Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Burning ghost »

RJG -

You're obsessed with physical time yet seem unable to register that when you think something you do so in the moment. That one thought leads to another makes no difference. If you insist we are merely conscious of past events and such then we are not conscious of them in the past, nor can we come to understand what "the past" is without a cognitive map of the world.

When I watch a live TV broadcast there is a time delay. So what? I am still baffled as to why you keep saying the same thing (which is obvious to everyone) and announcing it like it's some abstract fact we are all ignoring. Consciousness is immediate I am not conscious of me being conscious of my consciousness, being conscious of consciousness ...

Like with the "rock". It is only rock until it is put to some other use. The meaning of it changes even though the object remains in the same physical place. The reason milliseconds don't really matter to us in the day to day world is because everything is helpfully mapped, according to born-in configurations. We grow into the world because we are able to relate to it in some way. If we were not able to we wouldn't.

The subjective "flow" of time is not experienced by us anymore than we experience the formation of complete sentences when we are speaking. We have a thought and we express it, often clumsily, through words. We most certainly do not painstakingly pick through our lexicon and consciously apply to a syntactical map in our heads labelled "how to speak properer."

We don't see with our eyes, we see with our brains. I happen to have visual snow. This is something many doctors refused to admit as existing because there was no physical indication of something being wrong with the eye. Now we know it is nothing to do with the mechanisms of the eye, but rather part of the neural visual network. Blind sighted people can navigate around a room full of objects even when they are not consciously aware of them. We most certainly don't need to be consciously aware of the world to move around it (we can see this in other life forms too.)

That we can consciously direct our attention for item to item allows us to explore beyond biological comfortable regions. It allows us to make mistakes and even change implicit behaviours to some degree. An example would be how the brain develops from infancy. We are necessarily explorative as infants and aborb information about the world, then as the brain matures we're able to consciously resist certain impulses.

The most intriguing thing you bring up is what some refer to as Gestalt theory. The "simultaneous". This again ties into the difficulty of time and referring to time as some kind of quanta. Generally, from a subjective point of view, it seems to every individual that the passing of time is somewhat plastic, a minute can feel like an hour, or an hour a minute.

I guess other than asking you "So what?", I can also ask you if you think "reality" is that which is never immediate and that which is immediate is merely illusion? To which, if I guess your reply (which I feel I can do now considering how much I've heard from you in the past), you'd say consciousness is an illusion and reality is unknowable. Which would require you to put more emphasis on what you can never experience as being more real than what you do experience. Obviously this is a rather contrary view, but you're entitled to explore it further as you see fit.

When I look around me I am perhaps unlike many other people to the degree with how I perceive things. This is because I do exactly what you are talking about quite a lot. Ny this I mean when watching TV we all become aborbed and don't really see the TV as TV, meaning whatever we are watching is taken as a "present" event. This happens even though we understand perfectly well that what appears to be happening on the screen is not what is, but merely a representation of another place, and another time (maybe a distant time if we're watching a movie from the 1950's.) I do this everyday when I am sat in a room watching people, or looking at the sky or where ever I may be. I view the world everyday for some moments "as if" it was a TV broadcast. What is quite obvious to me is that the closer the object the more "real" it is physically (meaning as a physical material object of space-time), yet no matter the distance it's meaning may change from moment to moment regardless of its proximity. I can look at the table and think of how it could be used, it becomes several different items in my mind without any physical alteration to its form. The meaning I hold to it is immediate. It is my immediate conscious meaning.
AKA badgerjelly
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by RJG »

Burning ghost, you have said many interesting and different things here, most of which I do not necessarily disagree with. But to respond to some of your notable comments/questions:
Burning ghost wrote:When I watch a live TV broadcast there is a time delay. So what?
The point was to help illustrate the relationship, and underlying meaning, of conscious-time to real-time.

