Are You Conscious?

[AlBell]

Then why are we talking about it at all?

Because that's what critters possessing a language do?

If we can discuss it then we can at least examine the words we use and check if they have a meaning.

A noble quest; doomed to failure apparently.

I think you are doing the same thing that AlBell is doing - you use the word "understand" and then assume that you know what it refers to and assume that everybody shares the associations you have with this word.

I think you assume facts not in evidence.

You reject my definition because you think it does not cover what you think you mean by the term, and yet you cannot put into words what you mean by the term.

So in the end I mean something by the word and you mean something quite different. You know what I mean by the term but I have no way of knowing what you mean by it.

So we end up talking past each other. One resolution would be that you could accept that you don't know what you mean by the word "understand".

Who understands another's understanding of most if not all of the words we use. Yet we struggle by.

This belongs in the NOMA thread. You've apparently separated your material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'.

 

[Robin]

I think you assume facts not in evidence.

The facts in evidence are that you were introduced the term "subjective self" and asked me to define it for you. You absolutely refused to believe that I did not know what you meant by it. You should say that I should either define it or deny that I had one. You went ahead and decided that by asking you to define the term I was denying that I had whatever you meant by it. Facts in evidence. Go back and look.

This belongs in the NOMA thread. You've apparently separated your material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'.

That comment has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't even introduce the concept of "material world", it is irrelevant.

 

[Robin]

Who understands another's understanding of most if not all of the words we use. Yet we struggle by.

But in this discussion we struggle, but don't struggle by.

For the precise reason I am saying.

 

[AlBell]

I think you assume facts not in evidence.

The facts in evidence are that you were introduced the term "subjective self" and asked me to define it for you. You absolutely refused to believe that I did not know what you meant by it. You should say that I should either define it or deny that I had one. You went ahead and decided that by asking you to define the term I was denying that I had whatever you meant by it. Facts in evidence. Go back and look.

We are certainly talking past one another.

This belongs in the NOMA thread. You've apparently separated your material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'.

That comment has nothing to do with what I said. I didn't even introduce the concept of "material world", it is irrelevant.

You have introduced it previously.

And I'm surprised you fail to admit any connection. And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

 

[Robin]

You have introduced it previously.

Not that I recall. It is not really a term I use if I can avoid it. To me, "material world" is a chain of fabric stores in Sydney.

And I'm surprised you fail to admit any connection.

Just don't see the connection.

And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

I would be very interested to see that objective demonstration, so please go ahead and present it.

 

[AlBell]

Not that I recall. It is not really a term I use if I can avoid it. To me, "material world" is a chain of fabric stores in Sydney.

Just don't see the connection.

No matter(so to speak).Don't you admire the vagaries of language? I suspect at least a few other posters will 'see the connection'. And if not, again, no matter.

I would be very interested to see that objective demonstration, so please go ahead and present it.

That would fit into DancingDavid's mentioned medical criteria, but I'm not going to be available for the needed study in-the-flesh.

You can pretend I'm an advanced SHRDLU based on a biologic platform. Or not; again, no matter.

 

[Robin]

No matter(so to speak).Don't you admire the vagaries of language?

Sure. I have never, ever heard that pun before.

That would fit into DancingDavid's mentioned medical criteria, but I'm not going to be available for the needed study in-the-flesh.

You can pretend I'm an advanced SHRDLU based on a biologic platform. Or not; again, no matter.

What are you talking about?

You said you could objectively demonstrate that consciousness cannot be handled by mathematics.

I asked you to go ahead and provide the demonstration.

And you answer with the above non-sequitur.

 

[AlBell]

You said you could objectively demonstrate that consciousness cannot be handled by mathematics.

No, I didn't. Read it again.

 

[Robin]

No, I didn't. Read it again.

Here it is in full:

And I'm surprised you fail to admit any connection. And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

So you are saying:

And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate, cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

Yes?

So let me get this straight. Is your claim that consciousness cannot be "handled" by mathematics at all? Or only that it can't be handled by the mathematics that describe this "world of matter" that you think I have somewhere?

Also, can you confirm that you mean that you objectively demonstrate consciousness? Not that I necessarily disagree, but I am a little surprised that you would say so.

 

[AlBell]

No, I didn't. Read it again.

So you are saying:

And am sorry at this time the "consciousness" in the OP, which some of us think we a) have and b) objectively demonstrate, cannot be handled by the mathematics that describes and bounds your world of matter.

So let me get this straight. Is your claim that consciousness cannot be "handled" by mathematics at all? Or only that it can't be handled by the mathematics that describe this "world of matter" that you think I have somewhere?

Note the 'at this time'; it certainly can't be handled now. And I remain a bit nonplussed that you don't seem to recall your earlier-thread very specific definition of materialism.

Also, can you confirm that you mean that you objectively demonstrate consciousness? Not that I necessarily disagree, but I am a little surprised that you would say so.

