wasting everyone's time and go away, Or you would try to answer his question straight up. Wow. Read minds much? Misread posts much? I wasn't going to mention your oddball use of "we" in prior posts, but now I must. "We"?

No offense: Have you looked in a mirror lately, Atlas??

With all due respect: Maybe you could go do a cold reading on a hot flash then see if you have any insight into the topic.

I think it was more enjoyable shooting the breeze with you about God and the like, but then again, irony is irony except maybe when it's just an accident of nature. You're still a good one, but I can't in good conscience say you are the best pal.


ME

edit for minor typo

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Wow. Read minds much? No, But I read English.

Try it. Read from Jeff's last 3 posts.Originally posted by Jeff Corey
And my question about the "subconscious mind" was never satifactorily answered.
I'll reword it. What is the "subconscious mind"? Is it Freud's "unconscious" or something else? Originally posted by Mr. E
Did you ask explicitly? Even so: Is asking such questions a demonstration of critical thinking?
Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Those are all good terms to play with, but I would like to focus on the "subconscious mind".
Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Mr. E,
What do you mean by a "subconscious mind", if you don't mind? Why do you seek to alienate others when with a straightforward answer you can engage them? Why the condescending tone anytime someone, myself included, asks a straight question of you?

When I say "We" I mean, myself and others. Can you provide some definitions? All I hear are chirping crickets.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Mr. E
The balancing act between fantasy and reality is another aspect of Synthetic Consciousness(tm) as hinted at by the double helix suggestion.

That is just plain ignorence. The DNA double helix is real, no doubt about that, not a "suggestion". Proven time after time by thousands of researchers. You can't "hint" anything by using the double helix. A very strange passage indeed. Don't you really have any better to come up with, Mr E?

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
[B] Why do you seek to alienate others when with a straightforward answer you can engage them?[...] Looks like an assumption or two on your part there, Atlas. I came to this forum with a straightforward manner and posted something which seemed like it might fit into the thread. I explained reasons for doing so, had some fun and learned something along the way too. As you should know if you knew anything, I'm kinda waiting for DD to catch up a bit.

I've provided a number of definitions for you to chew on. Chew away, or not, as you like! "Whatever turns you on."

What does "Coherent Irony In Action" mean to you, Atlas? Seriously. You perhaps asked, I replied in kind. You seemed to drop it. Can you define Intellectual Integrity except by demonstrating a lack of it?

How about "I", did you truly define the term? There are many 'I' words which are usable self-referentially, here are some roots for you: "Idiot" "Insult" "Illusion" "Irony" .... "Me" .... "You" ... "We" ... Did you ask me for a definition of the term, and not define yours? Sure looks like it but maybe not.

Do take a look in the mirror, or take two... or go suck on an infinite loop until your "conscious" server crashes if that's what it takes. I mean that in the best possible way I can in this context, really. I'm not perfect so if it comes off wrong, be divine and forgive us.

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Anders
That is just plain ignorence. Hi!

Maybe you are looking at some part of it backwards, Anders. I will stipulate the ordinary existence of DNA for this limited purpose. Granted that, how could my statement make sense other than as mere ignor[a]nce on my part? Please keep in mind the prior context of this thread.

ME

[Anders]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Hi!

Maybe you are looking at some part of it backwards, Anders. I will stipulate the ordinary existence of DNA for this limited purpose. Granted that, how could my statement make sense other than as mere ignor[a]nce on my part? Please keep in mind the prior context of this thread.

ME
Well, DNA DOES govern all build up of all tissues in the body including the brain, where our consciousness resides.

But I’m not going to take part in a debate about definition philosophies. But I am going to be there, when people makes false assumption about scientific facts, like DNA or the like.

So please people, continue the philosophy debate, a subject I know absolutely nothing about.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Can you define Intellectual Integrity... The word you are no doubt unfamiliar with is:Integrity
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY
2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS
synonym see HONESTY

You challenge others to define their terms and question their use of terms but when the same is asked of you, all we get is a song and dance. You question the question, call it out of place, call the questioner foolish... anything but answer the question in a straight forward manner.

I will answer all your questions as I did early in our conversation. It is you who need to demonstrate that you are willing to engage in the give and take. You challenged my definitions. I responded. You questioned further, I responded. You pressed on, mincing words. It was then I asked you for your definitions so that I could see what the underlying issues really were between us.

But you were not interested in defining the terms you use... Consciousness, Synthetic Consciousness, and others. Your arguments are Unsound, they are filled with undefined terms and your metaphors do not really inform. You have alienated more posters than you've won over. The fault lies somewhere. Pick up that mirror yourself.

Waiting for DD to catch up? Right. Will we see your definitions then?

And since you asked, I will have no trouble forgiving all that has passed between us, but you must come out into the light Mr E. Hiding in the shadows of your mind won't get you where you want to be.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
You challenged my definitions. I responded. You questioned further, I responded. You pressed on, mincing words. It was then I asked you for your definitions so that I could see what the underlying issues really were between us. Mincing words? As I indicated at the time I didn't understand why "symbol" and "association" both needed to appear in that definition. After a bit you said you could be persuaded but seemed to ignore my follow-up and instead in effect accuse me of not having presented any definitions even tho' I wrote posts in response, which by my understanding of general usage "defined" a number of terms. I see you know how to cite a dictionary so it seems a bit odd for you to be harping in what seems a metatopical fashion on my alleged failings in this thread!?

But you were not interested in defining the terms you use... Consciousness, Synthetic Consciousness, and others.Um, sufficiency is sufficient. Your arguments are Unsound, they are filled with undefined terms and your metaphors do not really inform. You have alienated more posters than you've won over. The fault lies somewhere. Pick up that mirror yourself. Won over? I had no idea this was a popularity contest, sorry. I guess I don't get the notion of Critical Thinking. Could you explain it to me please? As I see it here it seems to be largely a kind of game-playing routine consisting of poor reading habits (or deliberate misquotes etc.). Hey, that can be fun, too. Is that it? You and BillHoyt do seem to be able to do that!
...you must come out into the light Mr E. Hiding in the shadows of your mind won't get you where you want to be. Fair enough as a maxim for those who desire enlightenment in general - would that include you, Atlas? Maybe Mr. E is hiding, or maybe he's looking into those shadows more than you could ever begin to know.

When your posts take on a flavor of misguided personal attack, and then continue that way, that's one thing. Attacking the ideas presented is another thing. To the extent that I am "defending" Synthetic Consciousness and have stated that I have also been demonstrating it in places, the line between fallacy and good point seems blurred to me so I allow some leeway in my critical judgments. I try to point out issues I see in text strings people post. A number of your posts seem to be aimed at me personally, by contrast. Maybe I'm just over-sensitive about such fine points.



ME


oops, late edition: "Your arguments are Unsound"

Which arguments? What "Unsound"? Does "Your" = "Atlas'" in that context, so that it should be read "Atlas' arguments are unsound"?

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Anders
Well, DNA DOES govern all build up of all tissues in the body including the brain, where our consciousness resides. That seems fair enough in this context. I accept that personal individual consciousness cannot exist without a functioning brain of some kind, which brain somehow integrates sense data both with memory and into memory. No brain, not conscious.

Enough?

ME

[Jeff Corey]

So what about the bloody subconscious mind, then?

Never mind.
It doesn't matter.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
So what about the bloody subconscious mind, then?

Never mind.
It doesn't matter. Well, some people might hold that consciousness cannot exist except if/when "feeding" like a vampire off the blood supplied to the brain. That notion seems to apply in other virtual ways, too. I'm interested in a minimal set of of criteria for there to be a conscious non-brain with a subconscious non-brain which links it effectively into what people usually call the real world. This is not Artificial Intelligence as currently demonstrable (tho' I've been out of touch for about 7 years), thus SC.

It seems to me that there can be no consciousness without both sensation and awareness working "together". I've outlined some further thoughts on the relatively meaningful matter of relatively immaterial mind in material body in my posts to this thread.

ME

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Well, some people might hold that consciousness cannot exist except if/when "feeding" like a vampire off the blood supplied to the brain.
You maybe.

I've outlined some further thoughts on the relatively meaningful matter of relatively immaterial mind in material body in my posts to this thread.

What in Ed's name is a relatively immaterial mind?


BTW, your Turing test failure indicates to me a lack of human sentience. Are you running on a 386?

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by hammegk
You maybe.


What in Ed's name is a relatively immaterial mind?


BTW, your Turing test failure indicates to me a lack of human sentience. Are you running on a 386?

More likely a Commodor 64.
A relatively immaterial mind is totally immaterial.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by hammegk
BTW, your Turing test failure indicates to me a lack of human sentience. Are you running on a 386? 3 not 8 of 6 cylinders, so to speak, horse sense or not, when corresponding with you, my good man. I can live with "I failed" coming from you, hammegk.

Go well in peace.

Got topic?

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
More likely a Commodor 64.
A relatively immaterial mind is totally immaterial. Oh, back to vulgar commode jokes, are we? We're talking the kitchen sink, dude, at least some of us. Get with the program!!

And have a nice silly day, too.

Got topic?

ME

PS - http://www.oldcomputers.net/c64.html

[BillHoyt]

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

[Jeff Corey]

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


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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey


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

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



ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
For a while, I thought some people had been taking mystery seriously. Perhaps they were; perhaps they were simply inquisitive and polite. But now, as the pseudoscience, bafflegab and outright intellectual dishonesty mount to towering heights, I can bid this arse adieu. Good riddance to bad rubbish, Bill. Don't mistake my words for pseudoscience unless you like playing in the sandbox of your own imagination.

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

Have a good nap,

ME

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mr. E
What point?
... Did you get the point about symmetry breaking, too?
ME
No. Pull my finger.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
No. Pull my finger. That's pretty terse, Jeff.

Your reply looks like ill humor from over here.

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


ME

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

[Jeff Corey]

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

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Say, H'ethetheth, you still reading this? Does Dennett suck or what!

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

[BillHoyt]

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

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

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Yes I am, but I'm feeling ever less inclined to take part in this discussion.
Dennett doesn't suck, but its tough reading and I have been busy doing other stuff that had to be done. Hey, your picture changed!

Anyway, inclination is another important aspect of human consciousness.

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]I've made no mistake in labeling your pap as pseudoscience.Fair enough. You needed a reason to post to the thread, even if you had to make one up, which you did. That's another demonstration of something conscious people can do, pretend. I've been kindly playing along with you, waiting for you to get out of Cr*pology mode.

It is up to you, who cannot or will not reasonably respond to valid questions, to defend against the label.Oh, more rules from he who denied there were rules? How about "truth trumps order"? Who needs validity when truth trumps order, Bill?

