Space Cadet Will Hutton is sadly misinformed.

[AndySir]

Yes, and here's the problem. As I understand it I should be able to turn my eyes inward, as it were, and see something which I recognise at consciousness.

No, that's not what you are supposed to be doing. I'm saying you should be able to know that you are aware of something, and that you can call all of this consciousness.

Okay, consciousness is defined as the knowledge that you are aware of something.

But when I try to examine my thoughts I am aware of half a dozen voices worrying about my daughter (suspiciously quiet), the state of the house, formulating arguments and counter arguments etc. etc. I can't tell you whether these thoughts are consecutive or concurrent, I can't tell you whether there's a dominant voice, or I am a gestalt of many smaller voices and I can't tell you if there's a guiding voice, or soul at the back of it. I am not aware of my heart beating. I am aware from my memory that sometimes there are no voices (I am alseep or unconscious) or they are not recorded.

You're trying too hard. All I'm asking you to do is give a name to everything you've described above. I want you to call it "consciousness". I don't understand why anyone would find this difficult.

Okay, consciousness is both simultaneous and concurrent thought processes, which are both separate, combined have a guiding process and do not have a guiding process. You find that easy?

If you can delinate its limits in terms of other things why are we not using that as a definition of consciousness?

It's limits are everything you've ever experienced.

Okay, consciousness is everything I've ever experienced. Oh dear, I've lost a LOT of my consciousness. Is my memory part of my consciousness or does it just store it?

"Consciousness" is synonymous with "phenomena." You know what "phenomena" means. So now you know what "consciousness" means.

Got a problem with that?

Okay, consciousness is the universe (reality) as I experience it.

Now I have half a dozen definitions of consciousness just in one post! You've taken some time to get to the last one though, so I'll assume that's our new definition of consciousness (or the one you've been using all along if you want).

But hold on, the universe as I experience it seems exactly the same as my definition of awareness of self, surroundings and thought processes which you have already rejected as inadequate or incomplete. Can I ask this time "What is missing?" without being told that asking what is missing is like asking what would make a bunch of bananas an impending sense of doom?

[2 As and a B]

Deleted

[UndercoverElephant]

Yes, and here's the problem. As I understand it I should be able to turn my eyes inward, as it were, and see something which I recognise at consciousness.

No, that's not what you are supposed to be doing. I'm saying you should be able to know that you are aware of something, and that you can call all of this consciousness.

Okay, consciousness is defined as the knowledge that you are aware of something.

Not quite. Where did you get "the knowledge that" from? Consciousness is not knowledge of something.

But when I try to examine my thoughts I am aware of half a dozen voices worrying about my daughter (suspiciously quiet), the state of the house, formulating arguments and counter arguments etc. etc. I can't tell you whether these thoughts are consecutive or concurrent, I can't tell you whether there's a dominant voice, or I am a gestalt of many smaller voices and I can't tell you if there's a guiding voice, or soul at the back of it. I am not aware of my heart beating. I am aware from my memory that sometimes there are no voices (I am alseep or unconscious) or they are not recorded.

You're trying too hard. All I'm asking you to do is give a name to everything you've described above. I want you to call it "consciousness". I don't understand why anyone would find this difficult.

Okay, consciousness is both simultaneous and concurrent thought processes, which are both separate, combined have a guiding process and do not have a guiding process. You find that easy?

Do I find it easy to think of everything I experience as "consciousness"? Yes. Couldn't be easier. Can't imagine how you could possibly be finding it difficult.

If you can delinate its limits in terms of other things why are we not using that as a definition of consciousness?

It's limits are everything you've ever experienced.

Okay, consciousness is everything I've ever experienced. Oh dear, I've lost a LOT of my consciousness. Is my memory part of my consciousness or does it just store it?

You are desperately trying to make something very easy appear to be very difficult. Why are you doing that, Andy? Could it be because it is leading towards a conclusion you don't like the look of?

"Consciousness" is synonymous with "phenomena." You know what "phenomena" means. So now you know what "consciousness" means.

Got a problem with that?

Okay, consciousness is the universe (reality) as I experience it.

Now I have half a dozen definitions of consciousness just in one post!

No you don't, Andy.

Shall we make it simpler, so you can't keep trying to invent problems which don't exist?

Remember what "phenonomena" means?

"Consciousness" means the same thing.

Got a problem with that?

ETA: A reminder: other people are reading this. If you're being obtuse and behaving like a bad loser, people will notice. Why are you pretending to be stupid?

Remember also what I originally said about the behaviour of followers of Dawkins. Are you actually making an effort to understand me? Or are you being as difficult as possible, creating problems which don't exist and trying to take the mickey even though you are slowly being dragged towards the truth, step by painful step. ?

[AndySir]

I love it when you call me stupid when I don't agree with you. It gives me a little tingle, you know?

Okay I'm not being deliberately obtuse, I don't see the thing that you're pointing at. Nor am I being difficult because I don't like where this is leading - I haven't the faintest clue where this is leading. You do however like to stop and check that I agree at every stage and there was a little left at the traffic lights in between the last two posts.

Okay phenomena is defined as "reality as I experience it". I understand that as equivalent to perception - the information from my senses interpreted by my brain. I'm guessing this is not going to be correct, but I don't want to guess what you mean for fear of being accused of setting up more straw men.

This interpretation of phenomena does not appear to be sufficient for consciousness, but why waste time on that when I'm pretty sure I'm going to be told I have been deliberately obtuse again.

Here's another few random thoughts I had, not necessarily related to the definition we're still trying to apply:

I'm not aware of everything I experience, although I know the information is stored because I can become aware of it later (subconscious). Are phenomena everything that I experience or everything that I am aware that I experience?

My baby girl is 11 months old and, I'm told, not self-aware (doesn't recognise herself in the mirror, etc.) Is being self-aware a necessary condition of consciousness? Is she conscious? If not, when does consciousness start?

[EDIT] Bedtime. I'll listen to some more insults in the morning (that's ad hominem, right?). Oh, and I think you're fooling yourself if you think anyone else is actually reading this, but I'm pretty comfortable in what I'm saying and I feel I have been very patient in following the path you want me to take.

The thought does occur though that if something is simple to you but I claim it is complicated there is at least one other possibility other than I am sitting here with my fingers in my ears going "La la la".

[Ludwig]

I'm not aware of everything I experience, although I know the information is stored because I can become aware of it later (subconscious). Are phenomena everything that I experience or everything that I am aware that I experience?

In my experience, the simple division between subconscious and conscious is rather artificial. There's a sliding scale of consciousness. E.g. when driving, you take in things that are happening around you, but typically don't focus on all of it. For example, if somebody asked you, "What colour was that car that just turned off to the left?", you could probably give a definite answer. But if no one asked you the question, you probably wouldn't have paid any attention to the colour, and wouldn't have been able to give an answer by the time you got to your destination.

Either way, your perception of the colour occurred, and it was a phenomenon.

(As an aside: it's possible to experience a state of "hyper-consciousness", where phenomena actually seem more real than in the normal waking state. Things can get a bit weird when you do this :\ )

My baby girl is 11 months old and, I'm told, not self-aware (doesn't recognise herself in the mirror, etc.) Is being self-aware a necessary condition of consciousness? Is she conscious? If not, when does consciousness start?

As I said, it's a sliding scale. Self-awareness, as I understand the concept, is not a necessary condition of consciousness.

[EDIT] Bedtime. I'll listen to some more insults in the morning (that's ad hominem, right?).

But you were inviting insults with your arrogant, sarcastic tone. You give the impression of having a very high opinion of your own intellect, you aren't bashful about expressing this opinion, and therefore you can't complain if people challenge you to consider that your statements are actually rather glib.

Oh, and I think you're fooling yourself if you think anyone else is actually reading this,

I am

but I'm pretty comfortable in what I'm saying and I feel I have been very patient in following the path you want me to take.

The thought does occur though that if something is simple to you but I claim it is complicated there is at least one other possibility other than I am sitting here with my fingers in my ears going "La la la".

UE was paying you the compliment that if you really made an effort to follow his reasoning, you'd understand it. As it happens, it looks like he was wrong :\

[AndySir]

Oh good. A sliding scale of consciousness. So it's a measurement now. Would you care to suggest a reference point so that we might calibrate this scale?

[EDIT] Do you agree with Ludwig's concept of phenomena? That is includes everything we perceive (receive sensory input for and process/store) rather than everything we are aware we perceive?

[UndercoverElephant]

[EDIT] Do you agree with Ludwig's concept of phenomena?

Yes.

