Definition of Consciousness

[MuDPhuD]

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)

It is correct that we, as individuals, have no say in our mechanism of memory or how accurate it might be. Memory is an evolved biological function of the brain. As such it serves a purpose, but it is far from infallible. This has been demonstrated many times by researchers, experts in memory. Just read the links posted up thread. The science is very clear.

 

[Dancing David]

Yea! I don't buy the theory that human memory is so faulty we cannot be sure what has happened to us. I think that is just the skeptics way of dismissing things they don't want to accept. After all we are the sum of our memories arn't we?
Then they tell us that it is just what we want to believe, but I don't buy that either, as I have not had so much fun that I want to live beyond death. If death is the end that is OK with me.
But it is the sum of my experience that there is more going on.

You really don't know much about memory or teh brain. Close one eye and look at a visual field, the more complex the better.

Do you see your blind spot? (It is a size-able hole in your visual field.)

Why not?

then google confabulation from trauma.

 

[Navigator]

0: 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.

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

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

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

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

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

0: actually language is not the best way to communicate for obvious reasons. I find this helps. and no I am not being lazy.

1: There is no scientific way for you to verify your claim is correct.

2: Again, unless you are claiming to be a mind reader and that you are reading my mind, you cannot claim this to be fact. And even if you did it would not be variable. Also - you are attacking the person rather than the argument, which is all I am pointing out to those other also doing that.

3: Not at all. Your opinion alone thinks this.

4: So? Does a handful of heavily biased individuals constitute actual evidence that this is the case? Is it my fault that they choose to nit-pic ratherthan get the gist? I am cognitive enough to seek clarification when the boot is on the other foot. and I dont get the gist.

5: Okay. Although strictly speaking, you putting me on ignore is not me having it my way.

 

[Navigator]

It is correct that we, as individuals, have no say in our mechanism of memory or how accurate it might be. Memory is an evolved biological function of the brain. As such it serves a purpose, but it is far from infallible. This has been demonstrated many times by researchers, experts in memory. Just read the links posted up thread. The science is very clear.

Well you know, you are making the claim and even when Christians make their claims they provide the text in regard to the claim rather than expect me to go looking.

So far I have heard the claim and have deduced from those claiming that they are distortions of reality.

Therefore - while I do not agree personally that this is what I am, I concur that it has to be what they who think this is what they are, indeed are.

Thus, what comes out of their minds is distortion and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The word science, while related to the word scientist, does not confer the same meaning of the word 'science', to the word 'scientist'.

They are two different things.

 

[dlorde]

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

Yeah, I know, but when you translated his first use to incidents, he seemed to dispute it... looking at it again, I suppose when he said 'No', he might have meant 'Yes'

 

[dlorde]

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.
...

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

Our conscious memories are part of our consciousness.

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.

The post link was on the first quote of the post; but I guess it wasn't anything worth repeating.

 

[dlorde]

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

Ah, yeah - that bit didn't make any sense either, so I kind of ignored it...

Depends what kind of explanation you're after.

Exactly. That is what i said.

Riiiiight...

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

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

Okay == copacetic. I ask because your posts have become almost completely unintelligible.

 

[Navigator]

Ah, yeah - that bit didn't make any sense either, so I kind of ignored it...


Riiiiight...


Okay == copacetic. I ask because your posts have become almost completely unintelligible.

Would it not be reasonable then to make sure it is not you who are causing this to be the case?
Bearing in mind that the odd mispelt or misused word cannot constitute "almost completely unintelligible'' in anyone's book, what exactly are you not understanding about my claim that consciousness is able to explain itself given the correct tools and accompanying motivation?

 

[Navigator]

Yeah, I know, but when you translated his first use to incidents, he seemed to dispute it... looking at it again, I suppose when he said 'No', he might have meant 'Yes'

Both your problems are that you havent realised that I was using the word but I was mispelling that word and not realising that the misspelled word was another word with a different meaning attached to it.

No biggy.

Can we get back to the subject of the thread question now?

 

[tsig]

Would it not be reasonable then to make sure it is not you who are causing this to be the case?Bearing in mind that the odd mispelt or misused word cannot constitute "almost completely unintelligible'' in anyone's book, what exactly are you not understanding about my claim that consciousness is able to explain itself given the correct tools and accompanying motivation?

It's not.

 

[dlorde]

Would it not be reasonable then to make sure it is not you who are causing this to be the case?

Yes - I'm reasonably sure I'm not the cause of your uninteligibility.

Bearing in mind that the odd mispelt or misused word cannot constitute "almost completely unintelligible'' in anyone's book, what exactly are you not understanding about my claim that consciousness is able to explain itself given the correct tools and accompanying motivation?

If it was just the odd misspelt or misused word, it wouldn't be almost completely unintelligible.

I understand you're making that claim, but it's so vague that it's not clear what you mean by it. And yes, I'm reasonably sure I'm not the only one who finds it so.

 

[Fudbucker]

"Truly isolated systems cannot exist in nature, other than allegedly the universe itself, and they are thus hypothetical concepts only." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolated_system

The devil you say.