But you, mystery, should not mistake what you are doing here for any kind of dialogue.I wondered about that, Bill, from your very first post in re Mr. E's first post. Thanks for the confirmation that you had no interest in serious dialog about the topic of consciousness. Yet you did say bullsh was necessary. I'd been saying I have a bias towards seriousness in the thread. Voila.

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

I'm still waiting.

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Call me Terse, if you wish. Just don't call me surely. It was your post which was the referrent, Jeff, and I won't likely call your weak sense of humor surly, maybe silly or some other 's' word. What, are you the Queen of Feculancy??

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

Got paradox, Jeff?

ME

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

[Skep]

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

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

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Skep
I'm new to this conversation, but this statement seems nonsensical to me. Welcome Skep. I had a few posts on page 1 and then missed all of Mr E's posts up to page 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr. E]

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

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

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

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

ME

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
[...]the toilet.

That's my take... judge for youself. Poison the well much, Atlas? You and I were talking about the kitchen sink, not the toilet, last I noticed.

Regards,

ME

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

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Hi Skep.

Good point. Taking text out of context tends to remove/distort what sense it might have had in context. I've already pointed out that one thing the human brain does is to make sense out of what's practically nonsense. And I've pointed out, if vaguely since it didn't seem crucial at the time, BillHoyt and Atlas seeming to demonstrate this method.
I'm afraid, Skep, that by "take out of context," mystery means "quoted me exactly, calling me on my bafflegab." One needs to translate heavily with mystery. If you're unsure, I can point you to all the posts where he tries to insert vectors, matrices, double-helices, symmetry operations and "hypercalculations," which I suppose are ciphers on speed.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Mr. E
PS - Mr. E did not state axioms, but did state what might be "axioms", so cut out the childish "Mr E" distortions, Atlas. I did say that Mr E holds as axiomatic that Clarity is valuable.

Is this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44750&perpage=1&pagenumber=57) really a childish distortion?Originally posted by Mr. E
It's one of the "axioms" that Clarity is valuable. Even though you put the word in quotes, you were implying that you took those statements as axiomatic. Or did you mean something else, claritywise? What else could it mean?

[hammegk]

DD: You still with us? Good OP anyway.

Interesting that you chose Critical Thinking to present it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

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

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

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
I did say that Mr E holds as axiomatic that Clarity is valuable.

Is this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44750&perpage=1&pagenumber=57) really a childish distortion? Even though you put the word in quotes, you were implying that you took those statements as axiomatic. Or did you mean something else, claritywise? What else could it mean? 1) The word was in quotes for a reason. If you check the prior context you will see from whence it came, not from me. It struck me as out of place, but I "went with" the flow of the notion to see where Jeff would take it, in effect to discover what meaning Jeff might bring to the thread.

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

Is that childishly or otherwise clearer?

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


ME

[Mr. E]

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

I'm waiting.

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by hammegk
As to our Mr.E, whether he presents the ravings of a lunatic, or a brillance of exposition far beyond my ken, in either case I find his words without meaning and do not intend to be addressing them in the near future. [/B] Feel free to change your mind at whim. But consider that the study of such a "thing" which has allegedly remained unexplained for a long time might warrant some attention to detail and insight if it's not to be a mere bull session. I will second your comment to David, and thank him for the opportunities I have already noted, bull or no bull.

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Actually, the final thought was:

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

It is refreshing to hear criticism of Dennett's outrageously titled book by someone who appears actually to have read it. I had to laugh when I read the prior context of that excerpt:

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

Heh!

ME

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Mr. E

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

"And Dennett is at times aggravatingly smug and confident about the merits of his arguments (comparing his `revelations' about consciousness to a magician's revealing the operation of stage tricks, for example; p. 434). All in all Dennett's book is annoying, frustrating, insightful, provocative and above all annoying."
Worth noting that he didn't say he actually disagreed with Dennett. Do we need to wait until you've actually read the book to find out whether you do?

[Skep]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Hi Skep.
Is the inability to make sense of something intrinsic to the thing or at least shared by that which would make sense of it (the thing) if it (the other) could?


Responding to my question:

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

About Mr E's:

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



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

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

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Who in their right mind would think that a beginners analogy would be about GS orthogonalizations??

I'm still waiting.

ME

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

polite regards.

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

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

[Mr. E]

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

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

Contingency can be considered the cross product of the two.

Fair enough?

ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
[B]Bah! Who in their right mind would use a "beginners analogy" that raises these questions exactly because of its complicated mathematical nature?BillHoyt?

It is (as of the quoted post above) admittedly unfounded mathematically and served only the purpose of confusion and irritation. Uh, no. Are you putting me on a level with Dennet whose book was labelled "provocative and annoying" and "above all annoying"? It's not clear who suffers by comparison.

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

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

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

The analogy was presented for those who know math.

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

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

ME


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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Skep
Your answer seems like a really obtuse way of saying "Yes, it is nonsense." It might seem that way. Your observation seems to be a way of saying it doesn't make sense to you and you aren't going to use critical thinking skills to see if there is sense there beyond your superficial reading of it.

Perhaps you missed a similar statement earlier in the thread -

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

Notice "rock" for starters.

ME

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

[Skep]

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

It would seem that you are actually capable of using clear language and making a point when you feel like it. And what you just wrote is what you could have written when you wrote:
Good point. Taking text out of context tends to remove/distort what sense it might have had in context. I've already pointed out that one thing the human brain does is to make sense out of what's practically nonsense. And I've pointed out, if vaguely since it didn't seem crucial at the time, BillHoyt and Atlas seeming to demonstrate this method.

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

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

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

[H'ethetheth]

Originally posted by Mr. E
BillHoyt?

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

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

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

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

The analogy was presented for those who know math.

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

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

ME


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

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

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Skep
It would seem that you are actually capable of using clear language and making a point when you feel like it.It would seem that you are not actually capable of reading relatively clear language ... So what?

It would seem that your defense is that anyone who doesn't understand your point is stupid. This a logical fallacy and doesn't actually prove your point. But I will give you points for finally using clear language. I can see how that could be your fallacy, logical or not. Mr. E can live with "I am thinking fallaciously" coming from you. Let's hope you were doing it deliberately.

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

ME

[Mr. E]

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

I know my math reasonably well, but being shown that consciousness is somehow orthogonal to the plane of sensation and awareness conveys nothing to me.I didn't see you follow up on that, sorry. Or, I saw you drop what might have been a follow-up on that. We got to "product" and to the edge of understanding (or so it seemed to me). Then you went off to read Dennett. I've pointed out that to 2-D Flatlanders embedded in a 3-D space, the cross product result might seem like a figment of imagination. But that doesn't mean that one can't take two 2-D vectors in a plane and calculate the cross product magnitude even if a 2-D'er can't visualize the common math meaning of a normal vector. Hey, people can't see tesseracts* as they can see cubes, but that doesn't stop people from talking about them seriously or otherwise. And people don't generally see cubes anyway, since the retina is commonly taken to be a relatively 2-D surface; they create useful illusions in the mind/brain. That's yet another aspect of consciousness, the ability to see what is not really "in" raw sense data.

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

Is there someone here who *wants* further explanation?

ME

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

[Skep]

Originally posted by Mr. E
It would seem that you are not actually capable of reading relatively clear language ... So what?

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

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

But thanks for keeping it relatively civil. Are the personal remarks warranted?
...said the kettle to the pot.

"Are the personal remarks warranted?" I'd ask you to answer that one. It was you who started them! Although disguised to look impersonal and objective, I am observant enough to notice that your remarks were aimed at me, personally. I had posted a query asking noting that one of your statements looked nonsensical to me. Let's take a look at you first response to me:
Is the inability to make sense of something intrinsic to the thing or at least shared by that which would make sense of it (the thing) if it (the other) could?

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

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

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Skep
[Mr. E:]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the inability to make sense of something intrinsic to the thing or at least shared by that which would make sense of it (the thing) if it (the other) could?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

Perhaps we do have some commonality here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ME

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

[Interesting Ian]

Someone who agrees with me is John Beloff. From here (http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~dualism/papers/minds.html).


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



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

[Dymanic]

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

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

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

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Well, I certainly hope you've learned your lesson, young man!

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


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



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

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

Here (http://www.iscid.org/papers/Hasker_NonReductivism_103103.pdf) is an excellent paper which criticises David Chalmer's position (who is essentially an epiphenomenalist).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dymanic

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

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

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

Why? It's a position that can at least be defended logically by ~idealistsI guess just because it is so... repulsive.

I remember the Beloff article now. Maybe there was a reference to it in the primary/secondary qualities thread? What triggered my recollection was this line:

"Although, as I have said, the evidence for PSI is extensive, much of it is of an inferior quality, some of it is definitely suspect and none of it is decisive.".

In other words, the evidence for PSI is lousy, but there's lots of it. Gotta love it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dymanic
[B]I guess just because it is so... repulsive.



Epiphenomenalism is repulsive? Well materialism is equally so.




I remember the Beloff article now. Maybe there was a reference to it in the primary/secondary qualities thread?



No, not so far as I recollect.



What triggered my recollection was this line:

"Although, as I have said, the evidence for PSI is extensive, much of it is of an inferior quality, some of it is definitely suspect and none of it is decisive.".

In other words, the evidence for PSI is lousy, but there's lots of it. Gotta love it.

Haven't got that far yet.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B]Someone who agrees with me is John Beloff. From here (http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~dualism/papers/minds.html).
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We should note, at this point, that it is only in its derived sense that we can define or explicate what we mean by consciousness. In its basic sense it can no more be defined than any other primitive concept. With any primitive concept, either one understands what is intended or one fails to understand.[...] I note the Beloff's old paper was not accepted for publication in the journal to which is was submitted. Does this mean that you are siding against the scientific community on this point when you cite it?

Is there a problem with starting with primitives? Either one understands if vaguely what is intended by "energy" or "momentum" or one doesn't proceed in Physics very far. If the two of you are saying simply that we can never fully know anything which passes for scientific knowledge, fine: "we all know perfectly what it is" becomes at best mere irony.

What we mean by consciousness is some result of the synthesis of what we mean by sensation (eg. sense organ outputs) with what we mean by awareness (eg. activatable memory). Whether qualia are a mere curious side-effect of consciousness or not, this itself is an/the epiphenomal point. What is clear is that consciousness depends on both sensation and awareness - without both "working" together the norms of conscious behavior and conscious experience each and both fail and we are left talking relative nonsense or speculative fiction.

