No Mind --> No Thoughts --> No Issues : Do you agree?

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that to be aware that there are 2 different “waking” consciousness states and then being able to determine which of these states to reside within in any given moment by a determined action is sufficient experiental/experimental proof for the individual that there is something separate from consciousness.The “I am”

Those two states could be thought of as the ego and superego - simply, our "wants" and "oughts". There are also peak experience states. There are dazed states. Emotional and analytical states ...

Well I would call them “in the moment” and “not in the moment” because that it is what the individual experiences them as.

I beg to disagree with your explanation, “wants” and “oughts” reside within the 2 “waking”consciousness states that the “I am” either does or doesn’t exercise control over.

I would not see 'in the moment' and 'not in the moment' as discrete states but poles of a continuum.

Whatever the technicalities, it appears that you are linking the "I am" with the present moment. Being. That would make the "I am" extremely ephemeral and changeable, just as we cannot 'swim the same river twice'.

I am not linking the “I am” with the present moment or the out of the moment, no.The “I am” experiences both the “in the in the moment” and “out of the moment states”.The “l am” toggles constantly between the two.These are the 2 waking consciousness states.The “I am” is neither of these consciousness states.

The “I am” either exercises or does not exercise CONTROL over these 2 consciousness states.The “I am” is not changeable.The consciousness state it experiences is changeable.

The “I am” is separate from the 2 consciousness states.

[Sy Borg]

Those two states could be thought of as the ego and superego - simply, our "wants" and "oughts". There are also peak experience states. There are dazed states. Emotional and analytical states ...

Well I would call them “in the moment” and “not in the moment” because that it is what the individual experiences them as.

I beg to disagree with your explanation, “wants” and “oughts” reside within the 2 “waking”consciousness states that the “I am” either does or doesn’t exercise control over.

I would not see 'in the moment' and 'not in the moment' as discrete states but poles of a continuum.

Whatever the technicalities, it appears that you are linking the "I am" with the present moment. Being. That would make the "I am" extremely ephemeral and changeable, just as we cannot 'swim the same river twice'.

I am not linking the “I am” with the present moment or the out of the moment, no.The “I am” experiences both the “in the in the moment” and “out of the moment states”.The “l am” toggles constantly between the two.These are the 2 waking consciousness states.The “I am” is neither of these consciousness states.

The “I am” either exercises or does not exercise CONTROL over these 2 consciousness states.The “I am” is not changeable.The consciousness state it experiences is changeable.

The “I am” is separate from the 2 consciousness states.

You clearly have a different angle to me. Some questions about your ideas:

What do you think happens to the "I am" when you sleep, and why does it return as usual when you are awake?

Do all humans have an "I am"? Is it the same "I am" in everyone or discrete "I ams"?

Do all organisms have an "I am"? If some don't, which?

Does the "I am" change during the course of one's life? If so, how? If not, why?

Does the "I am" survive death? If so, how does it do this?

[Joshua10]

Well I would call them “in the moment” and “not in the moment” because that it is what the individual experiences them as.

I beg to disagree with your explanation, “wants” and “oughts” reside within the 2 “waking”consciousness states that the “I am” either does or doesn’t exercise control over.

I would not see 'in the moment' and 'not in the moment' as discrete states but poles of a continuum.

Whatever the technicalities, it appears that you are linking the "I am" with the present moment. Being. That would make the "I am" extremely ephemeral and changeable, just as we cannot 'swim the same river twice'.

I am not linking the “I am” with the present moment or the out of the moment, no.The “I am” experiences both the “in the in the moment” and “out of the moment states”.The “l am” toggles constantly between the two.These are the 2 waking consciousness states.The “I am” is neither of these consciousness states.

The “I am” either exercises or does not exercise CONTROL over these 2 consciousness states.The “I am” is not changeable.The consciousness state it experiences is changeable.

The “I am” is separate from the 2 consciousness states.

You clearly have a different angle to me. Some questions about your ideas:

What do you think happens to the "I am" when you sleep, and why does it return as usual when you are awake?

Do all humans have an "I am"? Is it the same "I am" in everyone or discrete "I ams"?

Do all organisms have an "I am"? If some don't, which?

Does the "I am" change during the course of one's life? If so, how? If not, why?

Does the "I am" survive death? If so, how does it do this?

