Are You Conscious?

[Dancing David]

Yes, defining consciousness would be a necessary first step in scientifically investigating it. Our failure to produce a good definition is one reason why it's a Hard Problem.

What is wrong with the medical one?

There's no difficulty in producing a bad definition, like "consciousness is self-referential information processing". But I don't want to give a bad definition.

Well I would say that is Lack of Defintion rather than HPC.

 

[westprog]

YOUR failure to provide a good definition. You still haven't answered my question!!

I've answered your question - I just haven't fullfilled your request. I'm claiming that there is no objective definition for "consciousness", and that yet it is possible for people to know what it is.

I don't think self-referential information processing is a definition of consciousness as much as it's an explanation of how it works.

I'd agree with that much, certainly. Expect a "no", though.

 

[Robin]

I've answered your question - I just haven't fullfilled your request. I'm claiming that there is no objective definition for "consciousness", and that yet it is possible for people to know what it is.

I don't know what it is. I wish you would tell me.

 

[westprog]

What is wrong with the medical one?


Well I would say that is Lack of Defintion rather than HPC.

The medical definition is fine for detecting the presence and absence of consciousness, but poor at defining its nature.

 

[westprog]

I don't know what it is. I wish you would tell me.

If you think about what you mean by the highlighted words that might help you.

 

[Robin]

If you think about what you mean by the highlighted words that might help you.

Why can't you just give a straight answer? You say you know what consciousness is, what is it?

 

[Robin]

On the other hand, if you are happy to go with the definition "consciousness is a homo-sapien that goes by the name of Robin", then fine.

 

[annnnoid]

For all our vast information, experience, and insight, we really know nothing more of consciousness than that it is something that is capable of recognizing itself as such (yeah, I know, SRIP, and billions of pages of psychology notwithstanding…..but what is it…..has anybody here [or anywhere] come close to answering the question?). It exists as something distinctive and singularly unique. We know ‘it’ is capable of recognizing that there is such a thing (as itself) because it is capable of recognizing when the same quality exists elsewhere….in other people (IOW…. one of its self-defining characteristics is the ability to recognize its own self defining characteristics in other creatures). Something exists that is recognized as something by something that itself exists. Oh, and this something also is us (one of its more defining characteristics is to recognize itself as a distinct….identity [a universe in relation to itself…QM says my ‘name is qm’]). We don’t know what it is that exists and we don’t know how we recognize it in others or what it is that we recognize in others (or even what it is or how we recognize it in ourselves).

We just know….as in ‘this is true’ (one of the more ‘weird’ characteristics of the phenomenon…this irritating insistence that there exist things that are known as ‘true’ [as in, indisputably indisputable]), that these things happen.

‘Something’ knows. How do we know this? ‘It’ tells us (and it’s not even dualism). We trust it simply because we don’t know how not to.

Basically, we don’t have an f’in clue what’s going on. And then there are those who suggest that it is merely an ordinary phenomenon and babble endlessly about how everything works.

‘He must be very ignorant for he answers every question he is asked.’

Perhaps there is no understanding of what it is because we constantly seek to define and describe it in terms of things that it is not. And since we quite indisputably have yet to achieve anything resembling a definition or description of it…..perhaps this is the very reason. This would suggest that there exist very substantial scientific realities that we are fundamentally ignorant of. How shocking (like…wasn’t scientific ignorance only a social reality in the dark ages…guess not). Apparently, though, considering the indisputable evidence….this is the fact. Consciousness is a singularly unique (and massive) phenomenon…and so far the only ones who seem to have any vocabulary to describe it are the new-age woo-woo’s dancing around Stonehenge (or Dan Dennet [picture Dan Dennet dancing around Stonehenge….could anyone calculate the odds?]). So what gives? Nobody likes to admit that there is something this substantial or this fundamental that we individually or collectively know this little about. The facts, though, speak for themselves.

Empirical evidence is, after all, empirical evidence. The evidence is subjective reality itself. It exists as something (how do we know this….because it is ‘true’ [see above]). To know what it is it is necessary to analyze it precisely….which means to deconstruct it surgically. Something like performing brain surgery on yourself while you’re still awake.

But what else do you expect. What is subjective reality? Stop it and see. Redefine it and see. Undefine it and see (something like undefining your ability to undefined it). Prove that it does exist by proving what does exist….by proving that it doesn’t not exist. As it turns out though….for this particular scientific phenomenon….the only tool available to conclusively establish the veracity of the existence of the phenomenon in question….is the scientist them self. You prove it exists, by proving that the scientist does as well (IOW…prove it exists by proving you know how). How ….curious. As I said, anyone who answers ‘yes’ to the question of this thread is lying, that is, until they know why they’re not.