An isolated system would have to be a system which is informationally separate (among other things) from all other systems in the universe. I don't believe any such systems exist. Even black holes are supposed to give up their secrets, eventually.

 

[MuDPhuD]

Well you know, you are making the claim and even when Christians make their claims they provide the text in regard to the claim rather than expect me to go looking.

So far I have heard the claim and have deduced from those claiming that they are distortions of reality.

Therefore - while I do not agree personally that this is what I am, I concur that it has to be what they who think this is what they are, indeed are.

Thus, what comes out of their minds is distortion and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The word science, while related to the word scientist, does not confer the same meaning of the word 'science', to the word 'scientist'.

They are two different things.

So, then I guess no answer to my appeal to help me understand your meaning? Thanks anyway, I'll move on.

 

[MuDPhuD]

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?

Incase you missed it the first time?

 

[Navigator]

Yes - I'm reasonably sure I'm not the cause of your uninteligibility.

You know this how?

If it was just the odd misspelt or misused word, it wouldn't be almost completely unintelligible.

If it was as you say 'almost completely unintelligible'. However it is not.

I understand you're making that claim,

Oh you do understand something of what I am saying then.

but it's so vague that it's not clear what you mean by it.

What is not clear? What is the 'it' which is 'so vague'? Is it the idea that you might have an aspect of yourself that you are completely unaware of?
But no - from memory you are aware of it. You have said as much have you not?

Is it that you told me you were a curious scientist and so I told you that this was more than enough for you to work out how to set up the necessary conditions and implement in order to access that claim to see if it could be replicated by you?

Are you saying that you cannot think of any such tests which could facilitate this and give opportunity for any aspect of your self to make itself known to you?

Are you somehow wondering at why I have said you should lay aside your bias in order to get on the same page as this part of yourself you are not as yet aware of? That it will take some serious effort on your part to understand that you need to approach this respectfully and without preconceived notions?

What is it that has you claiming I have been 'vague' with you? Could it be - seriously - your own small self that is causing this distortion of reality which you are then attempting to project upon me?

Its seems that way to me. I have been forthright with you and everyone else throughout this thread dlorde. If nothing else, you should get the gist of that.

So, then I guess no answer to my appeal to help me understand your meaning? Thanks anyway, I'll move on.

Not at all. I answered you.

 

[Navigator]

Correction

Is it that you told me you were a curious scientist and so I told you that this was more than enough for you to work out how to set up the necessary conditions and implement in order to access assess that claim to see if it could be replicated by you?

 

[Belz...]

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.

Back up, here. Your "consciousness" is not an actor, but an effect, and is not making any decisions. That's neurology, here. Second, just because you have decision-making processes, it doesn't follow that you are voluntarily altering your own biology. Can you control your blood production voluntarily ? Can you control your insulin production voluntarily ? Your healing process ? What makes you think you can control your memory formation voluntarily ?

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.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, here. We have a pretty good idea what happens in the brain, in terms of science. But your mind has no clue what happens in its own brain. Understand the difference ?

 

[dlorde]

Yes - I'm reasonably sure I'm not the cause of your uninteligibility.

You know this how?

I'm not the only one who has difficulty making sense of your posts.

If it was just the odd misspelt or misused word, it wouldn't be almost completely unintelligible.

If it was as you say 'almost completely unintelligible'. However it is not.

Not to you.

I understand you're making that claim,

Oh you do understand something of what I am saying then.

Yes, some of it.

but it's so vague that it's not clear what you mean by it.

What is not clear? What is the 'it' which is 'so vague'?

The detail of your claim.

 

[dlorde]

Is it that you told me you were a curious scientist and so I told you that this was more than enough for you to work out how to set up the necessary conditions and implement in order to access assess that claim to see if it could be replicated by you?

Not really, although that wasn't particularly helpful.

 

[MuDPhuD]

What is not clear? ... Is it the idea that you might have an aspect of yourself that you are completely unaware of?

Can you tell me how you became aware of this "aspect of yourself that you are completely unaware of"? I am not unfamiliar with meditation and introspection. Is that how it made itself known to you? Can you describe more specifically what method you have used to become aware of this "aspect of yourself that you are completely unaware of"?

Are you saying that you cannot think of any such tests which could facilitate this and give opportunity for any aspect of your self to make itself known to you?

Rather than me trying to guess how you might have become aware, why don't you describe your method, so I can attempt to duplicate it?

Not at all. I answered you.

Sorry I missed your answer and don't seem to be able to find it up thread. Can you repost it for me?

Specifically, i am wondering how you think we might distinguish whether your hypothesis, or mine, is correct.
To clarify my question again:
Your hypothesis as you have just stated it is that there is an "aspect of yourself that you are completely unaware of", which you personally have become aware of, and this aspect is none of the parts of our selves which can be accounted for by the activity of the brain.
My hypothesis is that you have become aware of subconscious aspects of your brain with which you are communicating.
Is there some way we can tell which of these competing hypotheses is correct which can be verified by someone other than just you?