ME

PS - any other continuation from our previous interaction?

btw, I recommend the Chesire Cat Demonstration for anyone endowed with two eyes who wonders about visual qualia. http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471115169.html

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mr. E
[B]I note the Beloff's old paper was not accepted for publication in the journal to which is was submitted. Does this mean that you are siding against the scientific community on this point when you cite it?



Certainly I will side against the scientific community if they say clearly false things. They need to stick to science and forget the philosophy.



Is there a problem with starting with primitives? Either one understands if vaguely what is intended by "energy" or "momentum" or one doesn't proceed in Physics very far.



All mathematics. Just patterns in our perceptual experiences.


snip nonsense.


ME

PS - any other continuation from our previous interaction?



no

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I guess just because it is so... repulsive.
Or as II said, no more so than materialism or dualism.


What triggered my recollection was this line:

"Although, as I have said, the evidence for PSI is extensive, much of it is of an inferior quality, some of it is definitely suspect and none of it is decisive.".

In other words, the evidence for PSI is lousy, but there's lots of it. Gotta love it.
Is this comment in response to something I've said???

When PSI enter this discussion of consciousness? (Maybe as a dot product ? :p)

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by hammegk

Or as II said, no more so than materialism or dualism.Ok, you have a point there.
Is this comment in response to something I've said???No.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by hammegk
Or as II said, no more so than materialism or dualism.
Are all dualisms equally repulsive?

ME

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr. E
Are all dualisms equally repulsive?

ME
Repulsive, or meaningless vis-a-vis our empirical universe.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by hammegk
Or as II said, no more so than materialism or dualism.



I don't find interactive dualism repulsive at all. Any metaphysic which acknowledges that there is a self and we have free will cannot be that repulsive! However I think idealism is much superior.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mr. E
[B]I note the Beloff's old paper was not accepted for publication in the journal to which is was submitted.

A more recent paper of his is here (http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~dualism/papers/brains.html)

Don't imagine though that I agree with everything he says, just because I agree with some things. There are better refutations of materialism out there.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A more recent paper of his is here (http://moebius.psy.ed.ac.uk/~dualism/papers/brains.html)

Don't imagine though that I agree with everything he says, just because I agree with some things. There are better refutations of materialism out there.

Tell you what though, his writing is very accessible i.e relatively easy to understand.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't find interactive dualism repulsive at all. Any metaphysic which acknowledges that there is a self and we have free will cannot be that repulsive! However I think idealism is much superior. That sounds like a value judgment. Superior for what purpose or to what end?

Also, I'm rusty on the terms here, "interactive dualism" for one. He seems to refer to that as "strong dualism" in: "the radical dualism or interactionism that we called our second solution."

Don't imagine though that I agree with everything he says, just because I agree with some things. There are better refutations of materialism out there.Is your interest (in this thread) only in refuting narrow-minded materialisms?


ME

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by hammegk
Repulsive, or meaningless vis-a-vis our empirical universe. I'll take that as your personal opinion. You don't find some both repulsive and attractive together? That could make for an atomic "metaphysic" of some power.

ME

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mr. E
That sounds like a value judgment. Superior for what purpose or to what end?



A material world is ontologically superfluous. My brand of idealism is like interactive dualism, except it dispenses with such a material world, and supposes that the external world equates to our perceptual experiences or qualia.



Also, I'm rusty on the terms here, "interactive dualism" for one. He seems to refer to that as "strong dualism" in: "the radical dualism or interactionism that we called our second solution."



Interactive dualism = the material world effects the mind eg getting drunk, or a bang on head etc, and the mind in turn effects the material world eg I have desires and appear to be able to move my body to fulfil those desires eg I am thirsty so get up to get a glass of pineapple juice.

However, if certain events in the brain are not wholly determined by previous events in the brain plus input from the environment, this is a denial of Naturalism, and a fortiori is a denial of (reductive) materialism.



Is your interest (in this thread) only in refuting narrow-minded materialisms?


Yes.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there a problem with starting with primitives? Either one understands if vaguely what is intended by "energy" or "momentum" or one doesn't proceed in Physics very far.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All mathematics. Just patterns in our perceptual experiences.
Are you saying that all of Physics is mere mathematics, or that Consciousness can be similarly treated as physics is treated, via math starting with a minimal set of primitives? Pure math is not a matter of ordinary perception even tho' perceptual patterns play an important role in learning and "doing" math.

ME

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Mr. E
I'll take that as your personal opinion. You don't find some both repulsive and attractive together? ......
ME
No. The repulsion stems from the seductice yet illogical allure of dualism in lieu of examining to the best of ones' ability the implications of ones' choice of monism as a basis for all other decisions.

Your comments on the reality or lack thereof of mathematics is one fruitful avenue for thought, imo, in making that choice.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by hammegk

Your comments on the reality or lack thereof of mathematics is one fruitful avenue for thought, imo, in making that choice.

I started a thread about the objective nature of logic a while ago. I remember that a few materialist monists were of the view that mathematics has no objective reality. In other words, logical rules do not co-exist along with the observed behaving "matter" from which the rules are derived. I think a materialist must be forced into one of two views if they are to have a truly monistic philosophy. One can't have logic and matter/energy co-existing objectively because this is a dualistic philosophy surely. So a materialist monist would have to concede that either transcendent logical rules/principles or matter/energy are the nature of objective reality. Granted, a materialist may never be able to know the full and true nature of this reality, but they must distinguish between the two if they are going to say anything about a monist philosophy.

I think this necessary materialist elimination must be considered when criticising such a philosophy as Ian's. Ian's monistic philosophy supposes that the external world equates to our perceptual experiences or qualia. A problem with this view from a materialist standpoint might be that you must still account for the ways in which qualia interact and how the illusion of the physical world emerges. This would seem to necessitate similar logical rules and principles as that constructed within a materialist framework and therefore introduce an objective element to a mental monistic philosophy. However, if materialists see no problem with not regarding logical rules as part of an objective reality then why should Ian's philosophy regard them as objective ?

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by hammegk
No. The repulsion stems from the seductice yet illogical allure of dualism in lieu of examining to the best of ones' ability the implications of ones' choice of monism as a basis for all other decisions.If your concern is that some people try to take shortcuts, jump to dualism prematurely, I have no argument as to that possibility. But if there is illogic in the world, any deep conception of the world must allow for it, preferably in a coherent fashion, seriously speaking.

Your comments on the reality or lack thereof of mathematics is one fruitful avenue for thought, imo, in making that choice. One of my aims is to recognize how the logic of physics, the logic of language, and the logic of what passes for mind are intimately related in an effective meaningful fashion.


ME

[Anders]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

[snip]One can't have logic and matter/energy co-existing objectively because this is a dualistic philosophy surely. So a materialist monist would have to concede that either transcendent logical rules/principles or matter/energy are the nature of objective reality. Granted, a materialist may never be able to know the full and true nature of this reality, but they must distinguish between the two if they are going to say anything about a monist philosophy.

Firstly, why would a dualistic philosophy be impossible? We do live in a world where many philosophies co-exist. You mistakenly take philosophy for a governing "force" which it isn't. Philosophy can at best describe and discuss the world.

Secondly, there is no ambiguity between logic and matter. I could give you examples, but they are all trivial.

I think this necessary materialist elimination must be considered when criticising such a philosophy as Ian's. Ian's monistic philosophy supposes that the external world equates to our perceptual experiences or qualia. A problem with this view from a materialist standpoint might be that you must still account for the ways in which qualia interact and how the illusion of the physical world emerges. This would seem to necessitate similar logical rules and principles as that constructed within a materialist framework and therefore introduce an objective element to a mental monistic philosophy. However, if materialists see no problem with not regarding logical rules as part of an objective reality then why should Ian's philosophy regard them as objective ?
Simple because we live in the real world, not in a world described by Ian's philosophy.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Anders

David
I think this necessary materialist elimination must be considered when criticising such a philosophy as Ian's. Ian's monistic philosophy supposes that the external world equates to our perceptual experiences or qualia. A problem with this view from a materialist standpoint might be that you must still account for the ways in which qualia interact and how the illusion of the physical world emerges. This would seem to necessitate similar logical rules and principles as that constructed within a materialist framework and therefore introduce an objective element to a mental monistic philosophy. However, if materialists see no problem with not regarding logical rules as part of an objective reality then why should Ian's philosophy regard them as objective ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anders
Simple because we live in the real world, not in a world described by Ian's philosophy.

Just to make it clear, I do believe the world is governed by objective rules. In other words I believe in the existence of physical laws which govern the world. Both these laws and the qualia we experience could have their origin in an infinite mind. Thus the external world is constituted by qualia, even if the patterns exhibited by such qualia, and the source of qualia, owe their origin to an infinite mind.

On the other hand it might seem that materialists cannot believe in physical laws which govern since physical laws are not themselves physical i.e they merely dictate physical processes rather than being physical themselves. They need to believe "physical laws" simply describe. This of course makes it wholly mysterious why the world should continue to follow physical laws.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...On the other hand it might seem that materialists cannot believe in physical laws which govern since physical laws are not themselves physical i.e they merely dictate physical processes rather than being physical themselves. They need to believe "physical laws" simply describe. This of course makes it wholly mysterious why the world should continue to follow physical laws.
This is part of the problem. On one hand you state that materialists believe that "physical laws are not themselves physical i.e. they merely dictate physical processes...", whereas materialists do not believe they dictate anything. They are the best approximations of our description of how things work and are subject to modification in accord with new evidence.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
They are the best approximations of our description of how things work and are subject to modification in accord with new evidence.

You mistake mathematical maps with Reality's terrain.

Unless you are suggesting that modifying a mathematical model does change Reality's terrain. That BTW could be an interesting area of enquiry; I don't buy it, but it is an arguable thesis imo.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

On the other hand it might seem that materialists cannot believe in physical laws which govern since physical laws are not themselves physical i.e they merely dictate physical processes rather than being physical themselves
davidsmith was talking about logic:

"One can't have logic and matter/energy co-existing objectively because this is a dualistic philosophy surely."

You made the shift to physical laws so smoothly I hardly noticed it at first. I don't necessarily object, but reserve the right to do so later on.

As Jeff pointed out, 'laws' in this context are descriptive, rather than prescriptive. In practice, it isn't as simple as that; they are aquired by induction, and applied by deduction. This is perilous, but it's all we've got.

But these laws aren't the true laws anyway; they are what hammegk refers to as 'maps'. If the world doesn't follow them, we just edit the map. What is really at issue is whether our maps ultimately reduce to fundamental laws which are truly prescriptive (which does seem to lead to some form of dualism).

I would expect most mathematicians, if pressed, to deny mathematical Platonism in order to avoid the slippery slope of Platonism in a broader ontological sense. But that doesn't mean they might not act 'as if' they believed in mathematical Platonism.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dymanic
davidsmith was talking about logic:

"One can't have logic and matter/energy co-existing objectively because this is a dualistic philosophy surely."

You made the shift to physical laws so smoothly I hardly noticed it at first. I don't necessarily object, but reserve the right to do so later on.



David Smith said this:

"A problem with this view from a materialist standpoint might be that you must still account for the ways in which qualia interact and how the illusion of the physical world emerges. This would seem to necessitate similar logical rules and principles as that constructed within a materialist framework and therefore introduce an objective element to a mental monistic philosophy".



So what I was saying is that I do not think there is any problem with my metaphysic. There is no problem because of the objective existence of physical laws plus the existence of an infinite mind.



As Jeff pointed out, 'laws' in this context are descriptive, rather than prescriptive.



Yes, I know that materialists tend to say so, which creates a problem for why the world continues to proceed according to such laws.




In practice, it isn't as simple as that; they are aquired by induction, and applied by deduction. This is perilous, but it's all we've got.



We have no reason or evidence to suppose induction works since it states something about the future by inferring from the past. But we have zero reason to suppose the future will resemble the past unless we suppose physical laws govern rather than merely describe.




But these laws aren't the true laws anyway; they are what hammegk refers to as 'maps'. If the world doesn't follow them, we just edit the map. What is really at issue is whether our maps ultimately reduce to fundamental laws which are truly prescriptive (which does seem to lead to some form of dualism).



No, our theories are the map. Physical laws simply approximate roughly to the pattern of our perceptual experiences, so they can't themselves be a "map".

But I maintain that although theories are the "map", there is no reality corresponding to the map, so to speak. This doesn't mean that our "maps" can't get more accurate, or even completely change ( 2 scientific theories might explain the course of our perceptual experiences equally adequately, but such theories might utilise quite distinct scientific entities). Also you should be aware that I'm not just talking about scientific theories. Even seeing the world in 3D is a implicit low level theory we hold to explain the correlations between visual and tactile sensations.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by hammegk
You mistake mathematical maps with Reality's terrain.

Unless you are suggesting that modifying a mathematical model does change Reality's terrain. That BTW could be an interesting area of enquiry; I don't buy it, but it is an arguable thesis imo.
I don't see where I made that mistake.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
... Yes, I know that materialists tend to say so, which creates a problem for why the world continues to proceed according to such laws.

No, our theories are the map. Physical laws simply approximate roughly to the pattern of our perceptual experiences, so they can't themselves be a "map".

But I maintain that although theories are the "map", there is no reality corresponding to the map, so to speak.

Just to make it clear, I do believe the world is governed by objective rules. In other words I believe in the existence of physical laws which govern the world. Both these laws and the qualia we experience could have their origin in an infinite mind. Thus the external world is constituted by qualia, even if the patterns exhibited by such qualia, and the source of qualia, owe their origin to an infinite mind. In terms of Hammegk's map, the Copernican revolution and the changeover from Euclidian/Newtonian concepts to Einsteinian and even the demon theory of illness being replaced by germ theory all represent map updates don't they?

I still don't understand your sense of the"objective" Ian and I wonder if you believe the advances in the thinking patterns of men correspond to some kind of shift in the Infinite Mind. My personal bias, I do believe there is a reality corresponding to the map, I do believe that the physical laws that we define are theories describing the interactions of the underllying reality, and that currently there is no "good" theory of how life and thought arise through those physical interactions but that a real objective material universe is clearly the best assumption to start with.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by hammegk
You mistake mathematical maps with Reality's terrain.

Unless you are suggesting that modifying a mathematical model does change Reality's terrain. That BTW could be an interesting area of enquiry; I don't buy it, but it is an arguable thesis imo. An aside -- It's obvious from history that changing the math map changes the terrain. Transistors for one example came from the shift to the math of quantum physics from classical physics. But I'm not claiming at this point that modifying math models changes Reality in general, only its terrain and our perceptions of the terrain, aka the material world, via actions in that world based on the new maps.

ME

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

But we have zero reason to suppose the future will resemble the past unless we suppose physical laws govern rather than merely describeEither way, I think our reason for supposing that the future will resemble the past is at least non-zero.

I think the main problem is in using 'physical laws govern' as if it were all one word. The word 'law' carries certain connotations that are essentially legacies of a feudalistic era. Why can we not assume that the most fundamental laws of nature (if they are discovered) cannot simply be descriptions of the way things do work (which does not presuppose dualism), rather than mandates dictating how things must work (which does)?

Even seeing the world in 3D is a implicit low level theory we hold to explain the correlations between visual and tactile sensations.
Agreed. Darwinism would seem to reinforce Kantian intuition by offering an avenue for the inductive aquisition of our innate notions regarding space, time, and cause/effect. It is interesting to attempt to conceptualize what the alternatives might have been.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But we have zero reason to suppose the future will resemble the past unless we suppose physical laws govern rather than merely describe. Originally posted by Dymanic
... I think the main problem is in using 'physical laws govern' as if it were all one word. The word 'law' carries certain connotations that are essentially legacies of a feudalistic era. Why can we not assume that the most fundamental laws of nature (if they are discovered) cannot simply be descriptions of the way things do work (which does not presuppose dualism), rather than mandates dictating how things must work (which does)?
This conversation has me thinking about mass attraction. It governs the movements of the heavens. It is amazing to me to think of an Infinite Mind who would find it easier to implant ongoing shifting perspectives on moving objects that offer predictabilty to many different observers rather than utilize a physical reality to offer those perspectives autmatically. It's a bias that is difficult to put aside.

But that mass attraction that we quantify the effects of is one of our most demanding laws: the law of gravity. It's difficult to imagine oneself an outlaw. Still it is only a theory and the graviton remains elusive.

I think for my universe I'm comfortable saying that forces, energies, particles and interactions exist but no "laws" except in the same sense that numbers and math exist; as inventions of conscious entities that aid survival in the material universe. I do have trouble catagorizing something like Time - so even in discussing these topics I'm seldom sure of what I know.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I will argue that it doesn't exist. It is a rubric under which many other things are attributed.

I would argue that the more precise our definition of consciousness in terms of the physics in the brain gets the more elusive the answer to what it is will be.

As for why this is so, I think the answer to this question lies somewhere in the intuitive realm - if not the logical.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
This is part of the problem. On one hand you state that materialists believe that "physical laws are not themselves physical i.e. they merely dictate physical processes...", whereas materialists do not believe they dictate anything. They are the best approximations of our description of how things work and are subject to modification in accord with new evidence.

This is an interesting notion then. Lets examine precisely what you have said. You say that physical laws are good approximate descriptions of how things work. I assume the word "things" is a reference to objective reality. Would you say that you can separate the objective existence of behaving matter on the one hand and logical rules on the other? In other words, are our logical descriptions a description of "matter" or an approximation to an objectively existing fundamental rule or principle, albeit ultimately unknowable ? It seems to me that if its the latter then there really is no room for "matter" in a materialist monist philosophy.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Anders
there is no ambiguity between logic and matter. I could give you examples, but they are all trivial.



Could you explain your reasoning here?

It seems to me that if matter must behave in a logical manner, then matter can be defined by its logical relationships. If matter is not, in reality, simply a logical (ergo physical) process, then what is it? I'm not saying that the logical descriptions of objective reality that we construct are anything more than maps of the territory, but the territory surely must be logical in nature.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
This is an interesting notion then. Lets examine precisely what you have said. You say that physical laws are good approximate descriptions of how things work. I assume the word "things" is a reference to objective reality. Would you say that you can separate the objective existence of behaving matter on the one hand and logical rules on the other? In other words, are our logical descriptions a description of "matter" or an approximation to an objectively existing fundamental rule or principle, albeit ultimately unknowable ? It seems to me that if its the latter then there really is no room for "matter" in a materialist monist philosophy.
No, that's not what I said, even by implication.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dymanic

Why can we not assume that the most fundamental laws of nature (if they are discovered) cannot simply be descriptions of the way things do work (which does not presuppose dualism), rather than mandates dictating how things must work (which does)?



In other words, you are saying that laws of nature do not exist objectively. Rather, there is some other nature to objective reality, which we label as matter. Is this your view ?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
No, that's not what I said, even by implication.

Well, can't you help me out by answering some of my questions? :(

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes, I know that materialists tend to say so, which creates a problem for why the world continues to proceed according to such laws...

...We have no reason or evidence to suppose induction works since it states something about the future by inferring from the past. But we have zero reason to suppose the future will resemble the past unless we suppose physical laws govern rather than merely describe.

Ian,

I think this is more of an intuitive interpretation than a logical one - although it might be logical if you dig a little deeper than the physical level.

Allow me to explain what I mean by my first remark.

When we say that something is 'governing' physical phenomena we are naturally assuming (even if we don't notice it) that if for any reason this governing force stopped to work then planets would suddenly fly away from stars, as gravity stopped working and matter would crumble and disperse into chaotic soup throughout the Universe, as nuclear forces would fail. Basically what I am saying is that by assuming certain laws are 'keeping things together' we are assuming that there are other forces at work that are literally trying to 'break things apart' in a sort of 'war' with the first set of laws which don't agree on what matter should do.

This seems to be more of a intuitive notion than a scientific inference since we as individuals are naturally under the impression that we have the ability to go 'against' the forces of nature by our free will and we tend to see the 'forces' as working against us, but is this really so in physics? Does matter have a mind of it's own that tells it what to do when 'the laws aren't watching' the way we seem to have a mind?

I don't disagree that your theory might contain some truth, but from a scientific point of view, there is really no good reason to assume that things are being made to be the way they are rather than things just being the way they are unless you believe there is another force at work that is trying to break everything apart, but what physical evidence do we have of such a force, appart from our intuition?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

In other words, you are saying that laws of nature do not exist objectively.When we observe something acting in a certain way, our observation includes the intuitive (and often tacit) assumption that there are other ways it might act; this leads us to conclude that it is observing some law.
Rather, there is some other nature to objective reality, which we label as matter. Other than what?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dymanic
When we observe something acting in a certain way, our observation includes the intuitive (and often tacit) assumption that there are other ways it might act; this leads us to conclude that it is observing some law.

which prompts the question - does the law objectively exist.


Other than what?

logical rules

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

which prompts the question - does the law objectively exist.Which prompts the question - what is meant by 'law'?



