Definition of Consciousness

[JoeMorgue]

Why do I need anything to compare my experiences with?

It's very telling how much you fight against any sort of external standards.

You really are all but coming out and saying "I want to make stuff up."

You are right. If you compare your "experiences" against anyone else's you might learn that they don't fit the facts. Can't have that now can we?

And again the question as to why if you don't feel the need to "compare your experiences" then why you are discussing them.

Why are you arguing with figments of your imagination?

 

[dlorde]

I mean "the act or an instance of happening; occurrence:"

That would probably be 'incident' or 'incidents' (plural).

What do you mean when you say 'coincidence'? Do you mean a group of risky somethings connected?

I mean two or more events, usually with some apparent relation or connection, occurring by chance, at or around the same time, i.e. they are coincident, they coincide.

Which do you think most likely the word is being used for in the context of the conversation?

I can't parse that sentence (which of what? what word? where in the conversation?), can you rephrase it, or explain it?

 

[Belz...]

What would make you sure of that?

What 'science' indicates that one has no choice but to distort the details of an incident that just happened to them.

Because the mechanism that distorts memories isn't voluntary.

 

[Navigator]

The cognitive sciences. Perception itself is distorted; memory more so. It doesn't work like a video recording, and it tends to decay over time and distort with recall.

Presumably this level of performance was sufficient in evolutionary terms, and even today is only problematic in limited circumstances (eye-witness testimony, etc).

Hearsay.

The source of the information/data and methods created to gain the data have not been sufficient enough to include the possibility of consciousness being able to explain itself, even fully (or as fully as possible given what it has to work with).

Science as a method still only applies to that which wields it so the agenda of those who use it and why they use it and why they shy away from 'woo' - something they had to label as a real threat to their delicate defense mechanisms.

All perfectly explainable just through observation, a science in itself.

Fortunately the hilited gifts us with the problem of the human brain. It also offers something of an opportunity to think outside of the presumption box in relation to the question of consciousness, and what exactly it is.

For the umpteenth time I declare that it can speak for itself.

It does not require the medium of scientists, soothsayers, celebrates, advertising agencies, books, philosophies, preachers, teachers, beeches or leeches.

Or even bad poets!

 

[Navigator]

It's very telling how much you fight against any sort of external standards.

You really are all but coming out and saying "I want to make stuff up."

You are right. If you compare your "experiences" against anyone else's you might learn that they don't fit the facts. Can't have that now can we?

And again the question as to why if you don't feel the need to "compare your experiences" then why you are discussing them.

Why are you arguing with figments of your imagination?

Come back to the conversation JoeBentley - you continue to be blown off course by your strong bias which compels you to declare publicly who I am and what I am about.

It is not the way to actually make relevant points in regard to your position in the discussion, to vilify or otherwise cast shadow of doubt upon they who do not believe the things you do.

 

[calebprime]

...

Which do you think most likely the word is being used for in the context of the conversation?

...

I can't parse that sentence (which of what? what word? where in the conversation?), can you rephrase it, or explain it?

Which word is most likely in the context of the conversation -- incidents, or incidence?

 

[Navigator]

That would probably be 'incident' or 'incidents' (plural).

Yes.

=dlorde;9888933I mean two or more events, usually with some apparent relation or connection, occurring by chance, at or around the same time, i.e. they are coincident, they coincide.

Chance? How do you define chance that it is not confused with coincidence?
Why does it have to involve two or more events?
The universe is made up of a string of coinciding events but is itself one thing.

But anyway the discussion shifts too far from the main question of the thread.

Is consciousness coincidence? Is it memory? Are we really the sum total of our memories?

I can't parse that sentence (which of what? what word? where in the conversation?), can you rephrase it, or explain it?

I cant be bothered going back to the post and you quote me without the post link so i'm okay to drop it from the discussion for now.

 

[Navigator]

Which word is most likely in the context of the conversation -- incidents, or incidence?

Incidents.

 

[Navigator]

Because the mechanism that distorts memories isn't voluntary.

According to what?

You are suggesting that an individuate consciousness has no say in the matter. You are also suggesting that what is really happening is not what everyone thinks is actually happening.

So then you are also unable to say what is actually happening, therefore what you do say is actually happening isn't also actually happening because you have distorted everything that actually happens, and not eve on purpose.

That fills me with a joyous urge to chuckle.



ETA bold to the typo. (missing 'n' on end)

 

[calebprime]

...

According to what?

You are suggesting that an individuate consciousness has no say in the matter. You are also suggesting that what is really happening is not what everyone thinks is actually happening.

