• 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

Hey! Could it be that being aware requires a self able to have a subjective experience? I think that argument could be made. And then for example a video camera is NOT aware of the pixels it's filming. Then my OP definition still stands.
 
Please explain the difference, as you see it. The normal meaning of consciousness is the condition of being conscious.

It is far more than just the condition of being conscious.
It is self identity.

It's a noun; grammatically, you are a consciousness.

Sure.


That makes no sense to me. If you're going to redefine words or use obscure definitions, communication will fail unless you clarify precisely what you mean by them (or, preferably, use more suitable words).

The word is 'subconscious'

It is the part of consciousness that is not currently in focal awareness.

Consciousness is brain activity; consequently it evolves with the brain.

By appearance.

Consciousness is a brain process, what happens when a brain is active in a particular way. Your statement bears no relation to the knowledge we have about the brain & consciousness.

Yes it does. It only bears 'no relationship' with the way those who chose to interpret the observations they have regarding brain/conscious interaction, which is not here nor there.


There is no 'and'. The comment is self explanatory.

The lack of observation of anything after death is another reason in the sense that it is entirely consistent with death being the end.

^ Assumption that other states/realities, should they exist, should also be observable.



No, but it is implicit, given the knowledge and understanding of the information I described; unless you have some reasonable contrary argument?

I gave that already. Of course it depends on your own belief systems (which you do have about this) as to whether you see my position as reasonable or not.


OK, I'll bite - what reasonable argument is there for it in the light of the information I mentioned?

I gave that already. Of course it depends on your own belief systems (which you do have about this) as to whether you see my position as reasonable or not.

Have you heard of Sagan's Dragon? it's all about special pleading.

This is not about a claim there is a dragon living in my garage. It is not a claim at all. It is acknowledging the possibility in the absence of any evidence which says otherwise.

Try again.


I haven't asked anything of the kind. I proposed that a reasonable person would accept that, given the information I described, the conclusion I gave was beyond reasonable doubt. You have yet to supply an argument to the contrary.

I have done so. You are unable (for reasons which have nothing to do with 'what has already been observed about the brain in relation to consciousness') to accept that possibility.
While I understand your position, it evidences NO possibility of it being reasonable because your position is one of belief in relation being unable to accept that possibility.


What is 'absolute evidence'? what makes it absolute?

When the evidence observed aligns with the facts of the matter. One example has been given. When the body/brain of an individual dies, the consciousness (that person) is not longer able to be interacted with in relation to the observers.

Where it is gone nobody knows for sure (contrary to your beliefs) but it has gone and can no longer interact with the observers. That is absolute.

You conflate the two. = (it is gone therefore there is no way it lives in some other state elsewhere.)

I do not. = (it is gone, but I do not KNOW that it does not exist in some other state elsewhere and thus will NOT assume)

Now - that is clear enough for anyone. If you cannot accept that, then that is your choice but to argue further is to dance around in a loop and waste time.

Rather you might contemplate acknowledging that my position is reasonable in the extreme.


ETA In reading Sagan's The Dragon In My Garage it appear that it is your own position which is doing the 'special pleading' not mine.

Your 'dragon in the garage' is - "There is absolutely no possibility of individuate consciousness surviving the death of the body."
 
Last edited:
In reading Sagan's The Dragon In My Garage it appear that it is your own position which is doing the 'special pleading' not mine.

Your 'dragon in the garage' is - "There is absolutely no possibility of individuate consciousness surviving the death of the body."
"All right," said the Cat; and this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.

"Well! I've often seen a cat without a grin," thought Alice; "but a grin without a cat! It's the most curious thing I ever saw in all my life!"

If you think the grin can survive without the cat, then you may believe that consciousness can survive without a body.
But don't be surprised if others disagree...

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."

"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."
 
If you think the grin can survive without the cat, then you may believe that consciousness can survive without a body.
But don't be surprised if others disagree...

Now who said I believed that?

Some definitely believe it and others definitely don't. Neither position surprises me because it is belief which is in operation regardless of which position is taken.

What surprises me is that those arguing against belief do not see the nature of their own belief in action.
What is being asserted here is that consciousness cannot possibly exist independently from the brain and therefore ceases to exist when its brain does. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*chuckles*.