We view live sporting events through the ‘time-delayed’ view of our TV. And likewise, we view reality through the ‘time-delayed’ window of consciousness.
Everything that we are conscious of, has already happened, PRIOR to our consciousness of it.
Burning ghost wrote:I can also ask you if you think "reality" is that which is never immediate…
Although “reality” happens in the immediate, we unfortunately have no view of this ‘immediate’ reality. Consciousness only provides us with a view of the ‘past’.
Burning ghost wrote:...and that which is immediate is merely illusion?
Not so. Consciousness is our “immediate” (aka “NOW”) view; it is the ‘present’ view of ‘past’ events. [...refer back at the TV analogy to help understand this present/past relationship]
Burning ghost wrote:That we can consciously direct our attention for item to item allows us to explore beyond biological comfortable regions. It allows us to make mistakes and even change implicit behaviors to some degree.
Not so. We can't “consciously direct” or “consciously do” anything! Everything that we are conscious of, has already happened PRIOR to our consciousness of it. We can't “do” that which has already been “done”. Nor can we go back in time and change/do that which we just now are conscious of. What is done is done.
Burning ghost wrote:The most intriguing thing you bring up is what some refer to as Gestalt theory. The "simultaneous". This again ties into the difficulty of time and referring to time as some kind of quanta. Generally, from a subjective point of view, it seems to every individual that the passing of time is somewhat plastic, a minute can feel like an hour, or an hour a minute.
Although this is a side issue, yes, it is interesting, and I don’t disagree with what you say here. But to go on and claim that two events actually occur “simultaneously” seems akin to claiming “perfect circles” exist.

Events only seem to occur "simultaneously". But finer ‘resolution’ (zooming in closer) typically exposes the seemingly “simultaneous” events as “before-and-after” events that they truly are, (...and likewise exposes a "perfect circle" into its true “imperfect circle” shape). Two separate events can never be truly simultaneous ...imo.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Burning ghost »

RJG -

What you are saying is "what is done is never done" and/or "nothing is possible".

We cannot consciously do anything? Given that you seem to be obsessed with a Newtonian view of the universe how about introducing some of Einstein's ideas. In this case the faster something is the slower time is for it. If some things are faster then some things are slower. If so then does not some conscious aspect of being operate from such a perspective that the surrounding world is moving more quickly or slowly? Some things temporally are 'closer' and others 'further'. What use is this? If you wish to believe you are just a passenger that is how you wish to believe the operation of your life - or rather your non-life, your non-being. We know enough to know that consciousness, at the very least, creates a narrative about events it's exposed to. Within this grasping at understanding experiences and memories, often very skewed, we play an active part (actively lie, rather than being exposed to some lie.) The very idea of PRIOR makes no sense, you're just denying any point where something happens.

What is more I am conscious and you are saying consciousness is a unit not a unity. If nothing in the universe happens at the same time then you'll have to create a whole new set of theories and predictions for physics. Why is it so inconceivable to say that I "see" and "touch" something at the same time? If anything I think the illusion of sense is in the completely opposite direction. Meaning I think we, out of cognitive habit, breakdown the mode of some item we're conscious of in order to explore it. This exploration differentiates between certain mechanisms of sensibility creating the illusions of separate senses, when in fact they are all 'felt' not merely simultaneously, but rather their unity is broken by the habit of cognitive contemplation and exploration of The World.
AKA badgerjelly
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Chili »

Arguably, the most fundamental aspect of Einstein's special relativity is the "relativity of simultaneity" in which no two events are "simultaneous" for all observers. Saying that two things happen "at precisely the same time" is the first thing to go.

-- Updated October 9th, 2017, 8:00 pm to add the following --
RJG wrote: We view live sporting events through the ‘time-delayed’ view of our TV. And likewise, we view reality through the ‘time-delayed’ window of consciousness.
Everything that we are conscious of, has already happened, PRIOR to our consciousness of it.
How does this apply to volitional actions, in your view? Have I already committed and action before I become aware of doing it?
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by RJG »

Chili wrote:How does this apply to volitional actions, in your view? Have I already committed an action before I become aware of doing it?
Yes. (...by at least 150 milliseconds)

"Volitional actions" only seem to be "volitional", ...but truly are not.
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

RJG,

What about your consciousness of your consciousness, is that also time delayed? I mean when you acquire the knowledge of what your consciousness is, has that knowledge already been acquired for a few milliseconds as well?

