• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Definition of Consciousness

Anders Lindman said:
...Signal molecules such as neurotransmitters etc, that's ultimately information!
Click to expand...
That's like saying the printing ink on a page or a pixel on a screen is information.

This is not the information you're looking for...
 
Anders Lindman said:
I think it can be true.
Click to expand...

That's nice.

Some eastern spiritual traditions describe how everything is consciousness.
Click to expand...

Some traditions hold that volcanoes are angry mountain gods.

Science only deals with objective things. Consciousness is a subjective experience.
Click to expand...

A common misconception. Subjective is a subset of objective. What you perceive and think can be detected in the objective world. Sorry to burst your bubble.
 
Belz... said:
That's nice.



Some traditions hold that volcanoes are angry mountain gods.



A common misconception. Subjective is a subset of objective. What you perceive and think can be detected in the objective world. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...

misconception? I am not so sure this is necessarily the case.

My understand of subsets are that they derive from a larger set. Consciousness is subjective.

Objectiveness is thus perhaps a subset of Subjectivity?

Consciousness experiences on a subjective level and then (since it is the case) these many subjective experience get together to see if they can agree to what the objective nature of the experience is 'for real', and in the mean time, what they might do to make it better/profit from, even if only in those groups and to those groups advantages.

It could be argued that the nature of the objective reality all consciousness shares is that which all consciousness is involved with in relation to the physical universe and therefore consciousness is a subset of that environment because it is inside and somewhat beholding to that external thing.

However it can also be argued that there are many subsets within the whole universe and these would give consciousness different experiences, based upon what we all know of experience in relation to this planet (subset) and what it has to offer.

In relation to that, objectivity is still really becoming - struggling to become. Subjectivity is a thing unto itself.
Getting all those individual subjectivites aligned with each other in relation to the objective reality they share is a hopeless task for gods to undertake, it so seems, thus we are on our own, subjective and objectively speaking.

The 'misconception' might be that objective reality rules consciousness.
 
Navigator said:
These are information.
Click to expand...
This is not the information you're looking for...

The signal molecules are just the medium for the information we've been considering; the information they themselves contain is unrelated to the information of consciousness and the mind.
 
Navigator said:
misconception? I am not so sure this is necessarily the case.
Click to expand...

Yes it is. It's backward thinking: the same mistake many philosophers make. Just because consciousness is required for our kind of thought, and our awareness of the universe, it doesn't follow that these experiences are dependant upon consciousness. Our science shows the exact opposite, in fact. Consciousness works because of objective physical laws and processes.

Consciousness is subjective.
Click to expand...

Consciousness is objective, like everything else. Its point of view is subjective.

Objectiveness is thus perhaps a subset of Subjectivity?
Click to expand...

That would change nothing of what I said: subjectivity is a subset of the objective.
 
Belz... said:
Yes it is. It's backward thinking: the same mistake many philosophers make. Just because consciousness is required for our kind of thought, and our awareness of the universe, it doesn't follow that these experiences are dependant upon consciousness. Our science shows the exact opposite, in fact. Consciousness works because of objective physical laws and processes.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. In order for there to actually be experience there first need to be consciousness. Consciousness is the thing having the experience. No consciousness = no experience.
'Our' particular experience (individual) might differ from - say... a species which is hive-minded and is made up of many individual experiences all connected to one 'queen' who of itself experiences all those experiences as her own experience...still very much subjective.
Objective physical laws and processes are not conscious or experiencing anything. They are just the thing which consciousness is within, and cannot tell us anything about consciousness outside of ourselves.


Belz... said:
Consciousness is objective, like everything else. Its point of view is subjective.
Click to expand...

The 'point of view' is being experienced by consciousness and is subjective.



Belz... said:
That would change nothing of what I said: subjectivity is a subset of the objective.
Click to expand...

Because you subjectively believe otherwise.

Subjectivity rules. (That is the main point.)

The objective material of the universe is not conscious itself, so does not view things objectively.
Even if some vast consciousness itself created the physical reality, and existed consciously in everything from the biggest galaxies to the smallest things - that consciousness is still subjective as a point of view.

To say that subjectivity is a subset of objectivity and by this imply that Consciousness is thus a subset of objectivity is incorrect. Objectivity is not conscious. It can have no point of view but that which consciousness can experience through it.

