What is ' consciousness ' ?

[Thomas123]

This word appears to be at the centre of many discussions on this forum. It also appears to mean different things to different people and, therein lies the root of our miscommunication. What range and definement do you attribute to, ' consciousness ' ?

Is there an external consciousness in the world?. Can I tune into a shared consciousness. I am listening to Prime Minister's Question Time, ....is Boris tuned into a universal human consciousness as he delivers his address. Is his brain working ,simultaneously and in tandem with my own consciousness and with that of others?

[Inquirer]

Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

For what purpose? for deciding what women I'm attracted to? for deciding which painting to hang in my room? to decide what to wear when I get up in the morning? for describing why the universe exists? what?

No silly, for replacing what we currently use the scientific method for of course.

The scientific method: Consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
What method do you suggest we should use if not this one (when we use this one which is probably not one you use when deciding attraction levels)?

What do you currently use the scientific method for ? For example have you tried to use it to explain things? have your tried to use it explain the scientific method itself? By which I mean have you tried to use science to explain the presence of a universe that is rationally intelligible? have you tried to use science to explain why there are laws of science? that kind of stuff.

You said: "You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason." "The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs"
In response to what you said, I asked if there is a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method.

It sounded to me like you were complaining about it by saying it has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs and you even hinted at having 'faith' in it. You have since clarified that you were not complaining, but you never answered the question about if there is a better method to use compared to the one it sounded like you were complaining about, but weren't.

What you have then done is ask me what I use the scientific method for in place of answering the question posed to you in response to your not complaining about the scientific method.

I don't have much respect for lamenting about a process or mechanism when no alternative is being offered. Comes across as wining and complaining, to me anyway. So, when you criticized the scientific method earlier, was there a different process you were suggesting we use? It's the best process I'm aware of.

Once again, stating a fact is not a complaint or a criticism.

The efficacy of any process or "method" is constrained to the circumstances under which it is applicable, those circumstances inevitably involve assumptions.

In order to argue if method A is "better" than method B then we need some basis for comparing said methods.

Is frying a better method of frying than baking? do you see what I'm getting at here?

[Inquirer]

Anyway, can we all get back to the theme of this thread?

Does anyone care to speculate what - materially, physically, mechanically - could embody "consciousness"?

Since machines (like an electronic circuit) have inputs and outputs and state and nothing else, what must such a machine do or have that makes it conscious?

Consider analog devices like transistors or perhaps operational amplifiers, these devices have analog inputs and analog outputs and the output is a mathematical function of the input.

What would make an op-amp or assemblage of op-amps, conscious? if there was such an assemblage then obviously the mathematical function in that case, would have some property that makes it stand out, some mathematical characteristic that differentiates it from a non-conscious system.

In other words we must be able to reduce consciousness to mathematics since the dynamical behavior of all physical systems can (at least in principle) be described by mathematics.

[William]

I understand consciousness to being that which is - even at a very basic level - able to perceive itself as existing - as being - as the mechanism enabling self awareness.

Often that equates to activity [movement] which can easily enough be explained as motivated by the need for self preservation [survival].

Other words used which I consider the same are 'spirit' 'essence' and the like.

I understand that consciousness is the only real 'thing' but is not a thing as an object is a thing. It is what defines objects. It is what experiences objects. It is not a thing we have [like a body] but is what we are.

I also think of the planet earth as the form of a conscious entity. I also think that the universe is a Situational Holographic Experienced Simulation that only consciousness can experience as real.

It seems more logical to go with consciousness not being an emergent property of working brains because this implies that the material can create the immaterial, which seems to be unnatural [goes against] how nature creates. Nature creates using what is materially available. Why would it first [or at all] need to create something immaterial to then be enabled do this?

Thus it seems more logical to accept that the immaterial created the material and placed itself within that material in order to then further shape that material in ways which would help it to create through that material [such as working brains]. "First making the basics and then getting into the details."

The only 'real' is that which is experiencing, not that which is being experienced...but that which is experienced can be made to appear real by that which is experiencing it..."Consciousness"...

