Definition of Consciousness

[Navigator]

I think it's a mistake to think conscious awareness is dominant, or left to its own devices. It provides the system with a reflective awareness of its activities. The real 'power behind the throne' is usually below conscious awareness - we generally don't notice it unless it fails to provide the right word at the right time, or provides the wrong phrase, or fails to supply the memory of what the hell we went upstairs for in the first place. We are aware of it more by its failings than by it's successes, which, as the representative or spokesperson, consciousness arrogates to itself. I would suggest conscious awareness is more the puppet than the master; along for the ride, with the illusion of control.

But we should be wary of treating these apparent functional elements as entirely separate, because they are all parts of the same system; consciousness has evolved to enhance and extend the functionality of the underlying system.

Like I said. It is intelligent and can be communicated with, so it is quite capable of speaking for itself as to what it is etc.

 

[Navigator]

And ? What's your point ?

Non consciousness is therefore not the same as unconsciousness.

 

[Belz...]

Non consciousness is therefore not the same as unconsciousness.

That doesn't follow from what you said. Unconscious MEANS non-conscious. You have failed to address this. You are mixing things up, deliberately or not.

 

[Navigator]

That doesn't follow from what you said. Unconscious MEANS non-conscious. You have failed to address this. You are mixing things up, deliberately or not.

I am not.

I explained.

Let me try again.

At the moment I am writing this, I am not conscious of what the people next door are doing. I am non conscious of what they are doing but am still conscious because I am writing this, therefore I am not unconscious.

So I am both conscious (in relation to my immediate surroundings) and non conscious (about what is happening outside my immediate surrounding in relation to my next door neighbors.)

 

[Belz...]

At the moment I am writing this, I am not conscious of what the people next door are doing. I am non conscious of what they are doing but am still conscious because I am writing this, therefore I am not unconscious.

Yeah, this is exactly what I said: you are mixing things up.

"Non conscious" and "unconscious" mean the same thing, which is the opposite of "conscious". By them we mean, in the context of this topic, whether you are self-aware. Now you're using the term to just mean "aware", which is not what we're talking about. This is the source of your confusion.

 

[dlorde]

Like I said. It is intelligent and can be communicated with, so it is quite capable of speaking for itself as to what it is etc.

So what does it say to you as to what it is, etc.?

 

[Navigator]

Yeah, this is exactly what I said: you are mixing things up.

"Non conscious" and "unconscious" mean the same thing, which is the opposite of "conscious". By them we mean, in the context of this topic, whether you are self-aware. Now you're using the term to just mean "aware", which is not what we're talking about. This is the source of your confusion.

Not in relation to how the conversation has evolved in the thread.

You and I cannot converse easily until we can agree on the definitions being used. You are saying that a person can be conscious and unconscious at the same time.

This Post

 

[Navigator]

So what does it say to you as to what it is, etc.?

I am surprised you are asking such a question.

I have made a claim. What 'it' said/says to me has no bearing on that claim and can only be said to be hearsay.
It is not the correct question to be asking re the claim being made.

If what I say is true, it should be able to be replicated by others and therein you would have your answer first hand.

Like I said. It is intelligent and can be communicated with, so it is quite capable of speaking for itself as to what it is etc.

 

[Belz...]

Not in relation to how the conversation has evolved in the thread.

You and I cannot converse easily until we can agree on the definitions being used. You are saying that a person can be conscious and unconscious at the same time.

No, that's not what I am saying.

Part of your neural processes are self-aware, others are not. You are not AWARE of things that happen beyond your internal and external senses. But you are not "unconscious" of these things. Saying that you are is an abuse of language, and is beyond the scope of the topic.

 

[dlorde]

I am surprised you are asking such a question.

I have made a claim. What 'it' said/says to me has no bearing on that claim and can only be said to be hearsay.
It is not the correct question to be asking re the claim being made.

I don't know why you're surprised - you said you can communicate with something that is "actually an aspect of your self ... <and> is quite capable of speaking for itself as to what it is". Hearsay or otherwise, I'm curious to know what this aspect of your self says it is (and, if it can be articulated, some examples of the 'much' that you say it offers you 'in the way of personal growth and better understanding of who and what you are').

If what I say is true, it should be able to be replicated by others and therein you would have your answer first hand.

I can't get an answer first hand from this aspect of your self because you say it 'is not happening outside of the self'; in other words, I can't communicate with it first hand because I'm not you.