Phenomena are the world as we percieve it, to be contrasted with noumena, which are the world as it is in itself. In what category should we put stuff we percieve but aren't really aware of? Not noumena, obviously.

[AndySir]

[EDIT] Do you agree with Ludwig's concept of phenomena?

Yes.

Phenomena are the world as we percieve it, to be contrasted with noumena, which are the world as it is in itself. In what category should we put stuff we percieve but aren't really aware of? Not noumena, obviously.

Oh good. Therefore I am only aware of a subset of phenomena. Therefore I am aware only of a subset of my consciousness (since consciousness==phenomena). Therefore I am unaware of (some/ most of) my own consciousness and unable to associate any words with it.

Therefore consciousness cannot be defined subjectively.

That looks pretty solid but I am, as ever, open to correction.

[Ludwig]

Oh good. A sliding scale of consciousness. So it's a measurement now. Would you care to suggest a reference point so that we might calibrate this scale?

The reason you are not understanding UE's arguments is that you're predisposed to reject them. You've just done the same with me - rather than actually try to understand, by an effort of imagination, what I said, you immediately ridicule me and demand "proof". You treat my statements as some kind of assault on your position, when all I'm doing is saying what I think.

[AndySir]

Oh good. A sliding scale of consciousness. So it's a measurement now. Would you care to suggest a reference point so that we might calibrate this scale?

The reason you are not understanding UE's arguments is that you're predisposed to reject them. You've just done the same with me - rather than actually try to understand, by an effort of imagination, what I said, you immediately ridicule me and demand "proof". You treat my statements as some kind of assault on your position, when all I'm doing is saying what I think.

No, I'm asking for clarification of your position. Here is my question in as neutral terms as possible: Do you consider consciousness to be a measure of something? If you do, what kind of scale are you using? It is absolute, with a zero consciousness on one end or is it relative?

These are not rejections of your position. These are questions.

[EDIT] Was just listening to Mitch Hedberg and this joke came along:
"My friend said 'Life is really trippy isn't it?', and I said 'Maybe it's just our perception of life that is, in fact, trippy.' and then I thought 'Shit. I should've just said "Yeah."'"

[UndercoverElephant]

[EDIT] Do you agree with Ludwig's concept of phenomena?

Yes.

Phenomena are the world as we percieve it, to be contrasted with noumena, which are the world as it is in itself. In what category should we put stuff we percieve but aren't really aware of? Not noumena, obviously.

Oh good. Therefore I am only aware of a subset of phenomena. Therefore I am aware only of a subset of my consciousness (since consciousness==phenomena). Therefore I am unaware of (some/ most of) my own consciousness and unable to associate any words with it.

Therefore consciousness cannot be defined subjectively.

That looks pretty solid but I am, as ever, open to correction.

If consciousness cannot be subjectively then it cannot be defined at all. Your position either boils down to "consciousness does not exist", or it is a load of incoherent drivel. If you're happy to accept this, this debate is over.

I think you know perfectly well what Ludwig and myself mean when we say "consciousness", and that you also believe such a thing really does exist. Much of what you have posted in this thread indicates this to be the case.

In a nutshell, therefore, your position is this: Consciousness exists and consciousness doesn't exist.

Or maybe: Consciousness is brain activity and consciousness is not brain activity.

If you don't agree with this summary then please offer us your own.

[UndercoverElephant]

Oh good. A sliding scale of consciousness. So it's a measurement now. Would you care to suggest a reference point so that we might calibrate this scale?

The reason you are not understanding UE's arguments is that you're predisposed to reject them. You've just done the same with me - rather than actually try to understand, by an effort of imagination, what I said, you immediately ridicule me and demand "proof". You treat my statements as some kind of assault on your position, when all I'm doing is saying what I think.

Yep. The procedure is to attempt to find ways to attack what is being said instead of attempting to understand it. That's why he ends up crying "argument from authority" when no such fallacy has taken place. This is also exactly the strategy used by creationists when debating about evolution. No attempt is made to actually understand evolution, because that is not the point in the exercise. The sole point in the exercise is to find a way to attack or undermine evolution, because the creationist already "knows" that evolution isn't true. It instead of trying to attack it any way possible they tried to understand it then they would be forced to accept that it is true (since it is almost impossible to reject evolution if you understand it.)

