Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
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.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
The point was to help illustrate the relationship, and underlying meaning, of conscious-time to real-time.Burning ghost wrote:When I watch a live TV broadcast there is a time delay. So what?
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.
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:I can also ask you if you think "reality" is that which is never immediate…
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:...and that which is immediate is merely illusion?
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: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.
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.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.
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.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
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.
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
-- Updated October 9th, 2017, 8:00 pm to add the following --
How does this apply to volitional actions, in your view? Have I already committed and action before I become aware of doing it?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.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
Yes. (...by at least 150 milliseconds)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?
"Volitional actions" only seem to be "volitional", ...but truly are not.
- Empiricist-Bruno
- Moderator
- Posts: 585
- Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
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?
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
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.RJG wrote:Yes. (...by at least 150 milliseconds)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?
"Volitional actions" only seem to be "volitional", ...but truly are not.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
Bruno, it is NOT logically possible for our consciousness to be conscious of itself.Empiricist-Bruno wrote:What about your consciousness of your consciousness, is that also time delayed?
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").
Yes. The ‘thought’ must exist BEFORE I can be consciously aware of it.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?
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.
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:Your knowledge or understanding of the consciousness isn't a worldly thing now is it? So how can you be conscious of it?
No, that is impossible! --- But I am conscious of the ‘thoughts’ of/about consciousness.Empiricist-Bruno wrote:Are you conscious of your consciousness?
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.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?
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.
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.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.
- 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?
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.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?
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.
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
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]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.
How to even say it exists (in the other guy) and claim that you are speaking as a scientist?
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
Agreed. Consciousness is 'subjective' to the individual/entity.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.
-
- Posts: 392
- Joined: September 29th, 2017, 4:59 pm
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
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.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.
-- Updated October 10th, 2017, 6:54 pm to add the following --
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.RJG wrote:Agreed. Consciousness is 'subjective' to the individual/entity.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.
- Empiricist-Bruno
- Moderator
- Posts: 585
- Joined: July 15th, 2014, 1:52 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Berkeley
- Location: Toronto
- Contact:
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for 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.
- RJG
- Posts: 2767
- Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
BINGO.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.
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?
What’s the difference? Aren’t humans biological "machines"?Empiricist-Bruno wrote:I think we now need to ask Papus79 if his opening post was about machine consciousness or human consciousness.
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?
-
- Posts: 541
- Joined: September 23rd, 2015, 9:52 am
Re: Could this be an incisive definition for consciousness?
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.RJG wrote:Yes. (...by at least 150 milliseconds)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?
"Volitional actions" only seem to be "volitional", ...but truly are not.
It's worth thinking about the implications of that. 7 seconds is a pretty big gap.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023