Zero makes the mathematics work...but if zero [representing nothing] is a fraudulent necessity, then perhaps the interpretation of mathematics is incorrect, and perhaps the reason mathematic works [is correct] is because the zero isn't really representing nothing, so much as it represents something which is not detectable but still exists as something.

Just from that, we can appreciate that Zero (0) cannot represent 'nothing' but can represent 'something that is known to exist, even that it cannot easily be seen."

The Mind = 0

Also note there is the sequence '-1 [0] +1' and the zero is the middle bit - the central point where all other points derive from, which is just like how consciousness is also positioned - no matter where it fixed in space-time.

[Inquirer]

I understand consciousness to being that which is - even at a very basic level - able to perceive itself as existing - as being - as the mechanism enabling self awareness.

Often that equates to activity [movement] which can easily enough be explained as motivated by the need for self preservation [survival].

Other words used which I consider the same are 'spirit' 'essence' and the like.

I understand that consciousness is the only real 'thing' but is not a thing as an object is a thing. It is what defines objects. It is what experiences objects. It is not a thing we have [like a body] but is what we are.

I also think of the planet earth as the form of a conscious entity. I also think that the universe is a Situational Holographic Experienced Simulation that only consciousness can experience as real.

It seems more logical to go with consciousness not being an emergent property of working brains because this implies that the material can create the immaterial, which seems to be unnatural [goes against] how nature creates. Nature creates using what is materially available. Why would it first [or at all] need to create something immaterial to then be enabled do this?

Thus it seems more logical to accept that the immaterial created the material and placed itself within that material in order to then further shape that material in ways which would help it to create through that material [such as working brains]. "First making the basics and then getting into the details."

The only 'real' is that which is experiencing, not that which is being experienced...but that which is experienced can be made to appear real by that which is experiencing it..."Consciousness"...

Zero makes the mathematics work...but if zero [representing nothing] is a fraudulent necessity, then perhaps the interpretation of mathematics is incorrect, and perhaps the reason mathematic works [is correct] is because the zero isn't really representing nothing, so much as it represents something which is not detectable but still exists as something.

Just from that, we can appreciate that Zero (0) cannot represent 'nothing' but can represent 'something that is known to exist, even that it cannot easily be seen."

The Mind = 0

Also note there is the sequence '-1 [0] +1' and the zero is the middle bit - the central point where all other points derive from, which is just like how consciousness is also positioned - no matter where it fixed in space-time.

Defining a vague concept like "consciousness" in terms of other vague concepts like "perceive" and "awareness" and "experiences" is exactly what typifies these discussion, they get nowhere.

Can a transistor with its simple function relating input to output be conscious? how about two? or hundred?

[Clownboat]

Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

For what purpose? for deciding what women I'm attracted to? for deciding which painting to hang in my room? to decide what to wear when I get up in the morning? for describing why the universe exists? what?

No silly, for replacing what we currently use the scientific method for of course.

The scientific method: Consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
What method do you suggest we should use if not this one (when we use this one which is probably not one you use when deciding attraction levels)?

What do you currently use the scientific method for ? For example have you tried to use it to explain things? have your tried to use it explain the scientific method itself? By which I mean have you tried to use science to explain the presence of a universe that is rationally intelligible? have you tried to use science to explain why there are laws of science? that kind of stuff.

You said: "You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason." "The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs"
In response to what you said, I asked if there is a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method.

It sounded to me like you were complaining about it by saying it has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs and you even hinted at having 'faith' in it. You have since clarified that you were not complaining, but you never answered the question about if there is a better method to use compared to the one it sounded like you were complaining about, but weren't.

What you have then done is ask me what I use the scientific method for in place of answering the question posed to you in response to your not complaining about the scientific method.

I don't have much respect for lamenting about a process or mechanism when no alternative is being offered. Comes across as wining and complaining, to me anyway. So, when you criticized the scientific method earlier, was there a different process you were suggesting we use? It's the best process I'm aware of.

Once again, stating a fact is not a complaint or a criticism.