Each to their own :D
 
Last edited:
The pertinent part being the 'WE' Consciousness is what acknowledges the thing running. The robot is a machine which is not aware that it exists let alone that it is running.

Again: I am the one who brought up running, as a parallel. Stop seeing more in the analogy than there was.

Consciousness is that which observes.

Your definition is circular.

This is a claim.
As such it requires evidence.
You do not have that evidence. I know this for certain. No one has this evidence and no one can get this evidence until their body dies and if it works out they are still in a self aware state only in a different reality than the one they departed from, then they will have their evidence.
Otherwise they will just be dead.

We DO have that evidence. I mentioned it earlier to you, and you responded. How could you now say the evidence isn't there ?

As much as you or anyone else might like it to be one way or the other, won;t change that position,

That WAS my point, so that you wouldn't accuse me of having an ideological opposition to life after death.

Please explain/clarify the hilited.

What, specifically, did you not understand ? The patient reports no passage of time between death and revival. I don't know how else to say it.

Some believe that consciousness is the product of the brain, because they observe this as being the case and there is no observable evidence that consciousness came into the human experience in the physical universe through another reality.

And that theory is bonkers.

Even being that consciousness is believed to be a product of the brain, it is not known that it cannot survive without that brain.

Of course it is: it follows from it. If consciousness is (not believed, is) a product of the brain, and requires it to maintain itself, which we know, then it cannot survive without it, much like "running" cannot survive without legs.

For all we know, the whole process of the physical universe is to hatch consciousness.

No, that is new age crap with no evidence to support it. Your apparent request for 100% certainty is unscientific and childish.

wE DON;T KNOW AND NO AMOUNT OF OBSERVING HOW CONSCIOUSNESS INTERACTS WITH THE BRAIN IS GOING TO PROVIDE ANY ANSWER.

Actually, that's exactly how we get that answer. Sorry if it doesn't suit you.

If they are equally reliant upon belief,

They are not.
 
<Hilbert's Hotel snipped>

If we have infinite information in the form of the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5... and then observe that static information, then how long would it take? It would take an infinite amount of time! (Given that the information is distributed temporally, not only spatially.)
What does any of that have to do with "static and infinite information may cause consciousness to emerge"?
 
Navigator said:
The lack of observation of anything after death is another reason in the sense that it is entirely consistent with death being the end.

^ Assumption that other states/realities, should they exist, should also be observable.
No, it is entirely consistent with death being the end. It says nothing about whether other states or realities may be observable.

Of course it depends on your own belief systems (which you do have about this) as to whether you see my position as reasonable or not.
My belief system is that, in general, the scientific method is the best guide to reasonable conclusions about the world. In this case I've summarised the reasons why I think the conclusion I gave is beyond reasonable doubt, and your response, as far as I can make it out, seems to be 'but we can't be certain'. This may be true in a philosophical sense - we can't be certain of anything but our own existence - but it is also why we have levels of certainty and doubt based on the accumulated evidence and reasoning about it.

While I understand your position, it evidences NO possibility of it being reasonable because your position is one of belief in relation being unable to accept that possibility.
Clearly you don't understand my position - it's not a question of belief or disbelief in the possibility under discussion, it's of belief in the system by which such assessments can be made, which doesn't allow absolute certainty, and is why I talk of 'reasonable doubt'.

What is 'absolute evidence'? what makes it absolute?
When the evidence observed aligns with the facts of the matter.
Except there's no way to know the 'facts of the matter' except through the observed evidence...:rolleyes:

Your 'dragon in the garage' is - "There is absolutely no possibility of individuate consciousness surviving the death of the body."
Nope, strawman. My argument is that the evidence is sufficient to show beyond reasonable doubt that it cannot survive death. You have yet to directly address the reasons I summarised earlier.

But never mind.
 
Last edited:
What does any of that have to do with "static and infinite information may cause consciousness to emerge"?

My idea is that time itself is a resolution of Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel for a set of infinite static information. Julian Barbour has described something similar with a timeless configuration space he calls Platonia.

"In Julian Barbour's book The End of Time: The Next Revolution in Our Understanding of the Universe, Platonia is the name given to his hypothetic entity of a timeless realm containing every possible "Now" or momentary configuration of the universe." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonia_(philosophy)
 
Person A: I believe that when I die I will go to Heaven.

Person B: Heaven! I'll believe that when I see it!

