what is consciousness

[Miserabilia]

I'm not sure if enough people here are interested enough in this. I'm hoping for some people to post here if they can make sense of this jumble of text.


More precisesly, what is the nature of consciousness?

(*PHENONAMAL CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. When I say consciousness, I mean phenonmal consciousness, not our ability to know that we exist!!! Important! *)

----------------------------------------------

1; consciousness truly exist, or even as matter or energy, in the form of e.g a spirit.

If you beleive this, you beleive our consciousness physicaly exists as a body of matter or energy. This is a popular beleif amongst people who beleive in ghosts and other paranormal activity.

--

2; consciousness is a mere illusion.

If you beleive this, you beleive consciousness does not exist. It is a trick of the brain. Perception is a lie and an illusion. People who beleive this are often materialist.

--

3; Consicousness truly exists, but is not measurable in matter or energy.

If you beleive this, you beleive there is a thing in our world that is our consciousness, however it does not simply exist in matter or energy and is not detectable.
People who beleive this often beleive our consciousness moves on after death to an afterlife, experiencing something such as a heaven or a hell.
Other people who beleive this beleive our consciousness is recycled to another organism, as reincarnation.

--

4; Consciousness exists outside of our known world, and is seperate from it. In our universe, a thing as phenonamal consciousness does not truly exist.

If you beleive this,
you beleive that consciousness does not actualy exist in any manner in our world. It has no interactive connection between the real world and it;
our consciousness is a seperate viewing window of the "real" world;
it can only read the real world like a book, but it can not influence it.
People who beleive this often beleive that everything is conscious; however only we can think about it, even though we have no conformation of it.

--

---------------------------------------------

My answer is 4.
I beleive that the only way to explain my own experience of senses is that consciousness must exist; however, the fact that I think this and type this says nothing.
I could have no consciousness at all and still be typing this. The only way to explain the transition from matter and energy as a signal in the brain, to an actual perception, like the way the colour blue looks like, is to say it's either an illusion of the brain, or that it does exist.
Since there's no way of us to meausire this, I choose 4 due to my own personal preference. 2 is equaly valid.

Consciousness goes one way only.
It can only read the world, and not send anything back.
This we can demonstrate, by trying to explain to each other what the colour "blue" looks like, without using examples from the world.

This inability to explain can again be either put down to explanation 2 and 4 equaly.

----

Please post here smart insightful people.

[Living For Love]

I'd choose number three, but I wouldn't call it consciousness, I'd call it "soul" instead. I believe we're made of a physical component (our body) and an immaterial component (our soul/spirit).

[Typhlosion]

I'm going with no. 2, opposing consciousness as a separate entity from our own mind's processing.

Could you explain better what is option 4?

[Horatio Nelson]

I choose 3, that is what I believe.

I'd choose number three, but I wouldn't call it consciousness, I'd call it "soul" instead. I believe we're made of a physical component (our body) and an immaterial component (our soul/spirit).

Also this.

[Bleid]

I don't have a justifiable answer. However, if I was to put my money on any of them, it'd be #2. I believe that we could potentially explain consciousness through a concrete understanding of the brain alone. I personally don't see anything too complicated that it evades a physical explanation.

[Miserabilia]

I don't have a justifiable answer. However, if I was to put my money on any of them, it'd be #2. I believe that we could potentially explain consciousness through a concrete understanding of the brain alone. I personally don't see anything too complicated that it evades a physical explanation.

I'm going with no. 2, opposing consciousness as a separate entity from our own mind's processing.

Could you explain better what is option 4?

I'll reply to these both at once;
it's essentialy the same problem.

Option 2 states a materialistic worldview. Our brain exists in matter and energy, which causes a process to happen which causes me to watch the sky and perceive it's blueness.

However, I actualy *see* blue. I see blue, outside of the process in my brain; I don't see the process in my brain. Where in my brain is the mechanism to translate the signal into an actual pretty image of a blue sky?
If we study the brain, we'll not only find that it's not there, but also that it would be competely pointless.

We wouldn't need such a part of the brain, because we can easily experience the blue sky and do anything knowing that the sky is blue, without having a part of our brain translate it into an actual image.