Your questions are clearly deep searching questions.I would suggest that the answers are connected to whether the “I am” has 2 independent parts itself.I would suggest that it has.That is to say that the second part is more tangled up with first part rather than both parts being merged.I would suggest that my previous explanations have untangled the “I am” (with its potential 2 parts) from consciousness,

So coming to your questions:

1.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am” just is and doesn’t sleep.This first part being completely independent of consciousness.The second part of the “I am” I would suggest has direct connections with both the first part of the “I am” and everything that is not the “I am” and therefore does experience sleep.It’s this second part of the “I am” which resumes the controlling of the consciousness states once awake.
2.I would say that the first part of the “I am” is associated with all and the second part of the “I am” unique to each individual.
3./4.would suggest that the “I am” is everywhere.There is nowhere that it isn’t and is therefore connected to all humans and organisms.
5.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am” is unchangeable and the second part of the “I am” changeable.The second part being influenced.
6.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am “ survives death and the second part of the “ I am” does not survive death.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am” survives death because it is completely separate from consciousness.

[Sy Borg]

I would not see 'in the moment' and 'not in the moment' as discrete states but poles of a continuum.

Whatever the technicalities, it appears that you are linking the "I am" with the present moment. Being. That would make the "I am" extremely ephemeral and changeable, just as we cannot 'swim the same river twice'.

I am not linking the “I am” with the present moment or the out of the moment, no.The “I am” experiences both the “in the in the moment” and “out of the moment states”.The “l am” toggles constantly between the two.These are the 2 waking consciousness states.The “I am” is neither of these consciousness states.

The “I am” either exercises or does not exercise CONTROL over these 2 consciousness states.The “I am” is not changeable.The consciousness state it experiences is changeable.

The “I am” is separate from the 2 consciousness states.

You clearly have a different angle to me. Some questions about your ideas:

What do you think happens to the "I am" when you sleep, and why does it return as usual when you are awake?

Do all humans have an "I am"? Is it the same "I am" in everyone or discrete "I ams"?

Do all organisms have an "I am"? If some don't, which?

Does the "I am" change during the course of one's life? If so, how? If not, why?

Does the "I am" survive death? If so, how does it do this?

Your questions are clearly deep searching questions.I would suggest that the answers are connected to whether the “I am” has 2 independent parts itself.I would suggest that it has.That is to say that the second part is more tangled up with first part rather than both parts being merged.I would suggest that my previous explanations have untangled the “I am” (with its potential 2 parts) from consciousness,

So coming to your questions:

1.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am” just is and doesn’t sleep.This first part being completely independent of consciousness.The second part of the “I am” I would suggest has direct connections with both the first part of the “I am” and everything that is not the “I am” and therefore does experience sleep.It’s this second part of the “I am” which resumes the controlling of the consciousness states once awake.
2.I would say that the first part of the “I am” is associated with all and the second part of the “I am” unique to each individual.
3./4.would suggest that the “I am” is everywhere.There is nowhere that it isn’t and is therefore connected to all humans and organisms.
5.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am” is unchangeable and the second part of the “I am” changeable.The second part being influenced.
6.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am “ survives death and the second part of the “ I am” does not survive death.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am” survives death because it is completely separate from consciousness.

Thanks for your reply.

What would you say "I am #1" is most consistent with? Since you used numbers last time, I'll use letters to minimise confusion:

a. pantheism, where the universe is a deity (God, in Christianity)

b. panpsychism, where everything has come measure of consciousness (which can sometimes overlap with IIT)

c. panvitalism, where the whole universe is a living system

d. Gaia, where we are part of a larger life form.

"I am #2" appears to be prosaic consciousness/identity (insofar as consciousness can be thought of as prosaic).

[Joshua10]

I am not linking the “I am” with the present moment or the out of the moment, no.The “I am” experiences both the “in the in the moment” and “out of the moment states”.The “l am” toggles constantly between the two.These are the 2 waking consciousness states.The “I am” is neither of these consciousness states.

The “I am” either exercises or does not exercise CONTROL over these 2 consciousness states.The “I am” is not changeable.The consciousness state it experiences is changeable.

The “I am” is separate from the 2 consciousness states.

