Define Consiousness

[Dancing David]

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

[Eleatic Stranger]

Awareness of

[Dancing David]

Ah, theres the rub, in using language to describe the process underlying awareness. There are many kinds of awareness,

Awareness of body=sensation.
Awareness of cognition=thought.

So I ask, Awareness of what?

[Bikewer]

Self, according to most.

[Rob Lister]

Quote:

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

Here's the ironic response

DD: Define Consiousness

RL: No.

If you don't get it, have a beer.

[Eleatic Stranger]

Either, of course - since one can be both aware of and conscious of both sensations and thoughts.

[Jeff Corey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
Ah, theres the rub, in using language to describe the process underlying awareness. There are many kinds of awareness,

Awareness of body=sensation.
Awareness of cognition=thought.

So I ask, Awareness of what?

The textbook definition includes:
Your awareness of external events, internal sensations, your
self as observer and your thoughts about these experiences.
Then the author will typically go on about how difficult all these are to study scientifically because of the subjectivity of it all, how the behaviorists dumped "the study of consciousness" as the definition of psychology almost a century ago because of that problem.
Then the rest of that chapter will deal with sleep, dreams, hypnosis, meditation and drug effects.
Defining "awareness" is usually based upon self-report. Was Koko aware of her toothache? Well, she reported it in ASL and the tooth she pointed to was infected and treated.
Is Koko conscious?
Are you?

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bikewer
Self, according to most.

I am politely maintaining that that awareness is actualy many different processes which we define as 'awareness' but i feel there is no transubstantial self to be 'aware'. We might choose to label many different things as 'awareness' but they are still just a myriad of seperate things.

And again awareness of self would be what?

The visual perception of yourself in a mirror?
The cognitive recognition that that reflection is similar to the last time you looked in a mirror?

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Defining "awareness" is usually based upon self-report. Was Koko aware of her toothache? Well, she reported it in ASL and the tooth she pointed to was infected and treated.
Is Koko conscious?
Are you?

Koko exhibited behaviors that would indicate she was aware of pain in her tooth.
I am following up on a previous thread, just as consiousness can only be defined behavioraly from the observational stand point. Leading to the famous p-zombie, which is a creature that exhibits all the behaviors of consiousness but is not. I once postulated, in response to the erudire Mecrutio, that there are in fact creatures that behave as though they have 'mind's but in fact they don't, the m-zombie.

The same can be done for awareness, it can exist as an abstract entity, it is always related to an underlying event that can be correctly labeled as something else. It is a materialist reductio ad absurdum.

This is easy.

Consiousness is the same as consciousness only spelled wrongly.

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by prustage
This is easy.

Consiousness is the same as consciousness only spelled wrongly.

I lei slane at ewer feat!

I am notorius for mispeeling!

[Atlas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
... consiousness can only be defined behavioraly from the observational stand point.

That sounds like you are saying it can only be defined behaviorally.

If someone is totally paralyzed but is still conscious you might not be able to notice any behavioral change. Months may go by while the individual is fed intravenously. Then someone figures out a way to communicate, maybe by the guy causing his heart to flutter, I don't know - some way. Yah, that then becomes behavioral recognition of consciousness but is the implication that there was no consciousness during the intervening months?

A wider definition is called for. Something that involves imagination and memory at least. I'll call it IDEA for now and hear your argument.

[Dancing David]

Perhaps my definiton of behavioral is a broader one than evisaged, in the case of the eprson who is totaly paralyzed, say by the administartion of curarae, then we can hook the elctrodes to thier head and determine that the brain cells are behaving as though they are alive. Now wether we can deduce consciousness from that would be another issue. But it shows the broarder definition of behavior.

And certainly awareness of cognition and awareness of memory or awareness of the reconstructive process of memory are things generaly attributed to consciousness.

While we are defining consiousness what i am trying to do is reduce it to other processes, I could be wrong for doing so, but I am trying to add consciousness to the list of things like the self. Human conception solely.

[Atlas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
... And certainly awareness of cognition and awareness of memory or awareness of the reconstructive process of memory are things generaly attributed to consciousness.