This leaves two options;

- It's an illusion. Our consciousness is a lie of our brains. The remaining question is, a lie to what? (#2)

- It exists, but only in one direction; consciousness exists seperate from our universe, and only as a translation. It translates a chemical or electrical signal in our brain to an actual image of a blue sky. All it can do is translate; it can not have influence on the actual world. (#4)

To better demonstrate, I re-use my original example.

We can not explain to either ourselves or the people around us, what the colour "blue" looks like, without using an example.
To descibre "blue" we need to use material things. We can not communicate the exact processes in our brain that make blue so blue.

This gap, this lack of information, shows that our brains actualy don't know what blue looks like. The image of blue that you see when you look up at the sky, doesn't actualy exist; it's a facade created by a part of your brain.
However, think of it as a painting.
We have the tools to paint, and we have an assignment of what we need to paint.
Where does our paint come from?
Where does your brain come by the nescecary colours to paint the blue sky?

Since they are not present in our brains, it's either a complete lie/illusion (to whom though?), or the painting only exists outside of our actual material world and brains.

Hope that clarifies it a little?

[Bleid]

I'll reply to these both at once;
it's essentialy the same problem.

Option 2 states a materialistic worldview. Our brain exists in matter and energy, which causes a process to happen which causes me to watch the sky and perceive it's blueness.

However, I actualy *see* blue. I see blue, outside of the process in my brain; I don't see the process in my brain. Where in my brain is the mechanism to translate the signal into an actual pretty image of a blue sky?
If we study the brain, we'll not only find that it's not there, but also that it would be competely pointless.

Could it not be a benefit, evolution-wise?

For example, there are many poisonous plants and animals that we can notice their poisonous nature particularly by their color.

Similarly, there are numerous healthy foods that are indicative of their color.

Could we not simply explain this through an evolutionary adaptation to be able to see colors because it benefits us? It would even fit into natural selection, because those who do not have this ability to process colors in the ways we can would not last (eating poison, not necessarily eating the healthy foods as often, etc).

So wouldn't that be sufficient justification? I would also explain that seeing that the sky is blue is essentially just a biological spandrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)).

[Miserabilia]

Could it not be a benefit, evolution-wise?

For example, there are many poisonous plants and animals that we can notice their poisonous nature particularly by their color.

Similarly, there are numerous healthy foods that are indicative of their color.

Could we not simply explain this through an evolutionary adaptation to be able to see colors because it benefits us? It would even fit into natural selection, because those who do not have this ability to process colors in the ways we can would not last (eating poison, not necessarily eating the healthy foods as often, etc).

So wouldn't that be sufficient justification? I would also explain that seeing that the sky is blue is simply a biological spandrel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_(biology)).

Whoop! Fundamental misunderstanding right here.

I wasn't questioning human ability for our brain to perceive colour through vision.
I was asking for a point of a phenonomal image of blue; the actual blue we see. My blue could look the same as your red, we can't communicate this because we don't know. (Because there's no part of our brain to actualy "paint" this blue.)

[Bleid]

Whoop! Fundamental misunderstanding right here.

I wasn't questioning human ability for our brain to perceive colour through vision.
I was asking for a point of a phenonomal image of blue; the actual blue we see. My blue could look the same as your red, we can't communicate this because we don't know. (Because there's no part of our brain to actualy "paint" this blue.)

How are we sure that there is no part to paint it? Isn't that the entire purpose of our visual cortex? To show us that a particular frequency of visible light comes out as blue, and nothing else?

The way I see it:

Frequency of blue comes into the eye ---> Goes to the visual cortex ---> is interpreted as blue.

[CosmicNoodle]

Consciousness (fuck you dyslexia, I spelt it right!) is nothing more than an illusion, a trick of the mind, realistically YOU, your very persoanlty and "soul" are nothing more than mear electrical signals bouncing around in your skull, I don't think such a thing as consciousness exists, to me it's a trick, an illusion. One of "gods" crule tricks. Making you think you are, when in fact your nothing more than basic chemistry, there is no consciousness, no mind, no soul, just chemistry, why do you think mental health problems are caused by chemical imbalance (often caused by, but not exclusively)? Because thats all we are, chemicals, the same chemicals you find in a university lab.

I can happily go on all day contemplating the human condition and what Consciousness really is, what it meand and what it really is at the end of it all. But I doubt anyone has read this far.

[Miserabilia]

How are we sure that there is no part to paint it? Isn't that the entire purpose of our visual cortex? To show us that a particular frequency of visible light comes out as blue, and nothing else?

The way I see it:

Frequency of blue comes into the eye ---> Goes to the visual cortex ---> is interpreted as blue.

Again, a misunderstanding, though I udnerstand. This is a very difficult point to get across (which actualy demonstrates the point itself.)

The bst example I can say is, once again;
we can not explain or describe the colour blue, to ourselves, or to others, without saying "the colour of the sky" for example.

Consciousness (fuck you dyslexia, I spelt it right!) is nothing more than an illusion, a trick of the mind, realistically YOU, your very persoanlty and "soul" are nothing more than mear electrical signals bouncing around in your skull, I don't think such a thing as consciousness exists, to me it's a trick, an illusion. One of "gods" crule tricks. Making you think you are, when in fact your nothing more than basic chemistry, there is no consciousness, no mind, no soul, just chemistry, why do you think mental health problems are caused by chemical imbalance (often caused by, but not exclusively)? Because thats all we are, chemicals, the same chemicals you find in a university lab.

I can happily go on all day contemplating the human condition and what Consciousness really is, what it meand and what it really is at the end of it all. But I doubt anyone has read this far.

So #2.
I partialy aggree, however, I find the solution of consciouness existing seperate from our universe more elegant.

I can completely aggree that our brains perceive the colour of the sky and store this information and use it and communicate it.
However, I, consciously, phenonomaly experience a colour blue. What does blue look like? What does anything look like?

The communication problem of not being able to describe it, even to ourselves, demonstrates the point.
There would also be no point to have a function in the brain to translate a signal into an image, without getting any feedback from that image.

[Bleid]

Again, a misunderstanding, though I udnerstand. This is a very difficult point to get across (which actualy demonstrates the point itself.)

The bst example I can say is, once again;
we can not explain or describe the colour blue, to ourselves, or to others, without saying "the colour of the sky" for example.

I can completely aggree that our brains perceive the colour of the sky and store this information and use it and communicate it.
However, I, consciously, phenonomaly experience a colour blue. What does blue look like? What does anything look like?

The communication problem of not being able to describe it, even to ourselves, demonstrates the point.
There would also be no point to have a function in the brain to translate a signal into an image, without getting any feedback from that image.

But again, can't we describe it?

color: blue
wavelength interval: ~490-450 nm
frequency: ~610-670 THz


I'm not seeing (:P) the part where simply because we can't explain it outside of it being a specific display of light, that it's somehow beyond consciousness.

Yeah, we call it "the color of that thing" and so forth, but aren't we simply pointing to the same thing, overall? What specifically is the jump that takes us away from consciousness?

The fact that, at a particular frequency and wavelength and what-have-you, that it looks that certain way, and we can't describe that visual appearance other than by blueness?

[CosmicNoodle]

So #2.
I partialy aggree, however, I find the solution of consciouness existing seperate from our universe more elegant.

I can completely aggree that our brains perceive the colour of the sky and store this information and use it and communicate it.
However, I, consciously, phenonomaly experience a colour blue. What does blue look like? What does anything look like?

The communication problem of not being able to describe it, even to ourselves, demonstrates the point.
There would also be no point to have a function in the brain to translate a signal into an image, without getting any feedback from that image.

Ye, basically two, but I wanted to word it myself. On a semi related not, as I don't believe in consciousness I dont believe in free will, take a calculator, you input 2+2 and you get 4 (unless you have a seriously skety calculator), to me, (I'm not a biolegist, it's just what my simple mind thinks) the human brain seems very much the same, since it's all based on chemicals, and given you relese one chemical into a brain, say, after a sesnsory input, the chemical released will have a definate recation, and said reactio n will rlease more chemicals that will also have pre determined reactions, how is that free will? Your brain has a set of pre determined buttons, sure, it varies from person to person as each brain is different, but as far as I can tell, provided you understand someones brain in it's entiraty, and understand how it reacts to the chemicals it itself releases, you would be able to 100% acurately predict the respons a sensory input would create.

I'm not sure if you followed that, I likely didnt explain that, as you know it's past midnight (I think your in the same time zone, not sure), so I'm far from at my interlectual prime, thats the best I can come out with in my sleep deprived and annoyed state.

[Capto]

I remember we had the exact same discussion a while back, but I'm far too tired and far too annoyed right now to dig it up and revive my answer.

Hold up for a couple of months and I'll be back again.

[Karkat]

I'm too tired to explain my answer, but I'm torn between 2 and 4. I think I lean towards 4 though. I remember an article from awhile back that basically said that people don't necessarily see colors the same way, and that it's (at least currently) impossible to measure how we perceive things such as color.

Bleh

Don't quote me on it though- I don't actually remember what article it was, and it's been a good 6+ months I'm sure.

[Miserabilia]

But again, can't we describe it?

color: blue
wavelength interval: ~490-450 nm
frequency: ~610-670 THz


I'm not seeing (:P) the part where simply because we can't explain it outside of it being a specific display of light, that it's somehow beyond consciousness.

Yeah, we call it "the color of that thing" and so forth, but aren't we simply pointing to the same thing, overall? What specifically is the jump that takes us away from consciousness?

The fact that, at a particular frequency and wavelength and what-have-you, that it looks that certain way, and we can't describe that visual appearance other than by blueness?

Well ofcourse we can describe it saying the properties, however those are not what we consciously see; we don't see how our brain translates brain length and associates it to the sky.
What we simply see is a blue sky. It looks a certain way; like a blue sky. The shape "round" looks a certain way.
There is no way for me to ever communicate to you or myself what anything looks like, sounds like, or feels like, without translating it back into the real world. I can't show you what my blue looks like. I can only show you something blue. My blue could look what red looks like to you.
This has 0 impact on the actual world, yet our perception of it could be completely different and we wouldn't know.
Follow my drift?

[Bleid]

Well ofcourse we can describe it saying the properties, however those are not what we consciously see; we don't see how our brain translates brain length and associates it to the sky.
What we simply see is a blue sky. It looks a certain way; like a blue sky. The shape "round" looks a certain way.
There is no way for me to ever communicate to you or myself what anything looks like, sounds like, or feels like, without translating it back into the real world. I can't show you what my blue looks like. I can only show you something blue. My blue could look what red looks like to you.
This has 0 impact on the actual world, yet our perception of it could be completely different and we wouldn't know.
Follow my drift?

I believe I follow. I only have a couple of questions regarding the emphasized part:

What do you mean when you say "it could look what red looks like to me"?
Is this a sort of hypothetical? Or do you mean that the blue can actually look like red?

And similarly:

"This has 0 impact on the actual world, yet our perception of it could be completely different and we wouldn't know."

I believe I understand your meaning here. You're saying something like:

'The color blue could just as easily be swapped in our brain with the color red and it wouldn't make an actual difference to us. All blue things could instead be red things and all red things could instead be blue things and it wouldn't matter.'

Correct?

[Miserabilia]

I believe I follow. I only have a couple of questions regarding the emphasized part:

What do you mean when you say "it could look what red looks like to me"?
Is this a sort of hypothetical? Or do you mean that the blue can actually look like red?



I mean that perceived blue can look like perceived red. Your perception of red could be the same as my perception of blue. See below.



I believe I understand your meaning here. You're saying something like:

'The color blue could just as easily be swapped in our brain with the color red and it wouldn't make an actual difference to us. All blue things could instead be red things and all red things could instead be blue things and it wouldn't matter.'

Correct?

Very correct, which demonstrates a difference between actual blue (the wavelength and the signals in our brain activated by it), and perceived blue (the way blue looks like to you).

[Bleid]

I mean that perceived blue can look like perceived red. Your perception of red could be the same as my perception of blue. See below.



Very correct, which demonstrates a difference between actual blue (the wavelength and the signals in our brain activated by it), and perceived blue (the way blue looks like to you).

I see.

So overall what we're saying is,

"Yes, of course our brain can interpret X wavelength and return X color, but why is it this arbitrary color? If everything we perceived as blue was perceived as red and vice-versa, there wouldn't be any real difference in the world."

Then from there we say,

"Since there's no real justification for why the wavelength/frequency of blue is perceived as that blue color and not red color, then there must be some outside-the-universe justification for this."

Would that be an accurate explanation of the whole argument?

[Miserabilia]

I see.

