The Metaphysical Consciousness

[doronshadmi]

OK, good enough.
You cannot define what consciousness is.

Or maybe you are not aware of yourself as the natural source of both questions and answers, which is inseparable of reality.

 

[doronshadmi]

There's some unanswered questions about the functioning of the brain, but not enough to fit all this mystical woo in.

I agree with you, the naturally unanswered questions about the functioning of the brain, is the naturally invariant aspect of reality.

 

[realpaladin]

Doron's gibberish replies would make for a hilarious xkcd style webcomic.

Basically what he does is the same as the sub-par iq maharishi did; torture language so each reply is nothing but a variation of the old schoolyard "I know what you are, but what am I?"

Still, not a single research that shows tm has results.

Scientology does better in every aspect here ; more celebrities, more money, more 'research'...

 

[tsig]

OK, good enough.
You cannot define what consciousness is.

con·scious·ness
ˈkänCHəsnəs/
noun
noun: consciousness

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
the awareness or perception of something by a person.
plural noun: consciousnesses
"her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"



There you go.

(somehow I'm sure this won't satisfy you.)

 

[bruto]

Its invariant aspect.

You still get only the variant aspect of reality and ignore its invariant aspect.

What possible reason would anyone have even to wonder about, much less investigate, the "invariant" aspect of a concussion? Of course if it's hard enough, its result is invariant, because it destroys whatever it hits, but otherwise, a concussion is, by its very nature, a transient event. Why should one not view it as a transient event?

Just saying of everything "you don't understand its invariant aspect" is worthless unless you can find something useful. What is the invariant aspect of a gunshot or a body slam or a stubbed toe, and who cares?

 

[JaysonR]

con·scious·ness
ˈkänCHəsnəs/
noun
noun: consciousness

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
the awareness or perception of something by a person.
plural noun: consciousnesses
"her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"



There you go.

(somehow I'm sure this won't satisfy you.)

Correct. This is not what is being asked.
That is what it is an experiential state, but not what it itself is.

If someone is going to assert a difference between consciousness and a new proposed consciousness, then they need to firstly be capable of describing what consciousness even is and what boundaries it has before it can be asserted that one has indeed found a new consciousness which is not part of the former.

If I say that I have found a new gold, then I should be quite capable of defining what gold is.
Saying that gold is that shiny rock that everyone craves and is worth a lot is not a description of what gold is anymore than stating that consciousness "is aware of its existence" defined what consciousness is.

Which, OK, doronshadmi:
You've had your opportunity to answer the question and you have effectively done so to the best of your ability.

Firstly, you are incorrect that consciousness is that which is aware of itself.
That is self-aware consciousness, not consciousness.
Consciousness is a state of awareness, but that is not to say that it is a state of self-awareness, nor that it is sentient.

Being "aware of its existence" is entirely different than simply consciousness.

Alzheimer's and Subjective Capgras are but two examples of how the brain can have one but not the other.
In both cases, it is entirely possible for the individual to have consciousness but lack self-awareness; in the former, it is entirely possible for the individual to be entirely unaware of their existence at all.

So at the first level of the matter, we have issues with the way you are trying to describe consciousness; you have a special definition already packed with implied meanings that are not physically accurate.

Furthermore, even with all of this stated, none of this conversation itself actually describes what consciousness is.

Being clever and poetic in response doesn't answer the question.
If you are to assert a boundary between consciousness and another consciousness, then you need to be able to firstly define consciousness and what its boundaries are in the same manner as one is capable of defining the difference between one box and another box.


Now, if what you really mean is that there are different emotional relationship states one can have with existence and that there is one of these such relationships which is more unique than the average emotional relationship state people have with existence, and that in your view it is a reverent emotional state to live imbued with, then fine.
That is entirely different and doesn't require bringing in terms like "consciousness" at all other than to very loosely use the term to refer to a general awareness of a way of feeling about something.