So what does it tell you it is?

 

[Navigator]

Yeah, this is exactly what I said: you are mixing things up.

"Non conscious" and "unconscious" mean the same thing, which is the opposite of "conscious". By them we mean, in the context of this topic, whether you are self-aware. Now you're using the term to just mean "aware", which is not what we're talking about. This is the source of your confusion.

Again, no.

The Thread Q is "Definition of Consciousness" and that has not being clearly established, therefore you and I are still attempting to get on the same page before anything else can unfold.

I have given examples of why I do not agree that being non conscious is the same state to being unconscious.

 

[Navigator]

I don't know why you're surprised - you said you can communicate with something that is "actually an aspect of your self ... <and> is quite capable of speaking for itself as to what it is". Hearsay or otherwise, I'm curious to know what this aspect of your self says it is (and, if it can be articulated, some examples of the 'much' that you say it offers you 'in the way of personal growth and better understanding of who and what you are

It is nice that you are curious dlorde. However it is still hearsay and the claim extends beyond me.
I have no reason not to assume that we are all 'made of the same stuff' so that implies that you too have the same properties attached to your total self.

I can't get an answer first hand from this aspect of your self because you say it 'is not happening outside of the self'; in other words, I can't communicate with it first hand because I'm not you.

That is correct. You are you and if you want that aspect of you to speak for itself you will have to create the way to do that, scientifically speaking.
Use that curiosity and intelligence you possess.

So what does it tell you it is?

Me. It tells me that it is me. Just an aspect of me that I was unaware of and am still getting to know (and I have been at it for years now).
That is of course the short answer. The implications are huge but undefined for you by me.
If you want to know, ask it yourself.

I am happy to share visual graphs which can aid in helping to understand better those implications, and some 'tips' perhaps.

One thing I will say is that the best way to approach it is with science.

That way you can record/measure the interaction and do it long enough you will start to compile some rather interesting data.

 

[Belz...]

The Thread Q is "Definition of Consciousness" and that has not being clearly established, therefore you and I are still attempting to get on the same page before anything else can unfold.

I already gave my definition, so that's cleared.

I have given examples of why I do not agree that being non conscious is the same state to being unconscious.

Well you're wrong by definition, so there's that. "Not aware" is not the same thing as "not conscious". You're the one mixing things up, and denying that doesn't change a thing.

 

[Navigator]

I already gave my definition, so that's cleared.



Well you're wrong by definition, so there's that. "Not aware" is not the same thing as "not conscious". You're the one mixing things up, and denying that doesn't change a thing.

Then all that has really happened is that we have failed at this point to get on the same page, and discussion (between you and I) can;t go forward.

 

[dlorde]

I have no reason not to assume that we are all 'made of the same stuff' so that implies that you too have the same properties attached to your total self.

When it comes to communicating with internal entities that seem to speak for themselves, it is not necessarily reasonable to assume that everyone has them. There are disorders of the brain that match that description.

... You are you and if you want that aspect of you to speak for itself you will have to create the way to do that, scientifically speaking.
Use that curiosity and intelligence you possess.

I asked about your internal voice.

So what does it tell you it is?

Me. It tells me that it is me.

Riiight... in case you weren't sure. Reminds me of the Irish greeting, "Is it yourself?"

I am happy to share visual graphs which can aid in helping to understand better those implications, and some 'tips' perhaps.

Uh, yeah... great, thanks.

One thing I will say is that the best way to approach it is with science.

That way you can record/measure the interaction and do it long enough you will start to compile some rather interesting data.

Data obtained by introspection? if not, then how?

What kind of data? have you examples?

 

[Navigator]

When it comes to communicating with internal entities that seem to speak for themselves, it is not necessarily reasonable to assume that everyone has them. There are disorders of the brain that match that description.

You are assuming that it is an inner voice of some sort?

I asked about your internal voice.

The best I can say regarding that is that I have a 'thought voice' which speaks with words. I assume you do to.
But that is not what I am speaking about - although it is one thing the communication process could utilize.
But no, this is more hands on than just sitting around thinking to yourself.

Riiight... in case you weren't sure. Reminds me of the Irish greeting, "Is it yourself?"

If you recall, I did say that initially it appears that you are speaking with 'another' - the realization that this is not the case came some time after that initial period.
When I said: There is certainly something which is beyond the normal senses of conscious awareness (that sense of 'self') which is most definitely intimately connected with the 'self' and can be interacted with. I was not just referring to myself.