While we are defining consiousness what i am trying to do is reduce it to other processes, I could be wrong for doing so, but I am trying to add consciousness to the list of things like the self. Human conception solely.

I'm having a similar discussion in another thread with BillyJoe. As a materialist, he is defining a human POV = self = pattern of neural firings in the brain.

But to me the brain pattern of neural firings is akin to the piece of glass that is a holograph. A laser passing through the holograph yields the corresponding projected hologram.

Over there I am wondering if life is the laser force that transforms the brain's neuronal activity. But to me that projection is real and different in quality from the piece of glass that is the physical construct holding the infromation from which the hologram is able to be reconstructed.

We absolutely need words for the various concepts of brain function and consciousness is a large concept - perhaps it is made of of lower level functions. But it may be that we are talking forms - like ice and vapor for water.

Perhaps I'm just used to the idea but I'm not going to like it if I suddenly find out I'm not conscious.

[Interesting Ian]

Quote:

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

It cannot be defined. Certainly it is not a physical process.

[Darat]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
...snip...

Leading to the famous p-zombie, which is a creature that exhibits all the behaviors of consiousness but is not. I once postulated, in response to the erudire Mecrutio, that there are in fact creatures that behave as though they have 'mind's but in fact they don't, the m-zombie.

...snip...

I've posted it a couple of times before but I seem to have a different sense of myself then some people post here. So much so that at times I would describe myself as a "p-zombie".

Many times the "I" that enables me to type this post is not "here", it is a transient experience. For instance I will do some gardening later on today and there will be times when my awareness of being anything will just fade away yet I will continue to weed, then there will periods were my� internal monologue me� is reactivated to deal with a stimulus e.g. I will consider something like "should I move this plant", then it will fade again as I go about "moving" the plant.

But throughout this process it is still me that is there doing it, just that one of the “sub routines� isn’t always running. I would still at a later date refer to the fact that “I was doing some gardening earlier on�, despite the “I� that creates the post wasn’t “there� for all of it.

So for me my definition of consciousness is that it is just one of the many processes that happen when a certain group of chemicals mix together with a bit of energy thrown in. Intrinsically no more remarkable or special then photosynthesis.

(Edited for words.)

[Atlas]

Quote:

Originally posted by Darat
Many times the "I" that enables me to type this post is not "here", it is a transient experience. For instance I will do some gardening later on today and there will be times when my awareness of being anything will just fade away yet I will continue to weed, then there will periods were my� internal monologue me� is reactivated to deal with a stimulus e.g. I will consider something like "should I move this plant", then it will fade again as I go about "moving" the plant.
[/size]

I know the phenomonon well. I think it is something to be developed, kinda like perfect meditation. That is, just be... or more new agey - be the garden,man.

I've heard it also in reference to individuals who have lost some reasoning capacity, even as an accident of birth. Give them a task, like move this sandpile from here to there, and they will work all day tirelessly absorbed in the duty.

I've also wondered about it in reference to old cowboy movies where a guy runs his horse to death. That always seemed impossible to me. Like it would have to get tired and stop first. I've always hated running myself and can't imagine the marathon but surely long distance runners must have that same experience, eventually coming back aware after a few miles have past.

[Anders]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It cannot be defined. Certainly it is not a physical process.

The problem is that you totally disregard all natural sciences. When I say that the brain and the neurons govern the consciousness, you say that I don’t understand. When I propose that all functions in the brain are electro chemical reactions carried out by proteins and ribozymes, you say that consciousness is supernatural. When I say that consciousness is comprehensible and explainable, you still say that consciousness is supernatural. You totally dismiss all the advances biochemistry researchers has done the last 100 years or so.

It has been show so many times that feelings are the product of proteins and signal substances.
You sometimes you say that consciousness and feelings are not the same thing. But you fail so explain how personality change after brain damage or the intakes of poisons like alcohol or narcotic substances.