 

[tsig]

OK, good enough.
You cannot define what consciousness is.

con·scious·ness
ˈkänCHəsnəs/
noun
noun: consciousness

the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.
"she failed to regain consciousness and died two days later"
the awareness or perception of something by a person.
plural noun: consciousnesses
"her acute consciousness of Mike's presence"
the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world.
"consciousness emerges from the operations of the brain"



There you go.

(somehow I'm sure this won't satisfy you.)

Correct. This is not what is being asked.That is what it is an experiential state, but not what it itself is.

If someone is going to assert a difference between consciousness and a new proposed consciousness, then they need to firstly be capable of describing what consciousness even is and what boundaries it has before it can be asserted that one has indeed found a new consciousness which is not part of the former.

If I say that I have found a new gold, then I should be quite capable of defining what gold is.
Saying that gold is that shiny rock that everyone craves and is worth a lot is not a description of what gold is anymore than stating that consciousness "is aware of its existence" defined what consciousness is.

Which, OK, doronshadmi:
You've had your opportunity to answer the question and you have effectively done so to the best of your ability.

Firstly, you are incorrect that consciousness is that which is aware of itself.
That is self-aware consciousness, not consciousness.
Consciousness is a state of awareness, but that is not to say that it is a state of self-awareness, nor that it is sentient.

Being "aware of its existence" is entirely different than simply consciousness.

Alzheimer's and Subjective Capgras are but two examples of how the brain can have one but not the other.
In both cases, it is entirely possible for the individual to have consciousness but lack self-awareness; in the former, it is entirely possible for the individual to be entirely unaware of their existence at all.

So at the first level of the matter, we have issues with the way you are trying to describe consciousness; you have a special definition already packed with implied meanings that are not physically accurate.

Furthermore, even with all of this stated, none of this conversation itself actually describes what consciousness is.

Being clever and poetic in response doesn't answer the question.
If you are to assert a boundary between consciousness and another consciousness, then you need to be able to firstly define consciousness and what its boundaries are in the same manner as one is capable of defining the difference between one box and another box.


Now, if what you really mean is that there are different emotional relationship states one can have with existence and that there is one of these such relationships which is more unique than the average emotional relationship state people have with existence, and that in your view it is a reverent emotional state to live imbued with, then fine.
That is entirely different and doesn't require bringing in terms like "consciousness" at all other than to very loosely use the term to refer to a general awareness of a way of feeling about something.

As I expected you refuse to accept any definition of consciousness that rules out woo.

 

[JaysonR]

As I expected you refuse to accept any definition of consciousness that rules out woo.

What?
No. How did you get that?

The definition you supplied permits what you call "woo".

Everything I just stated was that a person cannot claim to offer a description of an extra consciousness if it is not possible for them to firstly define the first consciousness.

And as JoeBentley pointed out; we (humanity) don't actually know what consciousness is in the same way we know what gold is.

How could someone offer that another planet has a better sea life than this planet if we don't even know what sea life fully is yet on this planet?

Then when you ask that person what sea life is, they tell you life under the ocean.
In the same manner; this does not answer the question.


What I stated at the end was that if they are referring to, not consciousness, but a way to feel about existence; then fine.
But sheesh; we don't need to drag "consciousness" into the subject for them to express that sentiment; no more than we need "energy" to be drug into the conversation.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I'm about 99% of the way toward just straight up calling "consciousness" a Woo word. I can't get a straight answer on what it's supposed to describe and Woo follows everywhere it goes.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And as JoeBentley pointed out; we (humanity) don't actually know what consciousness is in the same way we know what gold is.

That's like the exact opposite of what I said.

There is no grand meaning "consciousness" that we need to invoke Woo for. We understand in the broad strokes how the brain operates. "Consciousness" is not nearly as mysterious and woo-ey as people seem to need it to be. It's understood as a perfectly natural biological process.

There's a huge difference between admitting there's some details in the process we still need to iron out and leaving this huge gaps ready for Woo in the process.

 

[SusanB-M1]

Doron's gibberish replies would make for a hilarious xkcd style webcomic.

Basically what he does is the same as the sub-par iq maharishi did; torture language so each reply is nothing but a variation of the old schoolyard "I know what you are, but what am I?"