In doing so, it becomes subjective.

The object is not the subject. The subject is consciousness.

'Our science' shows what consciousness can do in relation to the brain when different areas of the brain show signs of consciousness interacting with it depending what the person being tested is doing.
It is not 'the brain working' but 'consciousness working the brain'.

The brain is the object. Consciousness is something else which is not the brain nor does it think itself as the brain.
Subjectively it is not the brain and objectively it is not the brain.
 
Last edited:
Navigator said:
The 'point of view' is being experienced by consciousness and is subjective.
Click to expand...

Yes but my point is that it is part of the objective world, nonetheless.

Because you subjectively believe otherwise.

Subjectivity rules. (That is the main point.)
Click to expand...

And it is wrong. There ARE ways to minimise the impact of subjectivity in science and observation.

The objective material of the universe is not conscious itself, so does not view things objectively.
Click to expand...

Machines can study things objectively, though they are of course programmed by us.

It is not 'the brain working' but 'consciousness working the brain'.

The brain is the object. Consciousness is something else which is not the brain nor does it think itself as the brain.
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to even mean ? Consciousness is what the brain does.
 
Belz... said:
Yes but my point is that it is part of the objective world, nonetheless.
Click to expand...

Yes I realize that is your point belz. I wasn't disputing that. I was saying that consciousness is subjective. It is part of the objective world. It is the subjective part.



Belz... said:
And it is wrong. There ARE ways to minimise the impact of subjectivity in science and observation.
Click to expand...

Sure there are but these are necessary in order to get a fix on objectivity. The are also fraught with incidental bias. subjectivity works that way.
One can get a bead on material matters of fact but they cannot go where consciousness can. They can go into facts of matter but those facts of matter only explain facts of matter. Consciousness is not at all fixed to facts of matter.
The subjective agreement regarding facts of matter haven;t got a bead on consciousness as being strictly matter. It appears to be the creation of the brain but as we all know, the brain is subject to illusions. What consciousness does know is that what it sees is not necessarily what is actually (or even only) happening.
Until it is on the news as an event "Science discovers there is positively no afterlife" people can get along with keeping their minds open to possibilities.

It is more likely that the News will report "Science discovers how to prolong life indefinitely" given how it is focused most naturally focused on examining the material.

Belz... said:
Machines can study things objectively, though they are of course programmed by us.
Click to expand...

Are you saying machines are consciously studying things objectively? Consciousness studies things subjectively. Even the objective is studied subjectively.

By consciousness.

Belz... said:
What is that supposed to even mean ? Consciousness is what the brain does.
Click to expand...

The brain 'does' consciousness? What do you even mean by that?

Like this:
1039520.large.jpg


Does this:

tree-clipart-41.jpg
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
A common misconception. Subjective is a subset of objective. What you perceive and think can be detected in the objective world. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Click to expand...

Not quite. Science can examine subjective phenomena, yet it's still objective measurements that are made.
 
Consciousness is the universe experiencing itself. Does that mean that the universe as a whole is experiencing itself as a single super entity? I doubt that, since the total information in the universe probably isn't integrated enough to cause the state of consciousness to emerge. There needs to be local and specific information processing to activate consciousness, such as in the human brain.

Out of body experiences, if some are real, could be explained by the person's consciousness being able to be activated in information structures outside his or her bodily nervous system, even in the 'quantum soup' of empty space.
 
Anders Lindman said:
Not quite. Science can examine subjective phenomena, yet it's still objective measurements that are made.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I said.

Consciousness is the universe experiencing itself.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The universe isn't conscious, and you are not the universe.

Out of body experiences, if some are real, could be explained by the person's consciousness being able to be activated in information structures outside his or her bodily nervous system, even in the 'quantum soup' of empty space.
Click to expand...

They are not real, and so do not require crazy explanations.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
That's exactly what I said.
Click to expand...

Then we agree. Here is what I originally wrote: "Science only deals with objective things. Consciousness is a subjective experience."

Science does only deal with objective things, even when measuring subjective experiences.

Science can only make models of and have theories about subjective experiences. What is measured is always objective correlates to the subjective experiences, not the actual subjective experiences themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom