Consciousness.....a basic rule of physics

[RandFan]

Because that is one of the meanings of “significant”: of consequence (or the outcome of something occurring earlier)

"Meaning"? Please to explain how there is meaning without consciousness? Where can I find this "meaning" in nature sans consciousness? Don't I need consciousness to find "meaning"?

To whom it happens to.

How can there be a "whom" without consciousness?

To what it happens to.

Please to explain? How does the "what" assess either "meaning" or "significance"?

You simply assert that there is "meaning" and "significance" a priori but you don't explain what "meaning" and "significance" is without consciousness.

You are going to need to do that to prevail in your argument.

 

[The Man]

"Meaning"? Please to explain how there is meaning without consciousness? Where can I find this "meaning" in nature sans consciousness? Don't I need consciousness to find "meaning"?

It is those unconscious consequences that give your perception of consciousness “meaning” in the first place, as I mentioned before.

How can there be a "whom" without consciousness?

When whomever is unconscious.

Please to explain? How does the "what" assess either "meaning" or "significance"?

Assessment is not a requirement of ““meaning” or “significance”” as already exemplified.

You simply assert that there is "meaning" and "significance" a priori but you don't explain what "meaning" and "significance" is without consciousness.

You are going to need to do that to prevail in your argument.

I gave specific examples of the relevance of “"meaning" and "significance" a priori” for you to have what you choose to perceive as consciousness. Would you care to address them (“You are going to need to do that to prevail in your argument”) or should we just continue to play your semantic games?

 

[The Man]

Not if consciousness is not an 0,1 game.

In that case, any given degree of [0,1] is a possible state of consciousness, where no state totally depends on other states.

Furthermore, some consciousness is usually a collection of [0,1] elements, related to each other by several distinct states, that are dynamically changed.

This flexibility is essential to the survival (and reproduction) of complex organism in a non-trivial environment.

In my opinion, any 0,1 dichotomist model of consciousness is nothing but a sterile viewpoint of this concept.

So unconscious is “a possible state of consciousness”, that would make them not “related to each other by several distinct states” as even just those two states would not be distinct.

 

[Hokulele]

And you use a clear dichtomy batween "others" and "self".

In that case, please show us how "others" and "self" are compared with each other, in the first place.

Heh, again. I would suggest you read the source of that quote and learn a bit about Chinese dualism and how it differs from Descartes. Hint, the word Tao is important in such a conversation.

 

[The Man]

It does not change the fact that a living bird's path is much more complex than the path of it dead body thrown in the air.

Those were the facts of my point why should my point, well, change my point.

Furthermore, you have missed the most important word in my post, which is "to predict", which means that indeed the same requirements apply, but the requirements of what (or who)?

No I did not, which is why I stated “the same requirements apply”. So you’re claiming “you have missed the most important word in my post” because I stated some of the relevant requirements “of what (or who)” “to predict”?

Yes, we may have some idea, where completely no idea, or a complete idea are nothing but extreme cases and rare (and dramatic).

What makes an idea complete, some idea about what makes an idea complete?

 

[ddt]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4061617&postcount=2161

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4054871&postcount=2116

Linking again to previous posts - in this case, from an entirely different thread about an entirely different subject matter? Those posts don't have any relevancy to consciousness or to dualism.

(and they don't have relevancy to the Deeper than Primes thread either - but you should post about that over there. Keep an eye on the thread for updates )

 

[RandFan]

It is those unconscious consequences that give your perception of consciousness “meaning” in the first place, as I mentioned before.

This is not an answer to anything. It is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. You are engaging in fallacy. Flight isn't feathers and/or wings. A chair isn't wood and nails. That something is composed of constituent parts doesn't make the constituent parts the self same thing.

Let me be clear. I'm not arguing dualism. I accept materialism. But if we go back to your hammer and skull example. If you smash your head to bits it won't keep working.

When whomever is unconscious.

? This doesn't make any sense.

Assessment is not a requirement of ““meaning” or “significance”” as already exemplified.

? Again, this makes no sense. You are talking in circles and I suspect being obtuse. How can there be "meaning" without consciousness? Meaning is a construct of consciousness. Please to show meaning without consciousness? I've asked you this over and over and you obfuscate and won't answer.

I gave specific examples of the relevance of “"meaning" and "significance" a priori”...

? When? Where? You've done no such thing. Rocks don't contemplate meaning. Rocks don't perceive meaning. There is no such thing without consciousness. Rocks exist and roll down hills a priori. The cause and effect are a priori but meaning is a perception. It doesn't exist a priori and you can't demonstrate that it does.

Would you care to address them (“You are going to need to do that to prevail in your argument”) or should we just continue to play your semantic games?

I have nothing to prevail in. Meaning can only be assessed or quantified or perceived by a consciousness. That's not arguable. I know you think you are arguing against it but you aren't. You might as well argue that there is no such thing as gravity.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Awareness of consciousness is the main reason people question consciousness and existence in the first place, and the main reason people believe in purpose.

And animal never does that.

One of the many aspects in which we should try to learn more from them.

 

[doronshadmi]

Heh, again. I would suggest you read the source of that quote and learn a bit about Chinese dualism and how it differs from Descartes. Hint, the word Tao is important in such a conversation.

Again you use dichotomy between Descartes and Tao.

Im talking about Descartes\Tao interaction as complements of a one framework.

 

[doronshadmi]

So unconscious is “a possible state of consciousness”, that would make them not “related to each other by several distinct states” as even just those two states would not be distinct.

This is a conclusion of anyone how gets Consciousness as only 0,1 game (which is not my game).

 

[doronshadmi]

What makes an idea complete, some idea about what makes an idea complete?

Again, your viewpoint of Consciousness is:

0 (No Consciousness at all)

1 (Complete Consciousness)

where there is nothing in between.

I call this 0,1 game Dichotomy.

My idea of Consciousness is incomplete, as any researchable thing is.

 

[doronshadmi]

Linking again to previous posts - in this case, from an entirely different thread about an entirely different subject matter? Those posts don't have any relevancy to consciousness or to dualism.

(and they don't have relevancy to the Deeper than Primes thread either - but you should post about that over there. Keep an eye on the thread for updates )

This is another example of your inability to get the elegant idea of atom's self-reference.

About self-reference and consciousness: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4125175&postcount=84

 

[doronshadmi]

Awareness of consciousness is the main reason people question consciousness and existence in the first place, and the main reason people believe in purpose.

And animal never does that.

One of the many aspects in which we should try to learn more from them.

I agree with you.

We are generally more self-referenced than other animals, which gives us more power to manipulate our shared environment.

As I get is, there is a direct proportion between self-reference degree and the ability to manipulate the shared environment, simply by being aware of the fundamental principles that stand in the basis of this environment.

 

[Dancing David]

Again, why are you looking at things as if they are a 0,1 interaction where there is nothing in between?

Or in other words, why "...if they only have personal meaning" (or its complement that is "...if they only have a non-personal meaning") has to be considered as the only possible states?

Why is that your read things into statements, that were not stated?.

Be sure to add false dichotomies, don't ask questions and if you do ask a question be sure to make it a leading one. You have mistaken me for someone else.

 

[Dancing David]

This is a foolish intrusion of a very abstracted process of mathematical description into a messy organic process. It has meaning for you, but have you conveyed that meaning to others?

Not if consciousness is not an 0,1 game.

You are correct, but your use of this foolish mathematical language adds nothing to the discussion, try stating it in clear terms that have common usage, then perhaps I can see where I agree with you.

Consciousness is not a state, it is a label applied to complex interactions of organic neural networks.

In that case, any given degree of [0,1] is a possible state of consciousness, where no state totally depends on other states.

that is more silliness, an easier way to state this is: Consciousness is a rubric applied to multiple processes of an organic neural network, one can not define finite states in such a network. To say that such states exist is silly, there are multiple channels and ways that the neural networks combine to produce the multiple processes called consciousness. One can not put it on any sort of spectrum, unless one wishes to define the substrate processes first, and then use a weighted model for describing the interaction of a particular process in the mixture.

there is no such single entity as consciousness.

Furthermore, some consciousness is usually a collection of [0,1] elements, related to each other by several distinct states, that are dynamically changed.

that has no meaning or context to interpret your personal use of those terms, try to use common language, then I may be able to agree with you.

This flexibility is essential to the survival (and reproduction) of complex organism in a non-trivial environment.

In my opinion, any 0,1 dichotomist model of consciousness is nothing but a sterile viewpoint of this concept.

In my point of view your insistence on labeling other people with out asking them the meanings of their usage is pointless mental masturbation. Further your use of terms that have no common usage and meaning makes understanding you very difficultfor me.

Try using ordinary language and terms, if you must, borrow from neurology rather than some abstracted mathematics based upon some bizarre use of logic.(I find that logic while a useful tool is often the hammer on the screwhead.)

I have a strong feeling that you and I are actually in agreement with each other, yet your personal idiomatic use of language makes it difficult for me to understand you. I am sure that it makes sense to you and others who you have developed it with.

So please I would like you to try again.

Some questions that will help clarify the questions , where I don’t make sense of what makes sense to you:

1. Does consciousness exists and how do you define it?
2. Are you using some sort of merged quantum language when it comes to observer vs. observed?
3. Why should questions 1 and 2 matter to you?
4. Do you believe that the universe exists absent an observer?
5. Do you believe that a mind exists or is it just a semantic label?

 

[Dancing David]

I agree with you.

We are generally more self-referenced than other animals, which gives us more power to manipulate our shared environment.

As I get is, there is a direct proportion between self-reference degree and the ability to manipulate the shared environment, simply by being aware of the fundamental principles that stand in the basis of this environment.

I am not sure I follwo your logic, so before I can offer and agreement or critique i would like to ask what you mean by this, why should self ereference make this difference?

I would think that there is an element of selfreference but i don't see it as part of the manipulation of the enviroment, how does your train of thought go?