Person C (to B) : No you won't. If you die and find yourself in 'Heaven' you will KNOW that there is a Heaven. You won't need to believe.

B: I was using the word as it generally is used.

C: That is something of a problem with language. It confuses the thinking if it is not clearly understood. So 'seeing is not really 'believing'. Do you agree?

B: What I meant is that until I see the evidence, I won't believe.

C: So when you see the evidence what then?

B: Then I will believe.

C: But you won't need to 'believe' because the evidence will show you. You will know because you see the evidence so there is no need to believe.

B: Okay. I will play your silly game. I don't believe Heaven exists okay. I don't believe there is an afterlife at all. I believe that when we die that is the end of us. All the evidence strongly compels me to believe this because it is the only reasonable conclusion.

C: As long as you acknowledge that it is belief compiled on compelling evidence I don't see the problem with you believing what you do or person A believing what she does.

B: But person A is being unreasonable. She offers no evidence. Sagan's Dragon is all she offers!

C: But she acknowledges it is belief.

B: But my belief is based on the evidence.

C: On evidence.

B: Yes, evidence.

C: And that evidence tells you what?

B: That there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that there is any life after death. Period.

C: So you can show me the evidence?

B: Yes! I can show you dead people who are no longer alive.

C: But how does that prove that they are not somewhere else?

B: Because look here! They are DEAD!

C: Yes I can see that. Are you saying that person A says that the bodies experience afterlife, and therefore because their bodies are so obviously here now dead and decomposing, that this is evidence person A is unreasonable?

B: Well - no...person A is not saying that. She is saying that their consciousness survives death.

C: Okay. So why are these dead bodies evidence?

...to be continued....
 
Last edited:
People really have a hard time understand the simple fact that you are your brain.

People think of their brain as this thinking, processing machine that does the work of your mind, but tend to think of themselves, their core, the "soul," their essence or whatever is something separate, something apart from their mind.

There is zero evidence to support this.
 
I forgot to include in the definition that consciousness is an on/off state. For example in dreamless sleep my consciousness is off and when I wake up my consciousness is activated to on.

The mind is in my definition the content experienced by consciousness. So for example, a thought is a pattern, a part of the mind. A thought isn't conscious of itself. It's consciousness that is aware of the thought.

Nope, dream states are low levels of consciousness and a variant of consciousness, but if consciousness were off then loud noises would not wake you up.
QED you are making an error in your definition.

You also call not make consciousness an object, what is this object that is aware of a thought?

Hmmmm......
 
That's what I meant by my initial explanation that finite static information cannot cause consciousness. The tricky part is that infinite static information is able to produce a process in time (since it's infinite amount).

depends on your idiomatic definition of static, if it means unchanging , then no.
 
...Continuing this post:

Person B: The dead bodies are evidence because they are what the persons were.

Person C: Please explain.

B: People have a hard time understanding the simple fact that we are the brain. The brain dies so the person dies. It is really that simple.

C: How much do we actually know about the brain? I mean, do we know everything there is to know about it?

B: No but we know more than we ever did and certainly enough to understand that we are it.

C: You are speaking about consciousness?

B: Yes. Consciousness is a property of the brain.

C: It is owned by the brain?

B: No. It is a tool of the brain. A creation of the brain.

C: It is a creator?

B: Yes.

C: Before it created consciousness, how was it able to create?

B: What do you mean?

C: I mean, before something can create something, doesn't it need to have an idea of what it wants to create and a reason for wanting to create it?

B: Yes, but this happened very gradually over a long long period of time.

C: So the brain at some point in this process developed consciousness by degree?

B: Yes.

C: Where did it get the idea to do this thing?

B: Like I said, it was gradual. It wasn't so much an idea but a natural necessity which came about gradually.

C: Like waking up from sleep?

B: Something like that, yes. The necessity came about because of the situation. Life on earth is a matter of survival so your learn fast or you die.

C: But you said it was a gradual thing.

B: Yes but in relation to the age of the universe, it was nonetheless fast.

C: This would suppose that there had to be a time and place on the planet where threat of survival was not such a problem.

B: No. Survival is that which prompted the development of self awareness.

C: How do you know it wasn't the other way around? That self awareness prompted the realization that survival was necessary?

B: Well most likely it was aspects of both.