Uh, yeah... great, thanks.

You're welcome.

Data obtained by introspection? if not, then how?

Just to clarify. If you are something of a scientist you should be able to figure out what kind of things would be required in order to test this out for yourself.

What kind of data? have you examples?

Yes I do but they are for me to know and are extremely subjective (of course) and might not altogether be significant to you.
I would far rather you tested it for yourself.
I have already given you some data which can act as a short cut for you. I approached it thinking I was communing with 'others' and while that 'unknown me' went along with this idea for as long as necessary in order to gradually get me up to speed on what was actually occurring, you don;t really need to go down that path yourself.

You could just simply ask if it would like to interact with you and then go from there. If it does (and I see no particular reason why it would not want to) then you can ask it if it is an aspect of yourself that you have not been aware of and go from there.

 

[dlorde]

You are assuming that it is an inner voice of some sort?

You say it communicates with you and can speak for itself.

If you are something of a scientist you should be able to figure out what kind of things would be required in order to test this out for yourself.

As a scientist I know that attempting to collect data by introspection is not, on the face of it, a scientific endeavour, being subjective, unverifiable, and not independently replicable.

I have already given you some data which can act as a short cut for you. I approached it thinking I was communing with 'others' and while that 'unknown me' went along with this idea for as long as necessary in order to gradually get me up to speed on what was actually occurring, you don;t really need to go down that path yourself.

I don't have any sense of internally communing with 'others' or an 'unknown me', so that path isn't available.

You could just simply ask if it would like to interact with you and then go from there. If it does (and I see no particular reason why it would not want to) then you can ask it if it is an aspect of yourself that you have not been aware of and go from there.

My subconscious doesn't manifest itself in the way you describe.

 

[rocketdodger]

Navigator, what the heck are you talking about?

 

[Dancing David]

As a scientist I know that attempting to collect data by introspection is not, on the face of it, a scientific endeavour, being subjective, unverifiable, and not independently replicable.

Just an aside, the reporter reliability is an issue, but subjective experience is open to interview and survey. data is subject to many caveats and needs large sample sizes and inter rapoter and consistency checks.

 

[Navigator]

You say it communicates with you and can speak for itself.

Not only do I claim that, but also make the assumption that you are able to replicate this too.

The aspect of the self I am referring to (which can be communicated with scientifically) can speak for itself, and in a manner the isn't restricted to being 'avoiceinthehead'.

As a scientist I know that attempting to collect data by introspection is not, on the face of it, a scientific endeavour, being subjective, unverifiable, and not independently replicable.

The data you can collect is not based on the process of introspective mulling but of actual use of a measurable device in order to get physical results.

While it is subjective in that this larger part of your total self is directly related to you - (that part of yourself you are not aware of in relation to that part that you are aware of), the data is variable in that context and the process is certainly independently able to be replicated. (by anyone - not just scientists).

The only 'problem' with it is that not too many individuals can be found who have that much curiosity, let alone spare time to dedicate to finding out.
That does not in itself prove the claim false. It more goes to show that it is not the science but the scientists/any intelligent persons who chose not to go there and do the hard yak.

For a number of reasons it does not garner interest.

For some it would be just a matter of priorities. For others it may be a fear of what might be found/discovered, and still for others, just a case of superstition, or their religion forbids such things and still others, simply they have not heard so do not know.


'Whatever' the reason the individual might chose for not going there, (or in some cases have no choice because going there has not been presented as an option) 'there can indeed be gone to, and thus is relevant to any argument pertaining to things of the subject of Consciousness.


Q: Where is 'Going There?'

A: To that aspect of everyone which can speak for itself as to 'what it is.'


Therefore anyone who argues in a manner which involves telling themselves and others 'what it is' and who has not gone there and allowed 'what it is' to speak for itself, may be speaking out of turn, and falsely.

I don't have any sense of internally communing with 'others' or an 'unknown me', so that path isn't available.

That only has everything to do with your personal boundaries which define your self identification (at this time) - these set up a metaphorical 'wall' which allows your dominant identity to have no 'sense' of the larger self. The tunnel through that wall is the path which you would have to make the decision to build in order to bridge this connection. I can 'tip' you that one half of that bridge connection is already built and ready for coupling.

The coupling process is delicate.

My subconscious doesn't manifest itself in the way you describe.

What would you think it should do in order to prove it can communicate with you and tell you what it actually is?