Your knowledge or understanding of the consciousness isn't a worldly thing now is it? So how can you be conscious of it? Are you conscious of your consciousness? Your argument seem to suggest that you aren't. Are you talking about something you aren't conscious of? To me, if you answer "yes" to that question, it just means that you are a machine. I don't think I'm a machine. You may view things differently?
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Chili »

RJG wrote:
Chili wrote:How does this apply to volitional actions, in your view? Have I already committed an action before I become aware of doing it?
Yes. (...by at least 150 milliseconds)

"Volitional actions" only seem to be "volitional", ...but truly are not.
Okay, then in this view, there is no objective evidence for consciousness per se, and humans may as well be entirely unconscious machines, as layed out by physics.
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by RJG »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:What about your consciousness of your consciousness, is that also time delayed?
Bruno, it is NOT logically possible for our consciousness to be conscious of itself.

We (our consciousness) can’t be in TWO places at ONE time; we can’t be both the ‘subject’ and ‘object’ simultaneously. Consciousness can never be conscious of consciousness. A knife can cut many things, but never itself. A hammer can hit many things, but never itself.

Although, an interesting side note -- those ‘aha’ moments that we occasionally experience, seem (to me) to be an ‘indicator’ (an experiential effect) of the recognition process (i.e. "consciousness").
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:I mean when you acquire the knowledge of what your consciousness is, has that knowledge already been acquired for a few milliseconds as well?
Yes. The ‘thought’ must exist BEFORE I can be consciously aware of it.

If I am conscious of a thought (that contains some knowledge of X), then that thought was unconsciously generated (via bodily reaction) PRIOR to my conscious awareness of said thought.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Your knowledge or understanding of the consciousness isn't a worldly thing now is it? So how can you be conscious of it?
Sorry I don’t follow. My thoughts, and the knowledge contained in my thoughts, are only (a bodily reaction) in my ‘head’, …not the “world’s”!
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Are you conscious of your consciousness?
No, that is impossible! --- But I am conscious of the ‘thoughts’ of/about consciousness.
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Your argument seem to suggest that you aren't. Are you talking about something you aren't conscious of? To me, if you answer "yes" to that question, it just means that you are a machine. I don't think I'm a machine. You may view things differently?
Unfortunately, we are no different than any other entity floating around in this universe. We all ‘experience’ (bodily reactions) and auto-react accordingly. That’s it.

Many of us are psychologically unable to relinquish our 'autonomous-cy' in favor of an opposing logical truth. We seemingly automatically discard that which impedes that which we are truly seeking.

Chili wrote:Okay, then in this view, there is no objective evidence for consciousness per se, and humans may as well be entirely unconscious machines, as layed out by physics.
Okay, I think I see what you are saying. Yes, "we might as well" be unconscious auto-reacting machines, as there is no 'magical-ness' to consciousness.
Last edited by RJG on October 10th, 2017, 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Atreyu »

Empiricist-Bruno wrote:RJG,

What about your consciousness of your consciousness, is that also time delayed? I mean when you acquire the knowledge of what your consciousness is, has that knowledge already been acquired for a few milliseconds as well?

Your knowledge or understanding of the consciousness isn't a worldly thing now is it? So how can you be conscious of it? Are you conscious of your consciousness? Your argument seem to suggest that you aren't. Are you talking about something you aren't conscious of? To me, if you answer "yes" to that question, it just means that you are a machine. I don't think I'm a machine. You may view things differently?
Actually, RJG is correct, and we really are machines. We don't like to think of ourselves as machines, but "technically" (i.e. actually) that's exactly what we are.