Still, not a single research that shows tm has results.

Scientology does better in every aspect here ; more celebrities, more money, more 'research'...

I've been reading this thread and still have not found a post of Doron Shadni's which makes sense to me!!

ETA to correct spelling of Shadni

 

[JaysonR]

I'm about 99% of the way toward just straight up calling "consciousness" a Woo word. I can't get a straight answer on what it's supposed to describe and Woo follows everywhere it goes.

That's like the exact opposite of what I said.

There is no grand meaning "consciousness" that we need to invoke Woo for. We understand in the broad strokes how the brain operates. "Consciousness" is not nearly as mysterious and woo-ey as people seem to need it to be. It's understood as a perfectly natural biological process.

There's a huge difference between admitting there's some details in the process we still need to iron out and leaving this huge gaps ready for Woo in the process.

Consciousness is a medical term which refers to being able to express a given capacity and state.

Think of consciousness like one says, "running" or "operating".
Those are not actually things - they describe what a thing is doing.

Consciousness, medically and scientifically, is what is referred to when someone is not unconscious, or when something happens in the brain without the patient's awareness it is written to be preconscious.

You could effectively replace it with "awareness".
Which is why consciousness is not the same as stating sentient self-aware consciousness; which is a thing which can A) sense B) has general awareness and C) has self-awareness.

Stating that there are more levels of consciousness is just an empty phrase like saying that we are all made of energy.
It's just vague and doesn't say anything.
Of course there are difference levels of consciousness if by that we mean unconscious, conscious and preconscious.

But that is not the same as claiming there is some extra conscious level beyond whatever "normal" consciousness is (which we don't know because it hasn't even been defined here as to what was meant by the application of the term).

If I build a car with all of the parts in it, then it will quite naturally "run", because that is what happens when you put the various parts together - they operate collectively passing different types of energy across each other in a single network to produce the operation.

We don't stop and then ask, "Where is the 'running' of the car?"
No, we ask, "How does a car 'run'?"

The common perception of consciousness being a thing is a cultural misunderstanding.
Neuroscience looks at consciousness today like the "running" of the car, not like the engine of the car (as many in the common day of our culture think of consciousness as - as if it's an engine or soul type of singular identity).
Instead; neuroscience today is fully well aware that consciousness - in any form - is a process spread out across vast arrays of neural networks of the brain.
It is so well understood in this respect that the Blue Brain Project - which produces results such as these neural stem clusters (which function just like human neural stem clusters) and permits the observers the ability to trace the entire neural traffic of any given process - doesn't assume consciousness is a singular thing; it perceives that consciousness is a process of a vast array of interconnecting circuits.

So it's a perfectly fine word, but it falls victim to the same cultural problems as the word, "energy".

And as such, it's a bit strange to read of the idea of superconsciousness or metaconsciousness because what that means to me is that someone just asked me to understand that the car from before has a superrunning or metarunning capability - that "running" has in it some form of ability to transcend normal running without needing to change the engineering of the car.

 

[doronshadmi]

What possible reason would anyone have even to wonder about, much less investigate, the "invariant" aspect of a concussion? Of course if it's hard enough, its result is invariant, because it destroys whatever it hits, but otherwise, a concussion is, by its very nature, a transient event. Why should one not view it as a transient event?

Just saying of everything "you don't understand its invariant aspect" is worthless unless you can find something useful. What is the invariant aspect of a gunshot or a body slam or a stubbed toe, and who cares?

Here is another analogy:

A tree is an organism that simultaneously has trunk and branches.

By this analogy the invariant aspect of the tree is its trunk (where the trunk is not one of many things), where the variant aspect of the tree is its branches (where each branch is one of many things).

 

[JoeMorgue]

Consciousness is a medical term which refers to being able to express a given capacity and state.

Yes but it seems that definition isn't good enough for a lot of people because it doesn't leave a space to shove God or fairies or whatever into.

So it's a perfectly fine word, but it falls victim to the same cultural problems as the word, "energy".

The term "Energy" doesn't have "cutural problems." It, like consciousness, has a real, objective meaning... and is then often used wrongly to describe a bunch of made up woo-woo mystical crap.