Does it sound like Frankenstein….what a surprise. The only thing that surprises me is that everyone who reads this will pretend that it’s just wonky nonsense……and then go off to their text books and their computers and their blackboards and their chat rooms, and their test tubes, and their laboratories….all the while pretending that what we’re studying here is merely some esoteric phenomenon.

What we’re studying is your ability to say the word ‘I’. How…does…that…happen?

….but even more strange, is the question ‘why’? If you’re a real scientist, you ask whatever questions exist, and ‘why’ is the central question in the case of the strangest phenomenon in the universe. The case of the matter that says ‘I’.

You want to find out how that happens then you’d better be prepared to go to some unexpected places (like Aku once said….physics that makes your brain hurt)….or simply not find out. And has anybody found out….wonder why?

Well, like Salvadore Dali said….the only difference between me and a crazy man, is that I’m not crazy.

All you guys expect to be able to define yourself at a distance. I would call you pussies but the mod’s wouldn’t like it….and hey, isn’t it just more fun to have a madman around just to liven things up (so what do I suggest….bungee jumping of course…. separates the men from the boys). Thing is, livening things up sometimes does wonders for the old brain-juices. Then all of a sudden a rabbit hole pops open, and before you know it…eureka…the answer. I guess consciousness’s don’t give up their secrets easily.



So, being a writer and all (that’s actually my professional activity [for those who know me {hello}]) I’ve included this brief chapter from my latest novel. Consider it at your peril. It’ll be out in hardcover probably before you are (a year, two…maybe).

…He lit another smoke…and the light from the frozen moon slashed across the hazy room. “Damn, only made it to level sixty nine….that avatar needs some work.”

 

[Belz...]

I've answered your question - I just haven't fullfilled your request. I'm claiming that there is no objective definition for "consciousness", and that yet it is possible for people to know what it is.

Then you have confirmed that you have no clear idea what consciousness is, which is probably why you're on the "huh ?" side of this debate. Since you have no definition of consciousness I see no reason to continue this conversation with you, as any and all attempt to reach a consensus would be impossible.

 

[Belz...]

If you think about what you mean by the highlighted words that might help you.

More philosophical nonsense. Good luck with that.

 

[westprog]

Then you have confirmed that you have no clear idea what consciousness is, which is probably why you're on the "huh ?" side of this debate. Since you have no definition of consciousness I see no reason to continue this conversation with you, as any and all attempt to reach a consensus would be impossible.

You, on the other hand, presumably have a clear idea of what consciousness is, and can come up with a definition that is obviously correct. Right?

 

[Dancing David]

The medical definition is fine for detecting the presence and absence of consciousness, but poor at defining its nature.

Not really, it spells them out as behaviors.

 

[Belz...]

You, on the other hand, presumably have a clear idea of what consciousness is, and can come up with a definition that is obviously correct. Right?

Well, you don't see me claiming that a definition is impossible, thereby denying the possibility of ever understanding consciousness.

 

[Frank Newgent]

The medical definition is fine for detecting the presence and absence of consciousness, but poor at defining its nature.

Not really, it spells them out as behaviors.

Looks like this thread may be winding down. I'll ask now because I'm unsure what you decided when we discussed this earlier.

Do you believe that cancer, like pain, is behavior?

 

[AlBell]

Not really, it spells them out as behaviors.

Of course my observable behavior is what you must use to determine if you accept I am conscious.

Do you also need observable-by-third-party behaviors to decide if you are conscious?

 

[westprog]

Well, you don't see me claiming that a definition is impossible, thereby denying the possibility of ever understanding consciousness.

I'm not claiming that it is certainly undefinable - just that it is not possible to define it precisely at present and that it may never be possible. If it is to be defined, we'll need something more fundamental than consciousness in order to provide a means to define it.

The quote below might be of interest.

1. Some (neural) scientists studying consciousness-and-the-brain are not overly defining consciousness at this time. This is one sentence from Crick's paper, where he says "we all have a notion of what consciousness is, but should avoid defining it at this time."

2. Some (other) scientists have added what amounts to a qualification, that this is consciousness as everybody, not just scientists, perceive it.

3. The paper points out that "everybody", i.e. the non-scientists, who have the naive viewpoint, understand some things (pain) happen in the mental state, while others (seeing red) do not because "redness", unlike pain, is a feature "out there" and a property of the rose, not the mental model/perception of the rose in the brain.