One of the few practical differences between ourselves and an ordinary machine like a car or a computer, is that we are alive, while those other machines are not. And we have certain possibilities which ordinary machines don't have, for example, we can become more conscious, while an ordinary machine cannot. Otherwise, there is no difference, in spite of what we might like to believe about ourselves.
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Chili »

Chili wrote:Okay, then in this view, there is no objective evidence for consciousness per se, and humans may as well be entirely unconscious machines, as layed out by physics.
Okay, I think I see what you are saying. Yes, "we might as well" be unconscious auto-reacting machines, as there is no 'magical-ness' to consciousness.[/quote]

How to even say it exists (in the other guy) and claim that you are speaking as a scientist?
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by RJG »

Chili wrote:Okay, then in this view, there is no objective evidence for consciousness per se, and humans may as well be entirely unconscious machines, as layed out by physics.
Agreed. Consciousness is 'subjective' to the individual/entity.
Chili
Posts: 392
Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Chili »

Atreyu wrote: Actually, RJG is correct, and we really are machines. We don't like to think of ourselves as machines, but "technically" (i.e. actually) that's exactly what we are.

One of the few practical differences between ourselves and an ordinary machine like a car or a computer, is that we are alive, while those other machines are not. And we have certain possibilities which ordinary machines don't have, for example, we can become more conscious, while an ordinary machine cannot. Otherwise, there is no difference, in spite of what we might like to believe about ourselves.
Interesting. Now, "possibilities" exist in the context of agency, which doesn't really exist for machines - and doesn't really exist for me if I am a machine. Each piece moves when moved, and for an observer, the only seeming ability or possibility lies in that observer not being able to predict what this machine will do.

-- Updated October 10th, 2017, 6:54 pm to add the following --
RJG wrote:
Chili wrote:Okay, then in this view, there is no objective evidence for consciousness per se, and humans may as well be entirely unconscious machines, as layed out by physics.
Agreed. Consciousness is 'subjective' to the individual/entity.
Then via "problem of other minds" I have only my own subjective sensations of the next guy's consciousness to whisper in my ear that he is even conscious, since to my rational scientific mind, he is a machine, and is no more or less likely to be conscious than a rock.
User avatar
Empiricist-Bruno
Moderator
Posts: 582
Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Empiricist-Bruno »

I think we now need to ask Papus79 if his opening post was about machine consciousness or human consciousness.

Had I known we were talking about machine consciousness, or trying to find out an incisive definition for machine consciousness, I would not have joined in this thread, out of self respect.
Watch out for the hidden paradoxes around you!
User avatar
RJG
Posts: 2767
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by RJG »

Chili wrote:Then via "problem of other minds" I have only my own subjective sensations of the next guy's consciousness to whisper in my ear that he is even conscious, since to my rational scientific mind, he is a machine, and is no more or less likely to be conscious than a rock.
BINGO.

If we wish to be totally and truly honest, then we have to admit that we can’t really know if the next guy is likewise conscious. We can only hope, and pray, and assume that 'he' is like 'me'. We certainly can’t know with any certainty.

Many like to discount the possibility of solipsism because of it’s ‘ugliness’. But when did 'ugliness' become a requisite for truthfulness? Truths can be ugly, right? ...right? I know we all want to believe in pretty, feel-good truths, ...but what if they're ugly as hell? ...should we just close our eyes and pretend they're not true?
Empiricist-Bruno wrote:I think we now need to ask Papus79 if his opening post was about machine consciousness or human consciousness.
What’s the difference? Aren’t humans biological "machines"?

And why do we believe that we are 'more special' than anything else in this universe? Is it our arrogant ego desiring to be god-like?
Togo1
Posts: 541
Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am

Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?

Post by Togo1 »

RJG wrote:
Chili wrote:How does this apply to volitional actions, in your view? Have I already committed an action before I become aware of doing it?
Yes. (...by at least 150 milliseconds)

"Volitional actions" only seem to be "volitional", ...but truly are not.
150 milliseconds is old data from the 1970s. With modern equipment, Soon, Brass, Heinze, and Haynes (2008) pushed that figure out to 7 seconds (sic). Eysenck claims to have pushed it out even futher.

It's worth thinking about the implications of that. 7 seconds is a pretty big gap.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021