The efficacy of any process or "method" is constrained to the circumstances under which it is applicable, those circumstances inevitably involve assumptions.

In order to argue if method A is "better" than method B then we need some basis for comparing said methods.

Is frying a better method of frying than baking? do you see what I'm getting at here?

Copy/paste to save time and sanity:
"I don't have much respect for lamenting about a process or mechanism when no alternative is being offered. Comes across as wining and complaining, to me anyway. So, when you criticized the scientific method earlier, was there a different process you were suggesting we use? It's the best process I'm aware of."

[William]

Stop thinking that things are nice/ not nice!

Our consciousness switchboard is wired emotively.
It has paths and memory residues of previous gratification and repulses. It selects, clings to, revisits ,avoids. It is objectively discriminatory. This is our own protective survival kit.

Just remember that the possibility of witnessing fundamental reality seems remote for such a worm!

I welcome.any considerations on this matter.

I think we cannot know fundamental reality because our forms are incapable of doing so.

We can assume that consciousness is fundamental to reality just as we can assume it is not.

The nature of form appears to restrict the flow of consciousness, yet there is some kind of recognition which occurs and can be built upon between life forms...

[Inquirer]

Is there a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method?

For what purpose? for deciding what women I'm attracted to? for deciding which painting to hang in my room? to decide what to wear when I get up in the morning? for describing why the universe exists? what?

No silly, for replacing what we currently use the scientific method for of course.

The scientific method: Consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
What method do you suggest we should use if not this one (when we use this one which is probably not one you use when deciding attraction levels)?

What do you currently use the scientific method for ? For example have you tried to use it to explain things? have your tried to use it explain the scientific method itself? By which I mean have you tried to use science to explain the presence of a universe that is rationally intelligible? have you tried to use science to explain why there are laws of science? that kind of stuff.

You said: "You have faith in science "because" of a "track record" no other reason." "The scientific method has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs"
In response to what you said, I asked if there is a method that you would suggest we use over the scientific method.

It sounded to me like you were complaining about it by saying it has limitations and rests on assumptions and beliefs and you even hinted at having 'faith' in it. You have since clarified that you were not complaining, but you never answered the question about if there is a better method to use compared to the one it sounded like you were complaining about, but weren't.

What you have then done is ask me what I use the scientific method for in place of answering the question posed to you in response to your not complaining about the scientific method.

I don't have much respect for lamenting about a process or mechanism when no alternative is being offered. Comes across as wining and complaining, to me anyway. So, when you criticized the scientific method earlier, was there a different process you were suggesting we use? It's the best process I'm aware of.

Once again, stating a fact is not a complaint or a criticism.

The efficacy of any process or "method" is constrained to the circumstances under which it is applicable, those circumstances inevitably involve assumptions.

In order to argue if method A is "better" than method B then we need some basis for comparing said methods.

Is frying a better method of frying than baking? do you see what I'm getting at here?

Copy/paste to save time and sanity:
"I don't have much respect for lamenting about a process or mechanism when no alternative is being offered. Comes across as wining and complaining, to me anyway. So, when you criticized the scientific method earlier, was there a different process you were suggesting we use? It's the best process I'm aware of."

I did not criticize the scientific method, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote me? I do regularly criticize abuse and misapplication of the scientific method, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

[brunumb]

I did not criticize the scientific method, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote me? I do regularly criticize abuse and misapplication of the scientific method, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

[JoeyKnothead]

I did not criticize the scientific method, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote me? I do regularly criticize abuse and misapplication of the scientific method, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

[Inquirer]

I did not criticize the scientific method, perhaps you'll be so kind as to quote me? I do regularly criticize abuse and misapplication of the scientific method, perhaps that's what you're referring to?

Can you suggest any alternatives that you consider to be better than the scientific method for reaching the truth?

You misunderstand, science most emphatically does not help us determine truth. Now, care to try again?

I'll save you some time, science primarily proves its worth as a means of enabling us to predict the future state of material systems. So with that in mind, care to try again?