------------------------
Rather, there is some other nature to objective reality, which we label as matter.
------------------------
Other than what?
------------------------
logical rules

I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you are asking.

[Atlas]

David and Dynamic,

Does the law objectively exist? Pick one specifically. The facts seem to exist objectively. But the law is subjective, is it not?
Earlier I said. But that mass attraction that we quantify the effects of is one of our most demanding laws: the law of gravity. It's difficult to imagine oneself an outlaw. Still it is only a theory and the graviton remains elusive.

I use theory in the "mental construct" sense. I think all laws are like this. Even criminal law. Murder exists. Mass attracts mass. But our "existing" laws are subjective appreciations of the underlying reality.

Sorry to interrupt. Back to the quibble.

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Which prompts the question - what is meant by 'law'?

a logical relationship.

So, do logical relationships and matter objectively exist ?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Atlas

I use theory in the "mental construct" sense. I think all laws are like this. Even criminal law. Murder exists. Mass attracts mass. But our "existing" laws are subjective appreciations of the underlying reality.


Yes, this is the central issue I am trying to apply to a mental monist philosophy such as Ian's.

Lets assume that a materialist is of the above opinion and they are considering a mental monist viewpoint. If reality is composed of experiences (qualia) rather than objective matter, then if a way is found to describe how the illusion of a physical world is created while at the same time describing how a subjective world is created, there is no need to introduce an objective element to this philosophy for the same reason that there is no need to do so within a materialist philosophy. In both philosophies, logical principles and descriptive laws are just that and the respective domains of matter and qualia are the reference subject. They just behave the way they do.

The main difference between the materialist philosophy and the mental monist one is that the latter does not have the hard problem of consciousness to deal with.

[Filip Sandor]

Dynamic,

You seem to be arguing that the rules we use to describe how how things work are representative of some governing force that causes natural phenomenon to maintain it's order.

My question to you is, where do you draw the line from physical forces interacting with physical forces to a sub-physical force that governs everything... and more importantly what has convinced you that there is an 'external' force that drives everything - rather than things just being orderly by their own nature? Atoms don't think so why should they do anything else than what they do?



As far as "clear, scientific data" goes here, I am with David on this debate, although I am not entirely [i]against Dynamic's theory either, but I think his theory might be rooted more deeply in personal experience, which by it's own nature, can't be logically derived from physical observation and is therefore very elusive to 'scientific enquiry'. :rolleyes:

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor

You seem to be arguing that the rules we use to describe how how things work are representative of some governing force that causes natural phenomenon to maintain it's order.
Natural phenomena is a good term.


My question to you is, where do you draw the line from physical forces interacting with physical forces to a sub-physical force that governs everything...
Here is the linchpin that destroys dualism as a logical choice. The question is "What *is* the monism?". Body or spirit? Non-life or life? Not-Conscious or Conscious? Material vs ~Material.


and more importantly what has convinced you that there is an 'external' force that drives everything - rather than things just being orderly by their own nature?
I'd say inherent, not external, and again mention -- by absolute first person certainty -- thought is an existent.


Atoms don't think so why should they do anything else than what they do?


You mean as you intuit that "Atoms don't think"? Of course not at human level, or at any life-as-we-define-it level. So what?




As far as "clear, scientific data" goes here, I am with David on this debate, although I am not entirely [i]against Dynamic's theory either, but I think his theory might be rooted more deeply in personal experience, which by it's own nature, can't be logically derived from physical observation and is therefore very elusive to 'scientific enquiry'. :rolleyes:
You fail to see that your stance -- and DD's -- presuppose the answer to the question, "What is the monism?'.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by hammegk
Here is the linchpin that destroys dualism as a logical choice. The question is "What *is* the monism?". Body or spirit? Non-life or life? Not-Conscious or Conscious? Material vs ~Material.

I'm not sure what you're saying/ asking here, could you clarify please?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor


I'm not sure what you're saying/ asking here, could you clarify please? [/B]

I'll try, but please ask an actual question or two so I get some idea where we are not communicating.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by hammegk
I'll try, but please ask an actual question or two so I get some idea where we are not communicating. Can I ask. I am always confused.... I think you know that.

Where are you coming from again?

Dualism is false. Monism ain't right. Materialism doesn't have the answer either. How does your objective idealism split the difference and not become dualism.

Maybe dualism itself confuses me. There are several flavors besides mind/body, aren't there?

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

what is meant by 'law'? [/i]
----------------------------
a logical relationship.
----------------------------
So, do logical relationships and matter objectively exist?
I hate to even ask, because it is going to seem like I am being deliberately obtuse just for the entertainment value.

What is meant by 'logical relationship'?

The main difference between the materialist philosophy and the mental monist one is that the latter does not have the hard problem of consciousness to deal with.
And then there is the hard problem of phnarsciousness. Phnarsciousness is that property rocks have which remains unexplained once you have explained everything else about a rock: its size, shape, weight, chemical composition, why it rolls downhill but not uphill, etc. Phnarsciousness is the most central and manifest aspect of the inner life of a rock, but no observation made from a third-person perspective can ever explain what it is like to be phnarscious.


Originally posted by Filip Sandor

Dynamic,

You seem to be arguing that the rules we use to describe how how things work are representative of some governing force that causes natural phenomenon to maintain it's orderI'm trying to figure out how you could possibly have gotten that idea. That's exactly what I'm arguing against.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Atlas

Dualism is false.
Agreed.


Maybe dualism itself confuses me. There are several flavors besides mind/body, aren't there?
Sure, but they all in essence are the same: either the monism is Material (the stuff we perceive in the 4d space we perceive in), or the converse - Material. what ~Material *is*, spirit, mind, what ever your term of choice is, is isn't "matter" as physics defines it.


Monism ain't right.
I disagree. One choice is "most correct". Either choice works perfectly well for empirical scientific inquiry, and is not a question science can ever address. All one can do is trace the logical implications of each choice as it might be understood under ones' personal worldview; I call myself an objective idealist.

II says he is a subjective idealist, and I personally can see no difference between that stance and dualism.



Materialism doesn't have the answer either. How does your objective idealism split the difference and not become dualism.
Note that I don't split any difference; my choice is 100% ~Material monism. We could say thought, although I opt for "consciousness". That would be the ability to react as stimuli become available. Is "act" possible in the libertarian sense of free-will?. I would like to think such is actually the case -- mechanism unknown and unknowable.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by hammegk
Note that I don't split any difference; my choice is 100% ~Material monism. We could say thought, although I opt for "consciousness". That would be the ability to react as stimuli become available. Is "act" possible in the libertarian sense of free-will?. I would like to think such is actually the case -- mechanism unknown and unknowable. I thought the "objective" side of objective idealism was an acceptence of a true material reality, that is objective reality (where stimuli come from) is material. And subjective idealism denies the materiality of objective reality. (Shows what I know, dang it.)

You're so good at thumbnail philosophy. Can you correct that for me?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Atlas

You're so good at thumbnail philosophy.
LOL. You going to ask me for a loan??? :p



The objective part of objective idealism denies that reality depends on the thought process *I* as consciousness perceive as the bag-o-bones *me*.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by hammegk
You going to ask me for a loan??? That's funny...

Seriously, I'd really appreciate it... and I'm almost positive I can get it back to you a week from Tuesday.

Thanks in advance, Buddy.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by hammegk


II says he is a subjective idealist, and I personally can see no difference between that stance and dualism.
[/B]

Dualism holds that both matter and minds exist, normally material substance and a substantial self. I only believe selves and qualia exist i.e I reject the existence of a mind-independent reality (NB a reality independent of all minds, not just my own).

Now I would certainly agree that Kant's idealism seems to involve a dualism due to his belief in the "thing in itself" (or nounema). The only way I could be said to be a dualist is that I believe in both experients and also their experiences. But that wouldn't normally be referred to as dualism.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by hammegk
I'll try, but please ask an actual question or two so I get some idea where we are not communicating.

hammegk,

You said "Here is the linchpin that destroys dualism as a logical choice. The question is "What *is* the monism?". Body or spirit? Non-life or life? Not-Conscious or Conscious? Material vs ~Material." This is your question, not mine by the way, but now I'm curious, what do you think the linchpin is that destroys dualism as a logical choice?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
.... I'm curious, what do you think the linchpin is that destroys dualism as a logical choice?

One way to think about it is: Assume 'physical' exists; then, whatever effects or affects the 'physical', must also be physical -- or one is a dualist. Ditto if 'not-physical' is the assumption.

See the problem?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dymanic

What is meant by 'logical relationship'?

I think in this context, a mathematical relationship.


And then there is the hard problem of phnarsciousness. Phnarsciousness is that property rocks have which remains unexplained once you have explained everything else about a rock: its size, shape, weight, chemical composition, why it rolls downhill but not uphill, etc. Phnarsciousness is the most central and manifest aspect of the inner life of a rock, but no observation made from a third-person perspective can ever explain what it is like to be phnarscious.


But one can identify the nature of qualia simply by inspecting the contents of ones own consciousness. This makes your analogy irrelevant. Of course, there is nothing left to explain about the objective nature of a rock once you have explained its physical manifestations in full. However it is not an objective property that is being left unaccounted for. It is the perceptual phenomenon of a rock, or any other conscious experience, which relates to the hard problem of consciousness. Within a mental monist philosophy, the perceptual element which precedes the objective inference, i.e. the observation of size, weight, etc, is all that exists. There is no observation of some other objective reality. Therefore there is not need to explain how physical reality accounts for consciousness. Indeed it must be the other way round, how consciousness accounts for physical reality.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

What is meant by 'logical relationship'?
------------------------
I think in this context, a mathematical relationship
In this context then, what would a 'non-mathematical relationship' be? I know, I know. Sorry.
But one can identify the nature of qualia simply by inspecting the contents of ones own consciousness.Things always start getting extra weird once we start talking about meta-qualia.

Are there things besides qualia that one can identify the nature of simply by inspecting the contents of one's own consciousness? Are there things that have natures completely independent of anything we could know about them? If so, is the nature of qualia exempt from this limitation (and if so, why)?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I only believe selves and qualia exist ....
Yes, that's what I understood.


But that wouldn't normally be referred to as dualism.
Perhaps, but I don't see the reason why you contend they are a monism of One rather than a duality of Two.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by hammegk
One way to think about it is: Assume 'physical' exists; then, whatever effects or affects the 'physical', must also be physical -- or one is a dualist. Ditto if 'not-physical' is the assumption.

See the problem?