C: Okay so when you say 'you are your brain' you are saying that the 'you' part is the brain understanding itself as consciousness - being self aware. You are not saying that you literally are the brain.

B: No I am saying you are literally the brain...or rather the consciousness which the brain developed. That is why when your brain dies, you are dead and there is nothing else that you are going to experience.
I am saying that because consciousness is simply a development of the brain which gives it the illusion of being self aware, when it dies, that self awareness also dies. It is quite simple.

C: I can understand why you would think it so. However, why do you say it is an illusion? Are you saying that the universe is an illusion, that the whole experience of your life is an illusion?

B: It is an illusion because you die. You are the illusion. The universe is not an illusion. It is real. What is the illusion is that you think you are real.

C: How can something exist in a real thing and not be real itself?

B: The thing which thinks it is real is simply a creation of the brain, so that the body can do things in the real world, which it cannot do if it didn't have the illusion it was real.

C: So consciousness and the impression that you are a real individual having a real experience are illusions?

B: Yes because the brain created it, but it is not a 'thing'. Consciousness is not a thing. It is an illusion created by the brain in order to function in reality.
It is not really real. It is just something the brain created.

C: Did the brain create this non thing in order to make its experience real?

B: No. The experience is real. The brain developed consciousness in order to work within the reality and survive long enough to do things with its body.

C: So when you say 'you are the brain' you are saying really that you are that which the brain developed in order to be able to function within the body and do things with the reality it is within, but that consciousness is not real, and therefore you are not real. You are really the brain, which is real?

B: Yes. People think of their brain as this thinking, processing machine that does the work of consciousness, and think of themselves, as that - as the core, or the "soul," the essence or whatever is something separate, something apart from their brain, and that they will survive the death of their brain. But consciousness is really an illusion of the brain.

C: How can you be sure either way? I mean. What evidence is there to support this beyond mere belief supporting the idea?


...to be continued...
 
Last edited:
C: I mean, before something can create something, doesn't it need to have an idea of what it wants to create and a reason for wanting to create it?

No, actually.

C: Where did it get the idea to do this thing?

Idea ? It's a function of the brain.

C: Like waking up from sleep?

Stop making up strawman and arguments from incredulity. Requiring 100% certainty for anything is the hallmark of theists, not skeptics.

C: How do you know it wasn't the other way around? That self awareness prompted the realization that survival was necessary?

Because that makes no sense. Even the simplest forms of life has survival instincts, and I'm sure you'll agree that planaries aren't conscious.

B: It is an illusion because you die. You are the illusion. The universe is not an illusion. It is real. What is the illusion is that you think you are real.

Who is that person you're talking to, and can he shut up ? Consciousness is not an illusion any more than "running".

B: No. The experience is real. The brain developed consciousness in order to work within the reality and survive long enough to do things with its body.

Nuh-huh. This presupposes an intelligence behind the process.

C: How can you be sure either way?

There, you're back at wanting more certainty than is possible even in theory. Why would you want that ? Does any other hypothesis explain the observations better ? No, none does.
 
Nope, dream states are low levels of consciousness and a variant of consciousness, but if consciousness were off then loud noises would not wake you up.
QED you are making an error in your definition.

You also call not make consciousness an object, what is this object that is aware of a thought?

Hmmmm......

The map is not the territory. The definition of consciousness is an object, yet consciousness remains a subject.

Consciousness is aware of dreams. Consciousness is aware of thoughts. A dream is not aware of itself. A thought is not aware of itself.

What wakes me up is my subconscious mind. Subconscious means below consciousness.
 
Who is that person you're talking to, and can he shut up ? Consciousness is not an illusion any more than "running".

The persona is imaginary and represents different varieties of personalities who argue against god ideas and afterlife ideas. Believe it or not, some have - on this board - claimed that the 'you' is really just an illusion.

Go figure!

:)

Theists are not the only ones with their differing conflicting expressions of belief. Non theists can't be pinned down to anything usefully specific either.
 
Last edited:
The persona is imaginary and represents different varieties of personalities who argue against god ideas and afterlife ideas. Believe it or not, some have - on this board - claimed that the 'you' is really just an illusion.

Yeah but none of them are arguing with you in this thread, so why bring them up, if not to dismiss your opposition with one big swipe of straw ?
 

Back
Top Bottom