Now you probably are going to call me a moron and say that I don’t understand. Well, I don’t. I have no way of grasping your theories about a supernatural consciousness, it is implied, supernatural is non explainable. So you are safe, home free, no one can explain a supernatural consciousness because if any one could if would be a science, which you argue it is not.

It becomes kind if a circle argumentation, you argue for a supernatural consciousness, but if we try to explain it, you say that it is supernatural, thus unexplainable, and hence we can’t explain it. Still, you win, and there is no why anyone can argue that.

But, the supernatural consciousness is an idea, just as the flat earth idea, nice idea but proven wrong. Consciousness is physical: take away the physical brain and you have no consciousness.

[Dymanic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It cannot be defined. Certainly it is not a physical process.

I agree. It's like... beauty.

[Jeff Corey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It cannot be defined. Certainly it is not a physical process.

Certainly you are wrong, as ever. It occurs in me and it is not a paranormal process, only a complete dullard would say that.
Good thing you have your job as a telephone desanitizer to keep you on the net, by the way, your website is still unintellible. Which I think is a good thing.

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Atlas
Perhaps I'm just used to the idea but I'm not going to like it if I suddenly find out I'm not conscious.

How would anyone tell you?

[H'ethetheth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
It is a rubric under which many other things are attributed.


I am politely maintaining that that awareness is actualy many different processes which we define as 'awareness' but i feel there is no transubstantial self to be 'aware'. We might choose to label many different things as 'awareness' but they are still just a myriad of seperate things.

Isn't this a definition?
The self may be an illusion but an illusion is also something that exists, something that is 'real' in a way, which you then name 'self'. Does it matter whether or not it's "different processes"?

Yay, my first post!

[Darat]

Quote:

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Isn't this a definition?
The self may be an illusion but an illusion is also something that exists, something that is 'real' in a way, which you then name 'self'. Does it matter whether or not it's "different processes"?

Yay, my first post!

Even if you are an unreal/not real/real/illusion, welcome to the board.

[H'ethetheth]

Thanks. I'll try to keep it real.

[Dymanic]

Quote:

Originally posted by H'ethetheth

The self may be an illusion but an illusion is also something that exists, something that is 'real' in a way, which you then name 'self'.

So... a thing can be considered to have consciousness if it is percieved as having consciousness. I've heard this idea before; it was called: 'the Turing test'. We needn't worry about the possibility of that perception being illusory, because even an illusion is real in a way.

Right?

We may be on to something here. Once such a consciousness (real or illusory, no meaningful distinction) came into existence, it could continue to exist as long as it percieved itself as existing (even if it was wrong). I've also heard this idea before: "I think, therefore I am", made even nicer (I think) by this slight modification: "I think I am, therefore I am... I think". The process could then be self-sustaining -- independent of physical reality since it didn't have to be 'real' in the first place. Reminiscent of the way electromagnetic energy propagates through empty space; a wave which can travel where there is no ocean, by becoming its own ocean as it goes.

This 'Midas touch' regarding self must come accompanied by an awesome responsibility; we may be unknowingly creating eternally conscious (though illusory) selves simply by percieving them as existing. Wow.

[H'ethetheth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
So... a thing can be considered to have consciousness if it is percieved as having consciousness. I've heard this idea before; it was called: 'the Turing test'. We needn't worry about the possibility of that perception being illusory, because even an illusion is real in a way.

Right?

We may be on to something here. Once such a consciousness (real or illusory, no meaningful distinction) came into existence, it could continue to exist as long as it percieved itself as existing (even if it was wrong). I've also heard this idea before: "I think, therefore I am", made even nicer (I think) by this slight modification: "I think I am, therefore I am... I think". The process could then be self-sustaining -- independent of physical reality since it didn't have to be 'real' in the first place. Reminiscent of the way electromagnetic energy propagates through empty space; a wave which can travel where there is no ocean, by becoming its own ocean as it goes.

This 'Midas touch' regarding self must come accompanied by an awesome responsibility; we may be unknowingly creating eternally conscious (though illusory) selves simply by percieving them as existing. Wow.

hmmm, I'm not quite sure I understand this, in fact I'm not even sure if this post may be completely ironic, being new and all.

What I meant to say is, that when something is self-aware, it doesn't matter to this something wheter it's perception of itself is an illusion, resulting from an amount of processes, or some real perception of an inexplicable eternal soul that floats from party to party in the afterlife, or becomes an elderberry bush in another life.
So consciousness does not need a definition, it just needs to be explained.

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Isn't this a definition?
The self may be an illusion but an illusion is also something that exists, something that is 'real' in a way, which you then name 'self'. Does it matter whether or not it's "different processes"?

Yay, my first post!

Welcome H'ethethheth.

In one sense no and in another sense yes.

If we recognise that there are a group of things that we call the slef, and understand that it is a heap of things, then okay, if we refer to a bunch of other things and call them consciousness and understand that they are really a bunch of different things , cool.
Just as we may refer to wind and air as the agregate action of atmosheric molecules.

Caveat: The self does not really exist from the evidence at hand, there is the body, the emotions, the thoughts, the perceptions and the habits and the memories. But I feel that there is no seer behind the sight, we have a sensation which becomes perception, we can then have thoughts and feelings and memories about the perception. But the self is really just all those things in a lump, there is no seer, thinker or feeler, there are the process but no self.

Same for the consciousness, many people want to ascribe it some mystical undefinable properties when it is a set of concrete processes.

[H'ethetheth]

But is not the self then defined by the result of these processes? I see this merely as a problem of definition. I mean there is that which you call 'you', right?
This self-perceived self is then by definition the seer. Illusionary or not. So it seems convenient to speak of a seer in normal life because everybody has this perception af a self.

[Dymanic]

Quote:

Originally posted by H'ethetheth

I'm not even sure if this post may be completely ironic, being new and all.

It's not always easy to tell about that around here, even after you've been here a while. It's a good idea to keep one eye on the irony meter at all times.

Quote:

What I meant to say is, that when something is self-aware, it doesn't matter to this something wheter it's perception of itself is an illusion, resulting from an amount of processes, or some real perception of an inexplicable eternal soul that floats from party to party in the afterlife, or becomes an elderberry bush in another life.

To some of those somethings, it appears to matter a lot (though probably more when they are here than when they are busy working, or doing laundry or whatever). I don't think it would feel any different, if that's what you mean.

Quote:

So consciousness does not need a definition, it just needs to be explained.

I was serious when I suggested a similarity between the concept 'consciousness' and the concept 'beauty'. As a concept it has utility; defining it is as simple as noting that it is completely subjective; explaining it is a fool's errand.

[H'ethetheth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic

To some of those somethings, it appears to matter a lot (though probably more when they are here than when they are busy working, or doing laundry or whatever). I don't think it would feel any different, if that's what you mean.

I have noticed this on these boards. Come to think of it, this whole topic is probably a bait for this Ian I've been reading so much about. Alas he's already decided on the subject.

Anyway, my point is that it doesn't matter for the definition of consciousness. I just thought there was a lot of unnecessary side-tracking going on.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
I was serious when I suggested a similarity between the concept 'consciousness' and the concept 'beauty'. As a concept it has utility; defining it is as simple as noting that it is completely subjective; explaining it is a fool's errand.

I agree completely.

So we can say that consciousness is that which allows something to perceive and contemplate itself and its surroundings to a certain extent.

And I think we can also safely say that we receive very little clarity from this definition, since even Interesting Ian, who adheres to undefinable consciousness, might agree with this definition.

Edited for punctuation & spelling

[Dymanic]

Quote:

Originally posted by H'ethetheth

And I think we can also safely say that we receive very little clarity from this definition, since even Interesting Ian, who adheres to undefinable consciousness, might agree with this definition

Odd, isn't it? We do seem to recieve more clarity from disagreeing. Seldom by virtue of anyone actually changing his position, though. You might expect that when two people with opposing viewpoints argue long enough and hard enough, one would eventually win the other over. Or perhaps they would reach a common middle ground. But this almost never happens. What happens instead is that they each become more deeply entrenched.

I sometimes worry that devoting too much time to this 'consciousness' business may cause my StarCraft skills to slip.

[Dancing David]

Quote:

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
But is not the self then defined by the result of these processes? I see this merely as a problem of definition. I mean there is that which you call 'you', right?
This self-perceived self is then by definition the seer. Illusionary or not. So it seems convenient to speak of a seer in normal life because everybody has this perception af a self.

Absolutely I agree with that, we have the comonents of a self and the components of a consiousness.

Yet I feel that the distiction is still valid, there is a sight but no seer, unless you want to count the part of the frontal cortex that creates the visual image.

I am aimimng this mainly at the baggage associated with the idea of 'consciousness', such things as
-mysterious
-undefinable
-transcendant
-eternal
-immaterial

[H'ethetheth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dancing David
Absolutely I agree with that, we have the comonents of a self and the components of a consiousness.

Yet I feel that the distiction is still valid, there is a sight but no seer, unless you want to count the part of the frontal cortex that creates the visual image.

I am aimimng this mainly at the baggage associated with the idea of 'consciousness', such things as
-mysterious
-undefinable
-transcendant
-eternal
-immaterial

I see what you mean, but my opinion is that this baggage is not all unscientific or religious.
I think that when you find out how all these processes work, the work is done (yay!), and the seer remains a working convention for that which results from the processes.
This seer would then hardly be mysterious, certainly not undefinable or eternal, but nevertheless immaterial.
(Okay, so it's mostly unscientific and religious)

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
I sometimes worry that devoting too much time to this 'consciousness' business may cause my StarCraft skills to slip.

I feel your pain.

[Mr. E]

Hi. I realize I'm coming in late to this discussion. Here's my take on the matter of Consciousness.

To meaningfully say whether something exists, we should know what "exists" means. But I'd like to focus on another aspect of the issue.

There is a lot of vague talk about consciousness, and people tend to borrow it to talk about many things which are mysterious to them. Others use the term as a foil for prattling on in fun or distraction. But let's look at a serious angle here, an attempt to formalize such discussions a bit.

My starting point is to offer a definition which is

Clear,
Compact, and
Complex,

and which collects the essence of the term from common usage while perhaps avoiding the vague abuses which some attempt.

Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness.

If you know vector math you might consider the cross-product, for a beginners analogy. If you know the common usage and muddled dictionary definitions which attempt to reflect and guide such usages, you will see some truth in this definition relative to those vague and ambiguous standards.

The definition says that without sensation, there is no consciousness even if there is awareness. And vice versa. Sure we could conflate awareness with consciousness in the special case of Zero Consciousness, but isn't that trivially silly? The different words are supposed to *mean* something, to help guide the mind to meaningful distinctions. The synonym trap should be obvious, and deftly avoided.

Let me add some meat to the spare bones here. After all, having unpacked 'consciousness' we need to give meaning to the terms used in its definition in order that it have more meaning. The first two key terms are 'sensation' and 'awareness'.

Let's consider these in a particular instantiation, or mode, of consciousness, the information theory aspect. In this view,

Sensation = becoming informed
Awareness = being informed

Neither of these definitive equations is a radical departure from common usage. For example: It is via knowing what we sense that we become informed of the world of sense perception.

So the information theory notion of consciousness can be restated as: Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of becoming with being.

Now we might be ready to examine the OP question of existence.

Any questions or comments first?


ME

[Dymanic]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. E

I realize I'm coming in late to this discussion

If you make the first page, I don't think it really counts as late anyway -- unless you are referring to the ongoing discussion that takes place here in various threads. Hey, you get here when you get here. One of those threads set a forum record at 52 pages, and left some of us a little numb for a while, but it seems to be wearing off. But never mind about that. Welcome to the forum!

Quote:

Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness.

I hope you will forgive my saying so, but that really doesn't seem to shine much light.

Quote:

If you know vector math you might consider the cross-product, for a beginners analogy.

Yeah, you definitely want to stick with the beginners analogy wherever possible. Some of us are just as dumb as dirt when it comes to this stuff.