In physics there is a "strange" phenomenon known as quantum entanglement, which allows the polarization of separate photons to be interdependant on eachother even if the photons separated by thousants of miles of space and 20 foot thick lead walls. By observing the state of one photon the state of the other photon can be accurately inferred from the state of the first. Likewise, if the state of one photon is altered the other photon alters its own state accordingly - and this all happens at speeds that are faster than light to boot! Yup, this discovery has lead to some pretty "strange" physics alright, even a primitive form of teleporation (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/7/2/6) is possible now. Maybe matter, space and 'physical' stuff isn't exactly what we imagined it as.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor

In physics there is a "strange" phenomenon known as quantum entanglement...
"Consciousness is mysterious. Quantum mechanics is mysterious. If you find two mysteries, maybe they are the same."

This is what David Chalmers referred to as the 'Law of Minimization of Mystery'.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Dymanic
"Consciousness is mysterious. Quantum mechanics is mysterious. If you find two mysteries, maybe they are the same."

This is what David Chalmers referred to as the 'Law of Minimization of Mystery'.

Sorry D, while I do see a 'selective resemblance' between this theory and what I said I assure you it does not fit the context of what I tried to point out in my previous post. I hope you didn't think I am of the opinion that all mysterious things are the same - I most certainly am not! :)

For the intelligent people who are still confused by what I mean: My emphasise on the deep misunderstanding we have of physical phenomena was meant to convince people that not all things physical necessarily fit our conceptual model of physical things; thereby falsifying our conceptual model and forcing us to reconsider what makes something physical as opposed to 'non-physical'.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor

while I do see the 'selective resemblance' between this theory that you describe and what I said I assure you it does not belong to the context of my previous post.I made the assumption that your previous post was intended to fit into the context of the discussion re dualism. Invoking QM is a popular approach, but it never seems to go much beyond hand-waving, and even if it did, I don't see how it necessarily solves the problem. Dualism (interactive dualism anyway) still requires a bridge between the physical world and the non-physical world no matter what definition you are using for 'physical' (unless you suppose that QM could obliterate the distinction completely).
My emphasise on the deep misunderstanding we have of physical phenomena was meant to convince people that not all things physical necessarily fit our conceptual model of "physical things", thereby falsifying our conceptual model and forcing us to reconsider what makes something 'physical' as opposed to 'non-physical'.My questions then are similar to those I put to davidsmith73 above. Would you say that things physical could fit any possible conceptual model? Would you say that conceptual models are physical things themselves?

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I made the assumption that your previous post was intended to fit into the context of the discussion re dualism.

My post does fit the context of the debate on dualism, but my intention is not to make any radical claims in support of either side, if that was your impression then I apologize now for not being more clear.

Invoking QM is a popular approach, but it never seems to go much beyond hand-waving, and even if it did, I don't see how it necessarily solves the problem.

I agree whole heartedly on with you on this and I have a personal and profound disliking of 'scapegoat answers'.

Dualism (interactive dualism anyway) still requires a bridge between the physical world and the non-physical world no matter what definition you are using for 'physical' (unless you suppose that QM could obliterate the distinction completely).

If one is a dualist this naturally makes sense because both "phenomenon" are of a temporal nature.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor

If one is a dualist this naturally makes sense because both "phenomenon" are of a temporal nature.

Umm. Physical and Not-Physical are both of temporal nature?

I state only one or the other -- but not both -- can possibly exist in a way that would allow any interaction. Where am I wrong?


Also, nature gets stranger and stranger. You mentioned the Aspect-Bell demo that proves space-wise separation at a specific time to be a fiction; my understanding is that the obverse is also true, and close to experimental demonstration. That is, time-wise separation at a specific location is also a fiction.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Would you say that things physical could fit any possible conceptual model? Would you say that conceptual models are physical things themselves? I am venturing into unknown territory with a simplistic paradigm.

I believe the brain has the capacity to be reflective. That's even a term used for an aspect of consciousness.

But as a conceptual model we might use a mirror which is a real physical device that reflects the depth and perspective of the real world in much the same way our senses do. That is, one side of the surfaces we see get "sensed".

The moving images of consciousness are like images floating across a TV screen.

I am just answering your question quoted above, the physical world models presenting images of the physical world using physical structures and light and electrons, DVDs can be memory for the TV device.

Anyway, I'm pretty attached to the physical world and don't believe that consciousness is the substructure of it but rather one of a myriad manifestations of it.

I wish I knew more philosophy - but hey, you guys can help.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Atlas

I wish I knew more philosophy - but hey, you guys can help
None of us knows jack. We're totally winging it.

No kiddin -- we really fooled ya?

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by hammegk
Umm. Physical and Not-Physical are both of temporal nature?

I state only one or the other -- but not both -- can possibly exist in a way that would allow any interaction. Where am I wrong?

Maybe only in your wording - hehe, just buggin!

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Atlas

I believe the brain has the capacity to be reflectiveI'm sure of it. What I'm no longer sure of is whether I know (or can ever know) very much about the nature or the extent of that capacity.
The moving images of consciousness are like images floating across a TV screenI'd say that is the way most of us are naturally inclined to think of the situation. There are a couple of problems with this view, however. One is that the screen seems to need a location. Descartes took a stab at it (proposing the pineal gland), but modern neuroscience has failed to offer any very likely candidate.

Even if we could locate this 'Cartesian Theater', the show would still require an audience. We would need to find some coherent way to bestow 'observer' status upon some privileged neurons or groups of neurons, or outputs of neurons or something. To do this would involve what Dennett refers to as 'the bizarre category of the objectively subjective'. What a mess. This isn't a mirror, it's a hall of mirrors.
Anyway, I'm pretty attached to the physical world and don't believe that consciousness is the substructure of it but rather one of a myriad manifestations of it.I agree, but I continue to find some of the arguments for the opposing position to be not only interesting, but surprisingly difficult to refute.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Dymanic
...I'd say that is the way most of us are naturally inclined to think of the situation. There are a couple of problems with this view, however. One is that the screen seems to need a location. Descartes took a stab at it (proposing the pineal gland), but modern neuroscience has failed to offer any very likely candidate.

Even if we could locate this 'Cartesian Theater', the show would still require an audience. We would need to find some coherent way to bestow 'observer' status upon some privileged neurons or groups of neurons, or outputs of neurons or something. To do this would involve what Dennett refers to as 'the bizarre category of the objectively subjective'. What a mess. This isn't a mirror, it's a hall of mirrors... Thanks for this post. Now I have something to think about for the rest of my life besides women's underwear.

It's kind of exciting. I wish I had some brains to slice into.

Objectively subjective... I like it.

It kinda stopped me. I started thinking of the sentence. "I am objective." So subjectively objective is ok but you're right. "Me is subjective" just sounds stupid.

I'll ponder all this and get back to you.... uh, don't wait up.

Thanks again.

(edit: If the screen is found and surgically removed, in what ways would the consciousness go dark? We would be internally blinded from our thoughts? That seems likely. Would we also lose all of our senses? Not exactly. We may still feel or see, but it would be as if someone else was having the experience, or if the pain was in the same room perhaps but we could not say that it was ours.)

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by Dymanic
In this context then, what would a 'non-mathematical relationship' be? I know, I know. Sorry.

I think that term is a bit of an oxymoron in this context. In the context of talking about objective physical reality, we have experiences that form part of logical relationships, for example when we measure the length of objects or the velocity of a particle. These experiences we attribute to an objective reality because they behave according to mathematical principles (and the relationships are also accessable the third person - although I'm not sure if that is truly relavent here). Any other type of experience is not attributed to objective reality and can be grouped under the term "subjective", such as pain, emotions, hallucinations etc. It is the"subjective" experiences that I would say fall into the "non-mathematical relationship" category.


Things always start getting extra weird once we start talking about meta-qualia.

Meta-qualia?


Are there things besides qualia that one can identify the nature of simply by inspecting the contents of one's own consciousness?

I would say no because, by definition, qualia encompass all experiences one might have regardless of their particular variation. If one has identified something then you must have experienced it therefore it must be a quale.


Are there things that have natures completely independent of anything we could know about them?

Yes, its called objective physical reality! We can never know the true nature of objective reality.


If so, is the nature of qualia exempt from this limitation (and if so, why)?

Yes, I think qualia are certainly exempt from this limitation, but lets bare in mind that this limitation is only imposed if you assume objectivity exists. With respect to qualia, we can know the nature of the redness of red for example.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Atlas
...snip...

(edit: If the screen is found and surgically removed, in what ways would the consciousness go dark? We would be internally blinded from our thoughts? That seems likely. Would we also lose all of our senses? Not exactly. We may still feel or see, but it would be as if someone else was having the experience, or if the pain was in the same room perhaps but we could not say that it was ours.)

Doesn't this happen in some neurological disorders or damage? So someone may actually do something and not "know" they've done it even though they have the memory of it, or the strange why people who have undergone "split-brain" operations react. I don't have any great links handy but this one discusses some of the changes in a "split-brain" person's consciousness. http://php.indiana.edu/~pietsch/split-brain.html

…snip…

PETER PIPER PICKED....
Over the years, this loss of speech has not been typical at all. As a matter of fact, the second patient coming out of anesthesia complain, "I have a splitting headache!" And when his nurse asked him how well he could talk, he smiled and answered: "Peter Piper picked a peck of pickle peppers!"
To the casual observer, the early split brain patients appeared perfectly normal. They could talk and read and had no problems recognizing the world about them. The seizures gone, they seemed happy, alert and healthy.
Then Gazzaniga made a startling discovery. If the patient held up something like a comb or a coffee cup in his left hand, he couldn't speak its name. Transferred to the right hand -- no trouble at all.
LOUSE IN LEFT FIELD
The same happened with words. If Gazzaniga held up a card with a printed word like LOUSE visible only in the patient's left visual field, he couldn't read it. Yet the left eye was fine. But Gazzaniga knew that the left visual field flashes only to the right side of the brain. And when Gazzaniga put the LOUSE in the right field, guess what happened. The patient immediately recognized it.

…snip…

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Darat
Doesn't this happen in some neurological disorders or damage? So someone may actually do something and not "know" they've done it even though they have the memory of it, or the strange why people who have undergone "split-brain" operations react. I don't have any great links handy but this one discusses some of the changes in a "split-brain" person's consciousness. http://php.indiana.edu/~pietsch/split-brain.html

You've just identified one of the key knowledge areas that begins to expose the consciousness-as-nonmaterial claim errors: the facts simply do not support these metaphysical musings. From the simple fact of anaesthesia to the recorded studies of brain damage, to the recorded effects of various brain surgeries, it is absolutely clear that, as magical as it appears to be, consciousness is firmly rooted in organic function. Why so many continue to wander in a metaphysical fog about this is beyond me.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Darat
Doesn't this happen in some neurological disorders or damage?