You clearly have a different angle to me. Some questions about your ideas:

What do you think happens to the "I am" when you sleep, and why does it return as usual when you are awake?

Do all humans have an "I am"? Is it the same "I am" in everyone or discrete "I ams"?

Do all organisms have an "I am"? If some don't, which?

Does the "I am" change during the course of one's life? If so, how? If not, why?

Does the "I am" survive death? If so, how does it do this?

Your questions are clearly deep searching questions.I would suggest that the answers are connected to whether the “I am” has 2 independent parts itself.I would suggest that it has.That is to say that the second part is more tangled up with first part rather than both parts being merged.I would suggest that my previous explanations have untangled the “I am” (with its potential 2 parts) from consciousness,

So coming to your questions:

1.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am” just is and doesn’t sleep.This first part being completely independent of consciousness.The second part of the “I am” I would suggest has direct connections with both the first part of the “I am” and everything that is not the “I am” and therefore does experience sleep.It’s this second part of the “I am” which resumes the controlling of the consciousness states once awake.
2.I would say that the first part of the “I am” is associated with all and the second part of the “I am” unique to each individual.
3./4.would suggest that the “I am” is everywhere.There is nowhere that it isn’t and is therefore connected to all humans and organisms.
5.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am” is unchangeable and the second part of the “I am” changeable.The second part being influenced.
6.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am “ survives death and the second part of the “ I am” does not survive death.I would suggest that the first part of the “I am” survives death because it is completely separate from consciousness.

Thanks for your reply.

What would you say "I am #1" is most consistent with? Since you used numbers last time, I'll use letters to minimise confusion:

a. pantheism, where the universe is a deity (God, in Christianity)

b. panpsychism, where everything has come measure of consciousness (which can sometimes overlap with IIT)

c. panvitalism, where the whole universe is a living system

d. Gaia, where we are part of a larger life form.

"I am #2" appears to be prosaic consciousness/identity (insofar as consciousness can be thought of as prosaic).

I would suggest that we are extremely complex beings who ,it appears to me anyway, have 3 distinct independent parts to our make up that need to be untangled.I have given my explanations for the untanglement of the 2 part “I am” from consciousness.I am persuaded that the “ I am” has 2 distinct parts which also need to be untangled.I am open to the suggestion that all of your 4 statements apply .

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that “I am” parts 1 and 2 are not consciousness because they are AWARE of both the consciousness types because they experience them in consciousness “toggling”.i.e.The “I am” experiences both the “in the moment” and “out of the moment”, “waking” consciousness states.It’s as though the “I am” can remain STILL in thought or actively ENGAGE with thought.

[Sy Borg]

I would suggest that “I am” parts 1 and 2 are not consciousness because they are AWARE of both the consciousness types because they experience them in consciousness “toggling”.i.e.The “I am” experiences both the “in the moment” and “out of the moment”, “waking” consciousness states.It’s as though the “I am” can remain STILL in thought or actively ENGAGE with thought.

Not sure I get it. Maybe the concept is a bit like an odd thought I had, where I figured that the Sun was not alive, it is life itself, which it imbues to its creations.

[Joshua10]

The ”hard problem” not just for science but also for the individual is understanding consciousness.

I would suggest that the only way to understand consciousness is for the individual to experience the changes in consciousness that take place when the “I am” interacts with it and thought in the “waking” state.The “I am” with its potential 2 parts knows of the “toggling” effect of in the moment/not in the moment if it is AWARE.The challenge for the “I am” is to gain CONTROL over this “toggling” effect.

I would suggest that consciousness is not something that you can study from a far off and come to an understanding of it because consciousness is everywhere and is associated with all matter.The “I am” needs to take ownership of AWARENESS and experience the effects of consciousness.

I would suggest that this is why science will never understand consciousness because it admits that it does stand afar off not recognising the “I am” at all.

In summary,I would suggest that the only way to understand consciousness is by a recognition of the “I am”.There is no other way by which it can be understood.

[Sy Borg]

Maybe you're right, maybe not. I don't feel that "I am" solves the hard problem.

For instance, if you were to create a conscious entity, what is the "recipe"? Machine learning makes sense. After all, consciousness remains primal until experience and cultural conditioning shape the mind (and brain, via plasticity). Maybe there's a certain amount of experience and conditioning needed to create a self-aware consciousness?