This seems to me to be a problem with all foundationalist belief systems. If your belief system has only one foundation, whether it scientistic materialism, biblical literalism or evangelical marxism, then it becomes almost impossible to think rationally when the foundation itself is challenged. The foundationalist is quite literally incapable of thinking outside of the box they've created for themself.

[AndySir]

If consciousness cannot be subjectively then it cannot be defined at all. Your position either boils down to "consciousness does not exist", or it is a load of incoherent drivel. If you're happy to accept this, this debate is over.

No. Firstly the theory "consciousness cannot be defined objectively" has low probability, and could potentially be falsified (can you guess who I've been reading?). Secondly I have been criticising your position rather than adopting one of my own since you berated me for talking total crap about a page and a half ago so it seems to make little sense to shift focus onto my position.

I think you know perfectly well what Ludwig and myself mean when we say "consciousness", and that you also believe such a thing really does exist. Much of what you have posted in this thread indicates this to be the case.

Let me do my summary of what appears to be your position then:

1. Everyone can intuitively recognise something to which they can associate the word 'consciousness'.
2. The thing they recognise is the same thing.
3. Andy says he's not sure what it is he's supposed to be recognising or that it would be the same thing.

Therefore

4. Andy is stupid/brainwashed/lying/unconscious

Of course, the concept of challenging the assumption that consciousness is not intuitively recognisable, or that everybody with identify the same thing is not considered while simultaneously I am accused of being unable to challenge my founding assumptions.

In a nutshell, therefore, your position is this: Consciousness exists and consciousness doesn't exist.

Or maybe: Consciousness is brain activity and consciousness is not brain activity.

If you don't agree with this summary then please offer us your own.

Again this is your chain of logic, which I have been sitting patiently through without doing anything more than criticising and asking questions. However if you wish to turn the tables I might begin by suggesting that consciousness is a subset of activity within the body, since I'm not quite ready to limit myself to the brain yet.

As for the ill tempered claim in your second post that I am attempting to attack and undermine your theory, I plead guilty. If you theory cannot withstand my attacks - and it appears you have conceded that by pivoting to an attack on me and my theories instead of responding to my criticism of yours - then it is of no value.

[UndercoverElephant]

If consciousness cannot be subjectively then it cannot be defined at all. Your position either boils down to "consciousness does not exist", or it is a load of incoherent drivel. If you're happy to accept this, this debate is over.

No. Firstly the theory "consciousness cannot be defined objectively" has low probability, and could potentially be falsified (can you guess who I've been reading?).

From the level of nonsense involved in the above claim, I'd say Dennett.

You can define the word "consciousness" to mean whatever you damned well like. Can this "theory" be falsified? Of course it can. Here:

Consciousness is a German sausage made from swan's feet.

I've falsified it!!!

If the word "consciousness" does not refer to the thing which could only be defined with a private ostensive definition, then there is no point in defining it at all. You certainly can't define it as "brain activity" and then continue using the word to mean subjective experiences, and that is precisely what you are trying to do.

I think you know perfectly well what Ludwig and myself mean when we say "consciousness", and that you also believe such a thing really does exist. Much of what you have posted in this thread indicates this to be the case.

Let me do my summary of what appears to be your position then:

1. Everyone can intuitively recognise something to which they can associate the word 'consciousness'.

Yes. They can associate with whatever word they like. Some call it "qualia", partly to avoid the sort of nonsense that has been going on in this thread. Most people just use "consciousness".

2. The thing they recognise is the same thing.

Not exactly the same, but belonging to the same category of thing. I presume bats and squid are conscious, but I doubt their experiences of the world are much like mine. But their experiences are still more like my experiences than either is to the total lack of experiences being had by my computer, and more like my experiences than any sort of physical object or process we are familiar with.

3. Andy says he's not sure what it is he's supposed to be recognising or that it would be the same thing.

But Andy has already accepted that he is aware of a world, and of his own thoughts and emotions, etc... That is all you are being asked to recognise, but you seem to be having an awful lot of difficulty doing so. What is the problem? When you try to answer this question you throw up a whole of spurious non-problems. I've told you it is everything you've ever been aware of - everything you've ever experienced. And you object by saying "but I experience moving objects, and pain, and sometimes I'm only half-aware of something in my peripheral vision...which one of these is supposed to be my consciousness?"

Who do you think you are kidding, Andy?