I see humans as developing many stances, tools and survival skills prior to the advent of abstracted thoughts and references, so I am curious as to how your thoughts go in this direction?

 

[The Man]

This is not an answer to anything. It is entirely irrelevant to the point at hand. You are engaging in fallacy. Flight isn't feathers and/or wings. A chair isn't wood and nails. That something is composed of constituent parts doesn't make the constituent parts the self same thing.

You are the one engaging in fallacy, the fallacy of the strawman. If you simply want to argue with yourself then go right ahead if you want to address what I have said then please read it first (preferably when you are conscious)

Let me be clear. I'm not arguing dualism. I accept materialism. But if we go back to your hammer and skull example. If you smash your head to bits it won't keep working.

Likewise without those unconscious consequences I referred to “it won't keep working” either. If the need for the continued functioning of “your head” for what we call consciousness is not a bizarre concept to you then why the flight of fancy (or fallacy in this case) to assertions I never made, when you are clearly capable of understanding the assertions I was making?

? This doesn't make any sense.

When you are unconscious it will.

? Again, this makes no sense. You are talking in circles and I suspect being obtuse. How can there be "meaning" without consciousness? Meaning is a construct of consciousness. Please to show meaning without consciousness? I've asked you this over and over and you obfuscate and won't answer.

It was given to you before, that you choose to ignore it, call it irrelevant and claim obfuscation, without addressing the specific examples makes you the one who is being obtuse.

Indeed the word “Meaning” is a construct of consciousness but it was constructed to represent non conscious aspects as well as the conscious aspects you seem to fixate on.

? When? Where? You've done no such thing. Rocks don't contemplate meaning. Rocks don't perceive meaning. There is no such thing without consciousness. Rocks exist and roll down hills a priori. The cause and effect are a priori but meaning is a perception. It doesn't exist a priori and you can't demonstrate that it does.

And here we have your fallacy, the inclusion of modifiers like “contemplate” and “perceive”. Meaning can be perceived or contemplated, but it does not have to be. I never claimed that rocks “contemplate” or “perceive” but just “The cause and effect are a priori” which in and of itself, without the inclusion of your consciousness requiring modifiers, denotes “meaning”: to bring, cause, or produce as a result : To have as a consequence; bring about (in effect “cause and effect” or cause meaning effect). So you demonstrate that yourself by claiming “cause and effect are a priori”. You seem to have all the requisite knowledge, but simply choose to focus on the conscious applications of “meaning”.

I have nothing to prevail in. Meaning can only be assessed or quantified or perceived by a consciousness. That's not arguable. I know you think you are arguing against it but you aren't. You might as well argue that there is no such thing as gravity.

I don’t care what you think you know I think, you could just address, specifically, what I have said. So, since claiming your point was inarguable then arguing it, you persist with the strawman fallacy of ascribing to me augments I have not made so you can continue to argue that your point is inarguable and claiming “I know you think you are arguing against it but you aren't”. I know I’m not, because the assessment, qualification and perception of “meaning” without consciousness are not arguments that I have made.

Again with the qualifiers that denote consciousness “assessed”, “quantified” or “perceived”. Your use and need of such qualifiers to infer consciousness indicates that you do understand (if not consciously) that “meaning” in and of itself does not have to denote consciousness.

 

[TMiguel]

It is going a bit too far just to suggest that conscious has to do whit anything. First of all you can not even define what is “conscious” in a restrict way. Suggesting it to be the main criteria to everything is just completely and utterly nonsense.
The universe was the universe long before you were here, and it will still be long after you are gone. It is totally indifferent either or not you realise anything in a conscious manner, or if you perceive events in a retroactive fashion appearing to be conscious but without you even realising them.


Ps. Doron, I taught you mentioned you would be gone for good, apparently you have recopied your reason into another tread after you have been completely intellectually eviscerated on the subject you are trying to sneak in here again.
Some one else would have leaved this forum for ever to hide somewhere in a dark cave out of complete shame. But your persistence in packing the same rubbish again (literally trying to smack it into other peoples brain, and don’t forget the pearl of trying to deprive kids out of proper education for your own sake) makes me believe that you are not a sane person and your place is in a mental institution.

 

[The Man]

This is a conclusion of anyone how gets Consciousness as only 0,1 game (which is not my game).

You are the one who claimed “several distinct states” while asserting “any given degree of [0,1] is a possible state of consciousness”. I just pointed out that does not make them very distinct if at all.

Yes, your same old game of ascribing anyone who questions or points out flaws as being single (or in this case “0,1”) minded.

Again, your viewpoint of Consciousness is:

0 (No Consciousness at all)

1 (Complete Consciousness)

where there is nothing in between.

I call this 0,1 game Dichotomy.

My idea of Consciousness is incomplete, as any researchable thing is.

So your response to the question is that no idea is compete because of some idea you have about what “any researchable thing is”?

 

[calebprime]

...makes me believe that you are not a sane person and your place is in a mental institution.

TMiguel, I love you man, but easy there, dude.