Definition of Consciousness

[Belz...]

Belz!

Hey !

Something which can think for itself, can in that practice, know itself to exist. (hilited again for you).

And I _still_ disagree with it, even after the third time you say it.

If you 'know you exist' you are 'self aware.'

Yes. How does relate to "thinking" ?

 

[Navigator]

Hey !

And I _still_ disagree with it, even after the third time you say it.

So? How is that relevant?

Yes. How does relate to "thinking" ?

How consciousness relates to thinking has to do with a number of things, most importantly, all of which is data.

How the data is processed by consciousness has to do with intelligence. How these things are done has to do with the brain. What is identified in the data as worthwhile to the individual having the subjective experience is the likely dominant subject which produces what is thought about. That is how it is related to thinking.

Thinking is a process. Consciousness taps into that process.

 

[Belz...]

So? How is that relevant?

I would think that agreeing that you're right about the topic of this thread would be quite relevant to it.

How consciousness relates to thinking has to do with a number of things, most importantly, all of which is data.

How the data is processed by consciousness has to do with intelligence. How these things are done has to do with the brain. What is identified in the data as worthwhile to the individual having the subjective experience is the likely dominant subject which produces what is thought about. That is how it is related to thinking.

Thinking is a process. Consciousness taps into that process.

Did you just demonstrate that you were wrong to call "thinking" "consciousness" ? Because I'm the one who said the two aren't the same. You can have one without the other.

 

[Navigator]

I would think that agreeing that you're right about the topic of this thread would be quite relevant to it.

The topic of the thread is "Definition of Consciousness" - my 'definition' is that it is able to define itself.
You cannot agree that I am right regarding this unless you were able to witness this for yourself.
That takes time and effort and the will to do so. These things I cannot grant you. They are yours to accept or reject as you wish.

Did you just demonstrate that you were wrong to call "thinking" "consciousness" ? Because I'm the one who said the two aren't the same. You can have one without the other.

I didn't call 'thinking' 'consciousness' nor did I call 'consciousness' 'intelligence'.
What I said was this:



Something which can think for itself, [consciousness] can in that practice, know itself to exist.

Consciousness can learn to think for itself. The act of thinking is is not what consciousness is, it is what consciousness does.

 

[Belz...]

The topic of the thread is "Definition of Consciousness" - my 'definition' is that it is able to define itself.
You cannot agree that I am right regarding this unless you were able to witness this for yourself.
That takes time and effort and the will to do so. These things I cannot grant you. They are yours to accept or reject as you wish.

I honestly have no clue what you're babbling about.

Something which can think for itself, [consciousness] can in that practice, know itself to exist.

How is that useful ?

 

[Navigator]

<snip>

How is that useful ?

How is you knowing you exist useful?

That is for you to determine.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0

 

[Belz...]

How is you knowing you exist useful?

It allows me to do stuff. That is the essence of usefulness.

Your turn.

 

[dlorde]

The topic of the thread is "Definition of Consciousness" - my 'definition' is that it is able to define itself.
You cannot agree that I am right regarding this unless you were able to witness this for yourself.
That takes time and effort and the will to do so. These things I cannot grant you. They are yours to accept or reject as you wish.

I honestly have no clue what you're babbling about.

He seems to be saying you can't agree to his definition unless you're willing to spend time and effort to do something unspecified. His definition seems to be that consciousness can define itself.

 

[Navigator]

He seems to be saying you can't agree to his definition unless you're willing to spend time and effort to do something unspecified. His definition seems to be that consciousness can define itself.

Yes. I have already covered this in the thread in various posts and am not interested in repeating myself for latecomers.
The thing specified is that consciousness is able to speak for itself and convey to you exactly what it is.
The manner in which to approach this has also been specified.
The means in which to do this for yourself has not been specified.
The principle involved with the means is known to many but not seen by scientists as potentially useful for anything. It is however very useful for this particular thing.

A means whereby consciousness can explain itself to you personally.

No point in going there if you have no interest in knowing. First step is having the genuine interest in the first place. Like all good science, it will require dedication and time, effort etc.

 

[Navigator]

It allows me to do stuff. That is the essence of usefulness.

Your turn.

You knowing you exist allows you to do stuff.

Me knowing I exist allows me to be. Being is the essence of usefulness. Not all doing is useful at all.

Being...without you being, your doing has no opportunity to occur.

How you self identify and understand consciousness will influence the things you then (after that) choose to do.