Quote:

Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of becoming with being.

Can you clarify that a little? I don't see how it follows from what you said above (probably no big surprise, since I don't have a clue what it means).

[Mr. E]

Hi. Glad to know my post was noted. I was hoping for serious engagement of my ideas and their expressions. I'm not clear on how this quoting function works, so bear with me if the format is a bit rocky.

Quote:

Originally posted by Dymanic
"Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of sensation with awareness."
I hope you will forgive my saying so, but that really doesn't seem to shine much light.

Well, before I spew out more dim text strings, it would help to know if you find it dim because it seems to go over your head or under your knees. That is, I don't know what your standards are, and don't have time to research your posting history. Someone might find it dim because they are relatively blind, another might have already been there and therefore finds it almost trivial. How I proceed might well be rather different for the two cases, don't you agree? If you find it without any merit, I apologize for wasting your time.

Quote:

Yeah, you definitely want to stick with the beginners analogy wherever possible. Some of us are just as dumb as dirt when it comes to this stuff.

I don't know whether that's sarcasm or something else. 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? Thanks.

"[in the context of information theory] Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of becoming with being."

Quote:

Can you clarify that a little? I don't see how it follows from what you said above (probably no big surprise, since I don't have a clue what it means).

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.


It means that we have a complex, compact, clear definition of one aspect of the state of being conscious - being concious is a matter of both being and becoming! It's hardly the end in itself, merely a stepping stone.


ME

[H'ethetheth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. E
[...]My starting point is to offer a definition which is

Clear,
Compact, and
Complex,

and which collects the essence of the term from common usage while perhaps avoiding the vague abuses which some attempt. [...]

Yeah, I have a comment on the vagueness issue. This to me is the first post in the thread I almost completely didn't understand.
I guess I'm stuck with about the same questions as Dymanic though, so I'll stick with those.

[H'ethetheth]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. E
...]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.


It means that we have a complex, compact, clear definition of one aspect of the state of being conscious - being concious is a matter of both being and becoming! It's hardly the end in itself, merely a stepping stone.


ME

Did you just premultiply the vector product of two analogies with the inverse of information, and draw a conclusion pertaining to the real world?
Sir, I accuse you of being ironic.

[Mr. E]

Quote:

Originally posted by H'ethetheth
Did you just premultiply the vector product of two analogies with the inverse of information, and draw a conclusion pertaining to the real world?
Sir, I accuse you of being ironic.

If said accusation is offered inclusively, I'll take that as a friendly welcome of some obscure sort. There is room for playful irony in my notions, but if you don't mind, can we err on the side of being serious here about the topic? Also, I note that irony seen is often in the eye of the beholder... and thus more illusory than "real".

As for the overt question, since we are both following Dynamic's lead here (you per your other recent post), would you mind showing us how your questioning inference followed from what you quoted? While I might have some clues about what it means to you, the obvious terminlogical differences cry out for justification. I thought I had taken a particular aspect of a general matter and elaborated the semi-formal structure of the linguistic transformations I had previously presented.



Thanks!


ME

[BillHoyt]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. E
Hi. Glad to know my post was noted. I was hoping for serious engagement of my ideas and their expressions. I'm not clear on how this quoting function works, so bear with me if the format is a bit rocky.



Well, before I spew out more dim text strings, it would help to know if you find it dim because it seems to go over your head or under your knees. That is, I don't know what your standards are, and don't have time to research your posting history. Someone might find it dim because they are relatively blind, another might have already been there and therefore finds it almost trivial. How I proceed might well be rather different for the two cases, don't you agree? If you find it without any merit, I apologize for wasting your time.



I don't know whether that's sarcasm or something else. 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? Thanks.

"[in the context of information theory] Consciousness is a matter of the synthesis of becoming with being."



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.


It means that we have a complex, compact, clear definition of one aspect of the state of being conscious - being concious is a matter of both being and becoming! It's hardly the end in itself, merely a stepping stone.


ME

Okay, I'll be the first one to call it. "Mystery," go play games elsewhere and don't waste our time with pure bullsh.