Said that way, I think this paper is very straightforward and non-controversial. Of course, the real flaw was step 2, where some scientists took Crick's admonition against defining consciousness at this time and went ahead and defined it, partially, even though they thought they were probably generalizing the definition, rather than restricting it.

Most importantly, in no way, shape, or form does the paper suggest "redness" actually is "out there" somehow, rather than in the mental state, bur merely attacks the idea that "obviously in the mental state to everybody, not just scientists" merits as a good definition.

 

[Belz...]

I'm not claiming that it is certainly undefinable - just that it is not possible to define it precisely at present and that it may never be possible.

What could possibly help us make an actual definition in the future, if the lack of definition prevents us from determining how it works ?

No. We have to DEFINE the term before we can analyse the damn thing.

 

[westprog]

What could possibly help us make an actual definition in the future, if the lack of definition prevents us from determining how it works ?

No. We have to DEFINE the term before we can analyse the damn thing.

Away you go then.

 

[annnnoid]

Consciousness may engage in a multitude of activities that challenge or even defy definition or description (behavior, perception, SRIP etc.)…but there is one activity that seems to be in a class by itself. That being mathematics.

What is the quality of consciousness that enables it to recognize something that apparently does not exist, yet which essentially ‘operates’ the entire universe? As far as is known, a ‘consciousness’ is the only scientific instrument in existence that has the ability to ‘know’ numbers. What does that, specifically, tell us about the nature of consciousness.

In a very real sense, mathematics can be described as the ‘mind’ that is the universe (considering that mathematical operators ‘occur’ somehow in every feature of reality this may be far more than mere metaphor). Consciousness is the only known ‘window’ into this reality. What does this suggest about consciousness….what does it suggest about mathematics? What kind of relationship is implied between a reality of finite dimensions (a human being) and a reality of infinite dimensions (the mathematics that apparently is involved in the creation of the human being)? Is there a rational way to articulate such a condition?

Perhaps I’ll use Robin’s Wittgenstein quote here: What we can’t talk about we must pass over in silence.

Belz…it is one thing to suggest that a definition is possible. It is quite another to actually find one (I can say that I could paint the Mona Lisa….but what are the odds?). Consciousness is not a conventional scientific question. You can pretend all you want that it is an objective scientific issue….it is not. It is the most fundamental subjective and metaphysical question that exists (that doesn’t mean you necessarily have to have philosophical credentials to consider, or answer it….just human ones [perhaps a self-help book is required: the handyman’s guide to fixing your life]).

Science is about asking what exists. Very simply…..you exist. What are you? Scientists just fundamentally dislike a question that describes their own anatomy, or the anatomy of their ability to ask the question. It suggests that some variety of psychology is involved in the application of the scientific method (so it’s not objective after all). It suggests organic realities of qualitative dimensions (thus, I suppose, we have qulia).

Qualitative realities are not supposed to be realities…merely qualities…but in this case, they are realities, despite everyone’s best efforts to establish otherwise. The most obvious, indisputable, and unconditional evidence of that is the existence of mathematics. Mathematics is exclusively a qualitative reality. It has no existence except in relation to a subjective reality capable of recognizing the existence of qualitative realities (that is one of the defining features of consciousness…the ability to recognize the existence of a different variety of reality….the qualitative variety).

Do you know of anything else capable of recognizing the existence of qualitative realities? Nope. That makes ‘us’ rather unique in the pantheon of known realities. So…considering the dimensions of the reality known as mathematics (like…’big’ hardly begins to describe how significant mathematics is to everything), what might be the actual dimensions of the only reality that exists that can recognize it? So……maybe defining it (us) is a slightly bigger challenge than is generally known.

Mathematics is like the anatomy of god. That is exactly what this issue is about…anatomy. It is specifically and explicitly and exclusively about your subjective anatomy. I have to say I find these attempts to keep the issue at arms length to be really amusing. Partly because they fail by default….partly because it is somehow satisfying for science to have to finally face the indisputable reality of mortality (what, exactly, is a scientist…IOW). Not just a metaphysical question, but a spiritual one (the reality of qualitative realities). Consciousness is a reality that has no reality, except for all these bizarre characteristics that define something entirely defined by itself. It is a dilemma wrapped in a paradox wrapped in an enigma, but it really exists.

I like that question…is cancer a behavior. Good question. Is behavior a behavior?

 

[Belz...]

Away you go then.

Are you telling me to leave or to concoct my own definition for your benefit ?