To meet the current medical definition of consciousness, of course I can demonstrate that objectively when physically present for analysis by doctors and equipment.

For example http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/consciousness

consciousness
[kon′shəsnes]
a clear state of awareness of self and the environment in which attention is focused on immediate matters, as distinguished from mental activity of an unconscious or subconscious nature.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
consciousness,
n a state in which the individual is capable of rational response to questioning and has all protective reflexes intact, including the ability to maintain a patent airway.
Mosby's Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
consciousness
the state of being conscious; responsiveness of the brain to impressions made by the senses. Altered states range from the normal, complete alertness to depression, confusion, delirium and finally loss of consciousness.

I hope we are on the same page, and ask again if you see any separation of the material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'?

 

[Robin]

Note the 'at this time'; it certainly can't be handled now.

And if this is all that you mean, then I agree.

And I remain a bit nonplussed that you don't seem to recall your earlier-thread very specific definition of materialism.

I recall it well - but I don't recall introducing the term "material world" in it.

I hope we are on the same page, and ask again if you see any separation of the material world subject to rigorous mathematics from what we may term 'language'?

As I said before, "material world" is a chain of fabric shops in Sydney, other than that I don't know what the term means.

I certainly don't think that language occupies a realm of it's own.

 

[AlBell]

From a post of yours in an older thread:

Is is consistently observable? Is it measurable? Could there be a testable hypothesis about it? Could it be described by some mathematical model?

If so then it is physical.

Is language physical?

 

[Robin]

Is language physical?

In my opinion, yes.

 

[westprog]

Then why are we talking about it at all?

If we can discuss it then we can at least examine the words we use and check if they have a meaning.

I think you are doing the same thing that AlBell is doing - you use the word "understand" and then assume that you know what it refers to and assume that everybody shares the associations you have with this word.

You reject my definition because you think it does not cover what you think you mean by the term, and yet you cannot put into words what you mean by the term.

So in the end I mean something by the word and you mean something quite different. You know what I mean by the term but I have no way of knowing what you mean by it.

So we end up talking past each other. One resolution would be that you could accept that you don't know what you mean by the word "understand".

My contention is that people are able to communicate with each other, in important and meaningful ways, without definitions that have the rigour of science or mathematics. I find that even when people have a particular viewpoint that differs fundamentally from mine in theory, I can still understand them and they can understand me, even when they claim to have a quite different understanding of what "understand" means.

 

[AlBell]

Is language physical?

In my opinion, yes.

Good choice for a materialist/physicalist/pragmatist/however-you-choose-to-think-of-yourself. Otherwise it opens one hell of a rabbit hole that may be hard to stop disappearing down until we've reached things that definitely aren't lifeforms.

So ethics, aesthetics, and for that matter, philosophy, are also physical?

No response anticipated; soon, I'll (or we'll) get whacked for the derail.

 

[Robin]

My contention is that people are able to communicate with each other, in important and meaningful ways, without definitions that have the rigour of science or mathematics. I find that even when people have a particular viewpoint that differs fundamentally from mine in theory, I can still understand them and they can understand me, even when they claim to have a quite different understanding of what "understand" means.

And sometimes we misunderstand. And sometimes we think we understand, but don't. So what is the criteria that we use to determine, "I understand" or "you understand"?

 

[Robin]

Good choice for a materialist/physicalist/pragmatist/however-you-choose-to-think-of-yourself.

Materialist

Otherwise it opens one hell of a rabbit hole that may be hard to stop disappearing down until we've reached things that definitely aren't lifeforms.

So ethics, aesthetics, and for that matter, philosophy, are also physical?

Yes.

No response anticipated; soon, I'll (or we'll) get whacked for the derail.

I think the questions you are asking are definitely relevent to the thread.

And you are beginning to ask the right questions.

 

[Dancing David]

From a post of yours in an older thread:


Is language physical?

Um, what part isn't?

 

[Dancing David]

Good choice for a materialist/physicalist/pragmatist/however-you-choose-to-think-of-yourself. Otherwise it opens one hell of a rabbit hole that may be hard to stop disappearing down until we've reached things that definitely aren't lifeforms.

So ethics, aesthetics, and for that matter, philosophy, are also physical?

No response anticipated; soon, I'll (or we'll) get whacked for the derail.

They are desciption of relations of physical objects. (As created in mental verbal constructs in self referencing symbolic transfer between apparent physical objects.)

 

[Dancing David]

My contention is that people are able to communicate with each other, in important and meaningful ways, without definitions that have the rigour of science or mathematics. I find that even when people have a particular viewpoint that differs fundamentally from mine in theory, I can still understand them and they can understand me, even when they claim to have a quite different understanding of what "understand" means.

Yup and we end up with 'Kill the witch" and "African or European swallow."