In a nutshell, therefore, your position is this: Consciousness exists and consciousness doesn't exist.

Or maybe: Consciousness is brain activity and consciousness is not brain activity.

If you don't agree with this summary then please offer us your own.

Again this is your chain of logic, which I have been sitting patiently through without doing anything more than criticising and asking questions. However if you wish to turn the tables I might begin by suggesting that consciousness is a subset of activity within the body, since I'm not quite ready to limit myself to the brain yet.

READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY, AND THINK ABOUT IT.

Fine. So you are defining the word "consciousness" to mean some sort of physical activity in a body. I'm not interested in that, and neither is anybody else. When people ask "how does consciousness arise from brains?" do you think they intend to mean "how does a subset of activity within the body arise from the brain?" When they ask "how/when did consciousness evolve?" do you think they intend to mean "how/when did a subset of activity withing the body evolve?"

No, Andy, they do not. If these questions make sense at all, they are not particularly interesting. How did some sort of bodily activity evolve? Well, pretty much like any other sort of bodily activity evolved.

Can't you see how blatantly stupid this is? No little alarm bells going off yet?

As for the ill tempered claim in your second post that I am attempting to attack and undermine your theory, I plead guilty. If you theory cannot withstand my attacks - and it appears you have conceded that by pivoting to an attack on me and my theories instead of responding to my criticism of yours - then it is of no value.

You do not seem to realise that before you can debunk or attack something effectively, first you need to understand it. But you are unable to understand it because you are far too busy trying to find ways to attack it. I repeat: this is precisely what creationists do and why they never end up understanding evolution regardless of the fact that they spend a lot of time talking about it. They don't understand it because they don't want to.

[AndySir]

You can define the word "consciousness" to mean whatever you damned well like. Can this "theory" be falsified? Of course it can. Here:

Consciousness is a German sausage made from swan's feet.

I've falsified it!!!

Okay. I was assuming that there was a real thing called consciousness, the objective description of which would correlate with observation. It was attempt at Popper, by the way, but clearly not a very good one.

If the word "consciousness" does not refer to the thing which could only be defined with a private ostensive definition, then there is no point in defining it at all.

You said that before, but when I rejected the idea of a POD (or a FOG) as meaningless you seemed to try to define consciousness anyway (as equivalent to phenomena). I see we have now abandoned that. I repeat my response to the POD/FOG claim - it carries no meaning and any definition which relies on it carries no meaning. We've done this argument, though and I have no desire to go through it again.

I've told you it is everything you've ever been aware of - everything you've ever experienced. And you object by saying "but I experience moving objects, and pain, and sometimes I'm only half-aware of something in my peripheral vision...which one of these is supposed to be my consciousness?"

Who do you think you are kidding, Andy?

You did tell me it was everything I was ever aware of and I asked whether I had lost part of my consciousness to my memory. You called me stupid. Again. You told me in the next post that consciousness was everything I'd ever perceived, regardless of whether or not I was aware of it but I see that has been abandoned. Presumably as it clearly contradicted the idea of an intuitive or a subjective understanding of consciousness. You have also told me there is no point defining consciousness in any other terms apart from this POD several times, so why were you now attempting to do so? Ah, I recall, the FOG could only be defined if we first defined consciousness so I could associate the word with the same thing. Now THAT should be ringing an alarm bell or two.

My suggestion, if you remember, was that consciousness was a state of awareness or sentience. You rejected that as insufficient.

I am diligently following your line of reason to the best of my ability. If you believe the only possibility for my not following and agreeing with you is fraud, quit.

READ THE FOLLOWING CAREFULLY, AND THINK ABOUT IT.

Fine. So you are defining the word "consciousness" to mean some sort of physical activity in a body. I'm not interested in that, and neither is anybody else.

A bold claim. There seem to be vast swathes of people apparently devoted to increasing our knowledge of physical activity in the body, supposedly out of interest. Many of them also have degrees. Many of them are scientists. Of course, they could all be completely nonplussed by their advances.

Of course I reject the idea of basing anything on an intuitive understanding of consciousness, even if I thought I possessed such a thing, since I know intuitive understandings are incorrect more often that not. Flat Earth, Sun twirling round us, etc.

Well, we've come full circle again, and since with each passing more and more of your posts are simply bile directed against me I think it is finally time to lay this to bed. I shall allow you the last word if you would care for it.