Yup, and if you liken the wetware-as-perceived to an info processor, so what?

[davidsmith73]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
You've just identified one of the key knowledge areas that begins to expose the consciousness-as-nonmaterial claim errors: the facts simply do not support these metaphysical musings. From the simple fact of anaesthesia to the recorded studies of brain damage, to the recorded effects of various brain surgeries, it is absolutely clear that, as magical as it appears to be, consciousness is firmly rooted in organic function. Why so many continue to wander in a metaphysical fog about this is beyond me.

Bill,
While the neurological disorders such as blindsight and visual neglect are interesting, they don't address the philosophical issues such as the hard problem, as we've been talking about. They just highlight the idea that as "matter" changes, so does experience. The important question is whether matter itself is experiential.

[Atlas]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
You've just identified one of the key knowledge areas that begins to expose the consciousness-as-nonmaterial claim errors: the facts simply do not support these metaphysical musings. From the simple fact of anaesthesia to the recorded studies of brain damage, to the recorded effects of various brain surgeries, it is absolutely clear that, as magical as it appears to be, consciousness is firmly rooted in organic function. Why so many continue to wander in a metaphysical fog about this is beyond me. When you say "beyond me" I'm sure you mean "totally illogical". It's obvious that the majority stumble through this doorway as an attractive alternative to the death of self. Consciousness implies God implies I'm going to live forever in heaven.

In the minority there are folks like hammegk, who refuse to live in the paradox they see and so throw pragmatism down for illusion. Well, to be fair, pragmatism to me implies a comfort level with dualism in that notion it espouses as "common sense" - but it would be foundationless without an assumption of a real material world. Which brings me to...Originally posted by hammegk
Yup, and if you liken the wetware-as-perceived to an info processor, so what? I'm never sure if you're thumnailing or nutshelling. Does Objective Idealism accept that human consciousness is an aspect of a unified higher consciousness that is not dependent upon *I* but also that reality is unreal, unphysical, simultaneously created and apprehended by higher consciousness and it's aspects? I still don't like you destroying my world. One of us is a windmill, the other is Don Quixote.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by davidsmith73
Bill,
While the neurological disorders such as blindsight and visual neglect are interesting, they don't address the philosophical issues such as the hard problem, as we've been talking about. They just highlight the idea that as "matter" changes, so does experience. The important question is whether matter itself is experiential.

Just how, exactly, are "qualia" to be falsified, davidsmith73? Please be specific and indicate, very specifically, how the concept of "qualia" is to be refuted.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by davidsmith73

If one has identified something then you must have experienced it therefore it must be a quale.
And your experience of the quale is a meta-quale (a TIC term, BTW).
With respect to qualia, we can know the nature of the redness of red for example.Wait...

---------me-------------
Are there things that have natures completely independent of anything we could know about them?
------------------------

---------you------------
Yes, its called objective physical reality! We can never know the true nature of objective reality.
------------------------

---------me-------------
If so, is the nature of qualia exempt from this limitation (and if so, why)?
------------------------

---------you------------
Yes, I think qualia are certainly exempt from this limitation
------------------------

But qualia are subjective! I wouldn't have thought it possible to come up with anything even more bizarre than 'objectively subjective', but you appear to have done so by proposing its complement: a new category, the 'subjectively objective'. Nice work.

Are we having fun, or what?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Atlas

In the minority there are folks like hammegk, who refuse to live in the paradox they see and so throw pragmatism down for illusion. Well, to be fair, pragmatism to me implies a comfort level with dualism in that notion it espouses as "common sense" - but it would be foundationless without an assumption of a real material world.
I only retort dualism is illogical, and in fact nonsense. I do agree an objectve reality exists.


Which brings me to... I'm never sure if you're thumnailing or nutshelling. Does Objective Idealism accept that human consciousness is an aspect of a unified higher consciousness that is not dependent upon *I* but also that reality is unreal, unphysical, simultaneously created and apprehended by higher consciousness and it's aspects? I still don't like you destroying my world. One of us is a windmill, the other is Don Quixote.
In a way, although human consciousness is a red herring. Thought is the existent. What's human got to do with it? Our perceived wetware. plus consciousness, equals a human.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Dymanic
Even if we could locate this 'Cartesian Theater', the show would still require an audience. We would need to find some coherent way to bestow 'observer' status upon some privileged neurons or groups of neurons, or outputs of neurons or something. To do this would involve what Dennett refers to as 'the bizarre category of the objectively subjective'. What a mess. This isn't a mirror, it's a hall of mirrors.

D,

What is the hall of mirrors supposed to be??

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor


What is the hall of mirrors supposed to be??
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by hammegk
I only retort dualism is illogical, and in fact nonsense. I do agree an objectve reality exists.

Hammegk,

You still didn't answer my question.

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.

It sounds vaguely familiar, but I don't know Dennet's theory, what is the hall of mirrors you referred to??

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor

I don't know Dennet's theory, what is the hall of mirrors??I don't remember Dennett ever saying anything about a 'hall of mirrors'; that was just a methaphor I was using to describe the difficulties with Cartesian Dualism. As an alternative, Dennett proposes something he calls the 'Multiple Drafts' model. This does not lend itself well to brief summation, but some of the central ideas are: rather than a single, canonical narrative, there are, at any point in time, multiple drafts of narrative fragments at various stages of editing, these processes running in parallel; observations only have to be made once (they do not have to be 'sent' anywhere else to be rediscriminated by some master discriminator).

One phrase Dennett uses that I find especially appealing is: spatially and temporally distributed content-fixations. Try saying that three times real fast.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Just how, exactly, are "qualia" to be falsified, davidsmith73? Please be specific and indicate, very specifically, how the concept of "qualia" is to be refuted.

davidsmith73,

Did you, perchance, miss this question?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Filip Sandor
Hammegk,

You still didn't answer my question.

Which question that you asked of me have I not answered?

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BillHoyt
Just how, exactly, are "qualia" to be falsified, davidsmith73? Please be specific and indicate, very specifically, how the concept of "qualia" is to be refuted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose by evaluating the limit of consciousness as quale-content approaches zero, if I get what you reiterated through the fog of your complicated words.

ME

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat
Doesn't this happen in some neurological disorders or damage? So someone may actually do something and not "know" they've done it even though they have the memory of it, or the strange why people who have undergone "split-brain" operations react. I don't have any great links handy but this one discusses some of the changes in a "split-brain" person's consciousness. http://php.indiana.edu/~pietsch/split-brain.html

Proof there is no self!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
You've just identified one of the key knowledge areas that begins to expose the consciousness-as-nonmaterial claim errors: the facts simply do not support these metaphysical musings. From the simple fact of anaesthesia to the recorded studies of brain damage, to the recorded effects of various brain surgeries, it is absolutely clear that, as magical as it appears to be, consciousness is firmly rooted in organic function. Why so many continue to wander in a metaphysical fog about this is beyond me.

WOW! I hadn't even read your post Bill before my previous post! LOL

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Just how, exactly, are "qualia" to be falsified, davidsmith73? Please be specific and indicate, very specifically, how the concept of "qualia" is to be refuted.

They can't be. That which exists cannot be shown not to exist.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Dymanic
And your experience of the quale is a meta-quale (a TIC term, BTW).
Wait...
What is a TIC term, here?


---------me-------------
Are there things that have natures completely independent of anything we could know about them?
------------------------

---------you------------
Yes, its called objective physical reality! We can never know the true nature of objective reality.
------------------------

---------me-------------
If so, is the nature of qualia exempt from this limitation (and if so, why)?
------------------------

---------you------------
Yes, I think qualia are certainly exempt from this limitation
------------------------

But qualia are subjective! I wouldn't have thought it possible to come up with anything even more bizarre than 'objectively subjective', but you appear to have done so by proposing its complement: a new category, the 'subjectively objective'. Nice work.

Are we having fun, or what?

I hope so! From another forum about a year ago:

"People can have subjective or objective orientations or both or neither. People can be subjectively objective, and they can be objectively subjective. If the objective encompasses the subjective, does the subjective encompass the objective too? "

http://forums.craigslist.org/?SQ=objectively+subjective+subjectively+objective&act=RSR&searchAID=&forumID=71

I suggest pending an explanation of 'TIC', that there are not "meta-qualia". The experience is the quale; whiteness is a particular property of experience in general. There is no other independent experience of the experience which is the quale, except as empty word games and the like. There are only awareness and sensation coming together in the moment of consciousness to "produce" qualia whether real or imaginary.

Have at it!

ME

[Atlas]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Just how, exactly, are "qualia" to be falsified, davidsmith73? Please be specific and indicate, very specifically, how the concept of "qualia" is to be refuted.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B]They can't be. That which exists cannot be shown not to exist.

First off, I admit that I had never heard the term qualia before joining this forum and know what I know about the concept only from readings here and wikipedia.

That said, it seems like an immaterial definition for a perceived exchange in the brain that is a mere theoretical construct or aspect of one.

I might postulate that all my good emotional feelings are the result of "blessing" and all my bad emotional feelings are from "curse". My experience is unchanged regardless of the theoretical construct I overlay. Qualia is a useful way to think about activities in the mind but there is no more proof of qualia than there is of God.

It is like the Ptolemaic geocentric appearence model, a very attractive, apparently true model. But Copernicus gave us a much truer model that is not as apparent to our pedestrian conscious apprehension. It needs several additional constructs educated into us before we realize our senses were fooling our understanding.

My point is that qualia are definitional aspects of a theory of mind that could easily be thrown over when a better model is advanced. There is no proof for qualia, only acceptence.

This wikipedia article gives a short definition and argument for and against qualia.

Qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia)

Finally, Jackson argues that qualia are epiphenomenal: that is, that they are causally inefficacious with respect to the physical world. Jackson does not give a positive justification for this claim—rather, he seems to assert it simply because it defends qualia against the classic problem of dualism. Our natural assumption would be that qualia must be causally efficacious in the physical world—however, if qualia are to be non-physical properties (which they must be in order to constitute an argument against physicalism), it is almost impossible to imagine how they could have a causal effect on the physical world. By redefining qualia as epiphenomenal, Jackson is thus able to protect them from the demand of playing a causal role.

[Mr. E]

Originally posted by Atlas
My point is that qualia are definitional aspects of a theory of mind that could easily be thrown over when a better model is advanced. There is no proof for qualia, only acceptence.

This wikipedia article gives a short definition and argument for and against qualia.

Qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia) Do qualia require proof or rather proper placement in any complete theory of consciousness? The notion that they are epiphenomal as I understand it is that they do "exist" but that the processes which take sense data and allow us to act effectively in the world function well enough without qualia. However, an experience without a property wouldn't be the same experience as one with that property. So if qualia are mere non-causal side effects of brain processes, what does that say about all experience? It seems to simply deny that conscious experience is relevant. Even if that were true, how does that figure into the topic of this thread?

ME

PS - the excerpt said, "it is almost impossible to imagine how they could have a causal effect on the physical world"

"almost impossible" warrants consideration as "possible".

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Mr. E
I suppose by evaluating the limit of consciousness as quale-content approaches zero, if I get what you reiterated through the fog of your complicated words.

ME
What I wrote was hardly complicated, mystery, although "falsification" might be a sophisticated concept. I'll break it down for you: how can we demonstrate qualia don't exist? It is that simple, and one of the golden keys to understanding science. "Qualia" seem, on the surface, to be a wonderful concept. I say that, when we dig deeper, we reveal the final dualist escape hatch, and nothing more. I say that because "qualia" are merely Descarte's myth wrapped in a new guise. They are defined as "private," purely private, and defined in such a way that when science can present incontrovertible evidence that it understands every other aspect of consiousness, can fully explain the voices in our heads, how we choose what we want for breakfast and which woman we'll approach at the pub and what we will (or won't) wear to bed, the dualists will still have "qualia" as the very thin reed to cling to as they hang over the cliff. They will gasp, "ah, but you can't measure how I experience it!"

And the game will be back on. We'll whip out electrodes and tell you exactly how you experience it. We'll have, perhaps, multi-dimensional graphics, showing the intensity of your pleasure or pain and following down all the association paths, providing the names and graphic descriptions of each and every similar painful or pleasure-ful experience your current experience is triggering. "But those are numbers, those aren't how I feel about it." So, then, we'll measure the various chemical components of feeling (about which we already know a great amount) and measure the activation potentials at all the receptor sites for those chemicals, and tell you. And then, you'll simply deny it.

This game will never end. It hasn't for the many decades it has been on. Gilbert Ryle first callled dualists on this game in 1949, in The Concept of Mind. There he summarized the dualist retreat to that point. Before physiology knew about how nerves and the electro-chemistry of emotion worked, the dualists claimed we could never understand sensations, perceptions, feeling, thinking, memory or consciousness. Now we clearly have a good handle on nerve operations and the higher-order phenomena of vision, taste, smell and tactile feel. As that became clear, the dualists retreated to claiming we could never understand feeling, thinking, memory or consciousness. Several decades passed, and our understanding that emotions are chemical in nature and that neurons are the basis of thinking and memory has forced a retreat to the claim that we'll never understand consciousness, this time accompanied by much hooting and hollering about "qualia."

So the key, here, is to know how to scrutinize "qualia," because, quite clearly, inroads on consciousness have already been made. (One need only look closely at the shifting definition of consciousness among the dualists to see this. Decades ago, the term included awareness of one's surroundings. As vision, taste, smell and tactile feel all became understood, the term consciousness became circumscribed to things more resembling the cartesian shadow-theatre. Heaven forfend that the dualists should concede progress already made in understanding consciousness. Far better that they disguise a No True Scotsman maneuver and keep up the basic category mistake, as Ryle termed it.)

So, then, mystery, since davidsmith73 has yet to tackle this question, I put it to you: how are we ever to falsify "qualia?" What test or tests can we, in principle, conduct that will either support or refute the notion of "qualia?" The corollary question, if you can offer no such tests, is: why should we entertain the notion at all?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
how can we demonstrate qualia don't exist? It is that simple, and one of the golden keys to understanding science. "Qualia" seem, on the surface, to be a wonderful concept. I say that, when we dig deeper, we reveal the final dualist escape hatch, and nothing more. I say that because "qualia" are merely Descarte's myth wrapped in a new guise.



If we take something say like the raw experience of redness, or the smell of eggs and bacon, or the taste of coffee, it is clear, is it not, that they all incontrovertibly exist? We experience them in the most direct sense possible.

So the question "how can we demonstrate qualia don't exist" is simply without meaning. This is because they do definitely exist. This being so they cannot be falsified; but clearly this fact doesn't mean that they don't exist!

You're getting confused with science. Science deals with the patterns in our perceptual experiences, not the experiences themselves. We have theories explaining the patterns in our perceptual experiences. The argument is that if such a theory cannot be falsified then this means that the theory is compatible with all possible states of the world. In other words, no matter what we discover about the world, it will fail to disprove the theory. But this then means that the theory is vacuous.

But qualia are not a theory. Rather their existence is a stone-cold fact.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I will argue that it doesn't exist. It is a rubric under which many other things are attributed.

Hello David,

So far, I have just read the first page, sorry if someone else already asked you the following:
If you think that consciousness does not exist, then explain what is the difference between a p-zombie and you?

Do you think that robots will be able to duplicate everything humans do, think and feel?.

Q

[Atlas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If we take something say like the raw experience of redness, or the smell of eggs and bacon, or the taste of coffee, it is clear, is it not, that they all incontrovertibly exist? We experience them in the most direct sense possible. Ian, What I don't understand is how this kind of theory leads to a denial of the physical world. Let's say that bacon and eggs is one of your favorite pleasurable experiences. Let's also say you were convinced that there is no physical world.

Now let's say that ninja surgeons slipped into your room while you were sleeping and snipped your olfactory nerve. you remained asleep, so stealthy and and martial artist snippy were they.

What keeps you from enjoying the qualia derived from the physical world scent.

OK, I'm coming at this from many angles at once in my mind. To me the denial of the physical realm implies the denial of evolution. That in fact we are the floating consciousnesses and nothing more. If everything is unreal why do individuals have the same "provable" 5 sense derived qualia and not much more. Even if some people have woo powers, how does that inform our existence in terms of life and death and the experiences in between that also switch off in our unconscious states. What possible value is there in the denial of physical existence. What do the qualia refer to if not physical existence.

I've never quite grasped the essence of truth that makes subjective idealism superior. How does it explain the dinosaurs and prehistory without a physical universe. I think of thought as the light of mind, a weird fact demonstrating the matter is constantly doing strange things, but no more wonderful than the coalescing hydrogen that sparked the first light of the universe. That too was surely unexpectedly wonderful if the universe exists, that is.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Atlas
Ian, What I don't understand is how this kind of theory leads to a denial of the physical world. Let's say that bacon and eggs is one of your favorite pleasurable experiences. Let's also say you were convinced that there is no physical world.

Now let's say that ninja surgeons slipped into your room while you were sleeping and snipped your olfactory nerve. you remained asleep, so stealthy and and martial artist snippy were they.

What keeps you from enjoying the qualia derived from the physical world scent.

OK, I'm coming at this from many angles at once in my mind. To me the denial of the physical realm implies the denial of evolution. That in fact we are the floating consciousnesses and nothing more. If everything is unreal why do individuals have the same "provable" 5 sense derived qualia and not much more. Even if some people have woo powers, how does that inform our existence in terms of life and death and the experiences in between that also switch off in our unconscious states. What possible value is there in the denial of physical existence. What do the qualia refer to if not physical existence.

I've never quite grasped the essence of truth that makes subjective idealism superior. How does it explain the dinosaurs and prehistory without a physical universe. I think of thought as the light of mind, a weird fact demonstrating the matter is constantly doing strange things, but no more wonderful than the coalescing hydrogen that sparked the first light of the universe. That too was surely unexpectedly wonderful if the universe exists, that is.

You have to notice the words here to catch the feints going on. "Raw experience" is a prime example of the category mistake Ryle identified back in the 40s. It is a delightful abstraction that permits Ian (and others) to dodge the issue. Ryle pins the mistake on Descartes:

"When Galileo showed that his methods of scientific discovery were competent to provide a mechanical theory which should cover every occupant of space, Descarte found in himself two conflicting motives. As a man of scientific genius he could not but endorse the claims of mechanics, yet as a religious and moral man he could not accept, as Hobbes accepted, the discouraging rider to those claims, namely that human nature differs only in degree of complexity from clockwork...

He and subsequent philosophers naturally but erroneously availed themselves of the following escape-route. Since mental-conduct words are not to be construed as signifying the occurrence of mechanical processes, they must be construed as signifying the occurrence of non-mechanical processes..."

The logic failure is obvious here. The "category mistake" is a definitional problem. It is misuse of language and entrapment in these mistaken definitions. Basically, Ian and others have it bass-ackwards. The "raw experiences" are qualia that are defined to be abstract and personal. It permits no evidence to contradict it. It is pat and patently closed to further inquiry, as Ian concedes with "You're getting confused with science. Science deals with the patterns in our perceptual experiences, not the experiences themselves,"and "So the question "how can we demonstrate qualia don't exist" is simply without meaning. This is because they do definitely exist. This being so they cannot be falsified; but clearly this fact doesn't mean that they don't exist!"

The pretzel nature of the logic escapes the steel-trap-closedness of Ian's mind. So, I encourage our various Cartesians here to address, not dodge, the question: "how are we ever to falsify 'qualia'?"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Atlas
[B]Ian, What I don't understand is how this kind of theory leads to a denial of the physical world.


Please Atlas, let's stick to one thing at a time. That question takes us way off the topic. Little things need to be achieved before we can tackle the bigger issues. If a lot of people such as Bill and others even deny the existence of the smell of eggs and bacon, and the smell of coffee, it will be somewhat premature to take about whether subjective idealism is correct!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


The logic failure is obvious here. The "category mistake" is a definitional problem. It is misuse of language and entrapment in these mistaken definitions. Basically, Ian and others have it bass-ackwards. The "raw experiences" are qualia that are defined to be abstract and personal. It permits no evidence to contradict it.



I agree that this is my position. It would be absurd to suggest that my experience of the smell of eggs and bacon doesn't really exist after some empirical fact about the world is discovered. Qualia are incorrigible.



The pretzel nature of the logic escapes the steel-trap-closedness of Ian's mind.

The logic is fine thank you. Nothing about the world we might discover in the future will now alter the truth of the statement that I am am now experiencing a certain characteristic taste of coffee (well, in a sec anyway when I start drinking it!) :) .

[Filip Sandor]

Originally posted by hammegk
Which question that you asked of me have I not answered?

Hammegk, this is what you said in a previous post:

Here is the linchpin that destroys dualism as a logical choice. The question is "What *is* the monism?". Body or spirit? Non-life or life? Not-Conscious or Conscious? Material vs ~Material.

I don't know which answer to your question obliterates dualism as a logical alternative to monism.