It seems a long way off. The current AI robots, one of them touted to be conscious by its now-discredited developer, are clearly just imitations. A dead giveaway is when an AI claims to feel emotions, when a machine has no reason to feel emotions. If a physically capable machine was attacked by a tiger, for instance, it would not need to feel fear, triggering a stress response that simultaneously released cortisol and adrenaline, shuts down digestion, speeds up breathing and blood circulation, narrows focus, and so forth. No, a machine - being able to process information a million times faster than a human brain - would simply calculate the speed and trajectory of the lion and its most dangerous aspects (teeth and claws), and move into an optimal position to either defend itself, or even take down its attacker.

A thought experiment: what would consciousness be like if one experienced zero emotions, not even micro-emotions?

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that the 2 part “I am” is already subjected to “machine like” thoughts right now (inward thoughts).The “I am” needs to ENGAGE with these types of thoughts.ENGAGING affects the consciousness state.As I have previously suggested the “I am” has no need to ENGAGE with “non machine” like thoughts (outward thoughts).I would suggest that outward thoughts are created by the 2 part “I am” interactions.

[Joshua10]

I would suggest that the 2 part “I am” slides backwards and forwards between the “in the moment” and “out of the moment” consciousness states.

I would suggest that one can be “in the moment” and not be AWARE of it.One only becomes AWARE of it when one becomes AWARE of when one is “not in the moment” and then purposefully brings oneself back “into the moment ”.

I would suggest that one ENGAGES with inward thoughts thus taking oneself “out of the moment”

[Sy Borg]

Joshua, isn't that similar to the homunculus argument?

Another frequent objection against theories like CRTT, originally voiced by Wittgenstein and Ryle, is that they merely reproduce the problems they are supposed to solve, since they invariably posit processes—such as following rules or comparing one thing with another—that seem to require the very kind of intelligence that the theory is supposed to explain. Another way of formulating the criticism is to say that computational theories seem committed to the existence in the mind of “homunculi,” or “little men,” to carry out the processes they postulate.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/philos ... /Homunculi

[Joshua10]

Joshua, isn't that similar to the homunculus argument?

Another frequent objection against theories like CRTT, originally voiced by Wittgenstein and Ryle, is that they merely reproduce the problems they are supposed to solve, since they invariably posit processes—such as following rules or comparing one thing with another—that seem to require the very kind of intelligence that the theory is supposed to explain. Another way of formulating the criticism is to say that computational theories seem committed to the existence in the mind of “homunculi,” or “little men,” to carry out the processes they postulate.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/philos ... /Homunculi

I would suggest that as there is a controlling element to consciousness then the controlling element cannot be consciousness.

There is a separate element to consciousness which I would suggest is the “I am”

I would suggest that the controlling elements interaction with thought types which is associated with engagement or non engagement directly affects the consciousness state that the “l am” experiences.

The main suggestion being made here is that the “I am” is therefore not consciousness or thoughts.

[Sy Borg]

It seems to me that you are attributing consciousness to "I am", and everything else is processing. To me, that just shifts the problem back one level. It's like the idea that God made the universe, in which case one may ask, "Who made God?". The answer is always along the lines of, "Nothing did. God was always there". In which case, why not figure that the universe has always been here? Why add the extra layer?

[Pattern-chaser]

I would suggest that as there is a controlling element to consciousness then the controlling element cannot be consciousness.

Why not? If "there is a controlling element to consciousness", i.e. consciousness has the ability to exert control, why can it not simply employ that ability? In your terms, the controlling element is not consciousness itself, but this ability-to-control is a part or attribute of consciousness, no?

There is a separate element to consciousness which I would suggest is the “I am”

So the "I am" is an "element" of consciousness, a part of consciousness...

I would suggest that the controlling elements interaction with thought types which is associated with engagement or non engagement directly affects the consciousness state that the “l am” experiences.

...but the "I am" "experiences" conscious states?

The main suggestion being made here is that the “I am” is therefore not consciousness or thoughts.

Your main suggestion appears to be that the "I am" is part of consciousness, but not part of consciousness; that consciousness is part of the "I am", but also not part of the "I am". Your thoughts do not seem to include a means to see the relationships between the "I am", consciousness, conscious states, and thoughts. How do you see those things as being related/connected?