 

[Belz...]

You knowing you exist allows you to do stuff.

Me knowing I exist allows me to be. Being is the essence of usefulness. Not all doing is useful at all.

Being...without you being, your doing has no opportunity to occur.

How you self identify and understand consciousness will influence the things you then (after that) choose to do.

Not only have you just served me a big plate of word salad, but you AGAIN lost track of the conversation. This is the last time that I humour you and bring you back on track. You said:

Something which can think for itself, [consciousness] can in that practice, know itself to exist.

I asked you how is it useful. Can you answer this question without getting lost, this time ?

 

[tsig]

Yes. I have already covered this in the thread in various posts and am not interested in repeating myself for latecomers.
The thing specified is that consciousness is able to speak for itself and convey to you exactly what it is.
The manner in which to approach this has also been specified.
The means in which to do this for yourself has not been specified.The principle involved with the means is known to many but not seen by scientists as potentially useful for anything. It is however very useful for this particular thing.

A means whereby consciousness can explain itself to you personally.

No point in going there if you have no interest in knowing. First step is having the genuine interest in the first place. Like all good science, it will require dedication and time, effort etc.

Since the means have not been specified it will be impossible to be dedicated to it.

 

[Navigator]

Since the means have not been specified it will be impossible to be dedicated to it.

Not at all. I have already explained that. Step 1: Are you genuinely interested, and able to approach it scientifically leaving personal bias out of the process (or at least as much as possible).

The means is like the oven. The approach is like the recipe. Do you have all the ingredients and are you willing to put them together. Knowing the correct temperature and type of oven to cook the mixture in is not relevant to your agreeing to be dedicated. Knowing weather you would dedicate your time and effort to finding out what consciousness can say for itself is the relevant thing.


For more on this (for the latecomers) see my interaction with MuDPhuD a few pages back in this thread. The member claimed to be genuinely interested but when push came to shove it turned out the member had already made up his/her mind (long ago embraced a dogma of bias) and would not have been interested in the means even if he'she was informed as to what the means was.

 

[tsig]

Not at all. I have already explained that. Step 1: Are you genuinely interested, and able to approach it scientifically leaving personal bias out of the process (or at least as much as possible).

The means is like the oven. The approach is like the recipe. Do you have all the ingredients and are you willing to put them together. Knowing the correct temperature and type of oven to cook the mixture in is not relevant to your agreeing to be dedicated. Knowing weather you would dedicate your time and effort to finding out what consciousness can say for itself is the relevant thing.


For more on this (for the latecomers) see my interaction with MuDPhuD a few pages back in this thread. The member claimed to be genuinely interested but when push came to shove it turned out the member had already made up his/her mind (long ago embraced a dogma of bias) and would not have been interested in the means even if he'she was informed as to what the means was.

Whether you cook your cake in an oven at 350 degrees F or in a kiln at 3500 will make a huge difference.

This looks like "If you believe no explanation is needed, if you don't believe no explanation will suffice".

 

[Navigator]

Whether you cook your cake in an oven at 350 degrees F or in a kiln at 3500 will make a huge difference.

How you chose to cook the mixture is your decision of course.

This looks like "If you believe no explanation is needed, if you don't believe no explanation will suffice".

What it looks like is not important. Like I said, rather than repeat myself to you, if you are interested then go look at the conversation as I suggested..

 

[Belz...]

And no answer.

Great, Nav.

 

[tsig]

How you chose to cook the mixture is your decision of course.



What it looks like is not important. Like I said, rather than repeat myself to you, if you are interested then go look at the conversation as I suggested..

I've got an absolutely killer response to this post but I posted it elsewhere on this forum but rather than repeat myself to you, if you are interested then go look it up.

 

[tsig]

And no answer.

Great, Nav.

It seems the "I've already posted it, look it up" is becoming the woo go to answer.

 

[Navigator]

I've got an absolutely killer response to this post but I posted it elsewhere on this forum but rather than repeat myself to you, if you are interested then go look it up.

Sure.

What data do you have to help me do this? I told you where to find the data I don't care to repeat. It is in this thread, and I also gave you the name of the poster I was communicating with.

Since that data is on this page, it is no effort for me to C&P it.

Here 'tis:

For more on this (for the latecomers) see my interaction with MuDPhuD a few pages back in this thread. *Snip

 

[dlorde]

...Like all good science, it will require dedication and time, effort etc.

Sadly it is unlike good science in all other respects.