 

[JaysonR]

Joe,

I agree.

 

[bruto]

Here is another analogy:

A tree is an organism that simultaneously has trunk and branches.

By this analogy the invariant aspect of the tree is its trunk (where the trunk is not one of many things), where the variant aspect of the tree is its branches (where each branch is one of many things).

That is, as always, utterly irrelevant and unresponsive to what I am saying. Of course it's also nonsense. The division of a tree into trunk and branches is entirely arbitrary. A pine is easy, but what about an elm? What about a spinney of birches that branches at the root? How ridiculous can we get? Where does a trunk end and a branch begin? What about an aspen, which is usually a single plant with many trunks (in fact a single aspen is said to be the largest living organism on earth). Hypostasizing your arbitrary categories does not make them actually real.

A trunk, if you can decide where it begins and ends, is indeed the only trunk a tree has, whereas a tree usually has more than one branch, but to suggest that this constitutes "invariance" is astoundingly silly. It constitutes nothing but the trivial realization that you can decide some categories when you look at a thing.

But aside from that, a tree is a thing. A concussion is an event. You have yet to tell me what the invariant aspect of a concussion might consist of, and furthermore what it might be useful for.

Tell me what is invariant about a slap upside the head, and why we should bother to theorize about it.

 

[tsig]

That's like the exact opposite of what I said. There is no grand meaning "consciousness" that we need to invoke Woo for. We understand in the broad strokes how the brain operates. "Consciousness" is not nearly as mysterious and woo-ey as people seem to need it to be. It's understood as a perfectly natural biological process.

There's a huge difference between admitting there's some details in the process we still need to iron out and leaving this huge gaps ready for Woo in the process.

When I saw his post I was going to post the hilited but I figured you'd be along soon and correct him, not that I expect it to do much good he seems to be firmly wedded to the "consciousness is a mystery" belief which is rapidly becoming the last gasp of woo.

The ability to read a 'No' as 'Yes" is apparently a requirement to sustain belief.

 

[doronshadmi]

That is, as always, utterly irrelevant and unresponsive to what I am saying.

It is irrelevant if you don't take it as an analogy.

By my Tree analogy this tree is the entire existence that has one trunk and many branches, such that the trunk is not one_of_many thing of that existence, where each given branch is always one_of_many thing of that existence.

Being not one_of_many thing means that this oneness is not a member of the collection of many relative things (the naturally variant aspect of that existence), but it is the naturally absolute (and therefore invariant aspect of that existence) that enables the natural coordination among the many relative things, where each relative thing is always one_of_many thing of this existence.

Such existence is not limited to any degree of complexity exactly because no relative thing contradicts the further variant expressions of the other relative things of that existence, exactly because of the simplicity of the absolute as the natural consistency among complexity.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The entirety of everything that could be described as consciousness absent special pleading tacked on nonsense can be understood within the framework of what how we know the brain's neurological process work in completely natural and Woo free manner.

The idea that "consciousness" is some vast unexplained wasteland of mystery and unknown only works if you both A) Ignore practically everything modern neuroscience has learned in the last few decades and B) Specifically add meaningless, vague, navel gazing gobbledegook to it to give whatever pet Woo you have something to explain.

Consciousness is nothing more then your mind's ability to create a cognizent picture of the world given its various sensory inputs. Adding stuff to that concept in order to make it Woo friendly is, at best, unnecessary and intellectually dishonest.

I get that consciousness being this spooky unknowable thing "outside the realm of science" is a deeply held Woo Slinger chestnut, but it's not true.

I understand consciousness better then I do the designated hitter rule in Baseball.

 

[doronshadmi]

Firstly, you are incorrect that consciousness is that which is aware of itself.
That is self-aware consciousness, not consciousness.

Self-awareness is the simplest state of consciousness that does not need any agent (physical or mental) in order to directly know itself, where this direct knowledge is unity (there is no multiplicity of any form including objectivity\subjectivity).

If only agents are known, consciousness is not directly known and pathological phenomena may emerge.