...

You mean individual.

individuate is a verb, not an adjective.

 

[MuDPhuD]

I can see clearly that your memory has been distorted and thus you now distort 'me' and what I am supposed to have said and it isn't because I actually said any of these things, but because your bias needs to believe that I said these things and thus you choose to believe that is what I said and your memory processing makes the necessary tweaks to 'make it so.'

I was attempting to summarize what you have been saying. My memory is as fallable as anyone's, but your posts are still there up thread. Apparently I am misunderstanding you. Could you please point out where my statement of what I thought was your position is incorrect?
I'm pretty sure you said you have communicated with an "it" which is not part of your brain, but that does form a connection between us. Others (Jung)have referred to such a concept as a collective unconscious.

Can you answer my question about how we can distinguish which hypothesis, yours or mine, might be correct? If you feel I have mis-stated your version, can you correct me please?

 

[dlorde]

...Presumably this level of performance was sufficient in evolutionary terms...

Hearsay.

If you like. Nevertheless, if it had not been sufficient in evolutionary terms, we wouldn't be here

The source of the information/data and methods created to gain the data have not been sufficient enough to include the possibility of consciousness being able to explain itself, even fully (or as fully as possible given what it has to work with).

Depends what kind of explanation you're after.

Science as a method still only applies to that which wields it so the agenda of those who use it and why they use it and why they shy away from 'woo' - something they had to label as a real threat to their delicate defense mechanisms.

Sadly that's unparseable too... are you feeling OK?

 

[Dancing David]

So what about the evidence for the existence of telepathy, which would indicate thought is able to travel outside the brain?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-403814/Telepathy-does-exists-claims-Cambridge-scientist.html

Claims Scientist, any real data on that?

 

[Dancing David]

Belz, You can say I am just making stuff up, but I know I am not. So assume for a moment I am telling the truth about my lottery win.

I suggest you google confirmation bias, double blinding helps a whole lot.

So the voice may have said 'you will win the lotto', you would need to write down every thought you have during a day to get a sample, and then verify which thoughts came true...

My guess is that if you accurately recorded all your thoughts or voices, you would find, many of them do not bear out.

 

[Navigator]

...


You mean individual.

individuate is a verb, not an adjective.

Definition of consciousness is an adjective is what you are saying?

 

[calebprime]

Now you must be trolling.

 

[Navigator]

I was attempting to summarize what you have been saying. My memory is as fallable as anyone's, but your posts are still there up thread. Apparently I am misunderstanding you. Could you please point out where my statement of what I thought was your position is incorrect?
I'm pretty sure you said you have communicated with an "it" which is not part of your brain, but that does form a connection between us. Others (Jung)have referred to such a concept as a collective unconscious.

Can you answer my question about how we can distinguish which hypothesis, yours or mine, might be correct? If you feel I have mis-stated your version, can you correct me please?

Sure. I have not spoken for that part of consciousness which I claim exists and which can communicate what it is through appropriate device which can thus produce data to the individual in relation to that question (what is consciousness?) and my claim.

My claim is that it can speak for itself.

You being 'pretty sure' relies on memory which for now you state you believe to be naturally distorted so is not something to trust as being very accurate.

 

[Navigator]

Now you must be trolling.

Only for answers. I will ask again. Are you saying that consciousness can only be defined using an adjective and also why are you insisting on being the English teacher of the discussion?

Are you wanting me to use correct words so that you can better understand me or what?

What is the problem with calling consciousness 'individuate' in relation to the thread topic?

 

[Navigator]

If you like. Nevertheless, if it had not been sufficient in evolutionary terms, we wouldn't be here

I was referring to your whole post not the hilited. I mentioned the hilited bit further on.

Depends what kind of explanation you're after.

Exactly. That is what i said.

Science as a method still only applies to that which wields it so the agenda of those who use it and why they use it and why they shy away from 'woo' - something they had to label as a real threat to their delicate defense mechanisms.

Sadly that's unparseable too... are you feeling OK?

Define okay. Then tell me why you feel it necessary to ask.

 

[calebprime]

It's simple. If you write sentences that don't make sense, and mis-use words, then everyone has difficulty understanding you. That's laziness on your part.

And, you deliberately mis-read other people's posts. That's obstructionism.

For example, "Define ok." You know perfectly well what he's talking about.

If you don't, you're having some serious cognitive issues.

I'm not the first to point out that your writing is unintelligible.

But, have it your way. I'm putting you back on ignore.