So overall what we're saying is,

"Yes, of course our brain can interpret X wavelength and return X color, but why is it this arbitrary color? If everything we perceived as blue was perceived as red and vice-versa, there wouldn't be any real difference in the world."

Then from there we say,

"Since there's no real justification for why the wavelength/frequency of blue is perceived as that blue color and not red color, then there must be some outside-the-universe justification for this."

Would that be an accurate explanation of the whole argument?
It would for using the colour argument, yes.
But this also counts for self-consciousness and awareness, along ofcourse with perceived consciousness of all senses.
Also; not just because our brains can't do it, but because there is nothing , matter nor energy, in the universe that actualy is blue; blue does not exist beside a wavelength; the colour blue doesn't exist. Heck, the way we see he universe isn't really how it is. We only see a fraction of light and types of energy and matter. Yet we are sure blue exists , and each individual knows what blue looks like to them.

[Bleid]

It would for using the colour argument, yes.
But this also counts for self-consciousness and awareness, along ofcourse with perceived consciousness of all senses.
Also; not just because our brains can't do it, but because there is nothing , matter nor energy, in the universe that actualy is blue; blue does not exist beside a wavelength; the colour blue doesn't exist. Heck, the way we see he universe isn't really how it is. We only see a fraction of light and types of energy and matter. Yet we are sure blue exists , and each individual knows what blue looks like to them.

I think it's a good argument, then. I also think we'd eventually be led to a similar conclusion as in the "Reason For Existence" thread in that, even if we eventually found something in the observable universe that is some sort of justification for "color-ness", we'd be begging the question because that would merely lead us to asking "Why is that in place, then?"

This whole situation about how arbitrary it is that any particular color has that particular perception is very interesting.

[Miserabilia]

I think it's a good argument, then. I also think we'd eventually be led to a similar conclusion as in the "Reason For Existence" thread in that, even if we eventually found something in the observable universe that is some sort of justification for "color-ness", we'd be begging the question because that would merely lead us to asking "Why is that in place, then?"

This whole situation about how arbitrary it is that any particular color has that particular perception is very interesting.

Thank you! I thought so aswell.

[Bleid]

Thank you! I thought so aswell.

As an addendum, ought we note that this property of our visual senses is also present in all of the other four senses?

For visuals, there's the unexplained 'color' phenomena.

But then there's also:

Why does pain feel like it does and pleasure as it does? We can explain that they're distinct, but we can't explain why they feel their particular ways.
Why does the sound of a violin have that particular interpretation in your head that can only be described by the sound of a violin?
Why does a banana have that particular 'banana' smell?
Why does one thing taste a certain way and no other way?

Would it be best to append each of these to the argument regarding consciousness, for added emphasis on the conclusion?

[Miserabilia]

As an addendum, ought we note that this property of our visual senses is also present in all of the other four senses?

For visuals, there's the unexplained 'color' phenomena.

But then there's also:

Why does pain feel like it does and pleasure as it does? We can explain that they're distinct, but we can't explain why they feel their particular ways.
Why does the sound of a violin have that particular interpretation in your head that can only be described by the sound of a violin?
Why does a banana have that particular 'banana' smell?
Why does one thing taste a certain way and no other way?

Would it be best to append each of these to the argument regarding consciousness, for added emphasis on the conclusion?

Well, yes, it counts for all phenonomal experiences.
So it would be best, as it demonstrates the 'problem" with phenonomal consciousness.

[Bleid]

Well, yes, it counts for all phenonomal experiences.
So it would be best, as it demonstrates the 'problem" with phenonomal consciousness.

Fair enough. I only had one more tidbit for this thread:

Granting the argument regarding all of our sensory experiences and how there are some parts that are not explainable through materialistic phenomena, I feel like someone might try to refute the conclusion of this thread so far by trying to make the argument that we'd be left with a disjunction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_disjunction).

Being that:

Yes, certainly we can't explain the phenomena of colors and so forth through the material world, but this only gets us to an "or" between two possibilities:

Either consciousness itself (the perceiver of these unexplained phenomena) is outside of a materialistic explanation
or
the sensory experiences themselves (the perceived unexplained phenomena) is outside of a materialistic explanation.

What would we say if someone were to bring this up?

[Miserabilia]

the sensory experiences themselves (the perceived unexplained phenomena) is outside of a materialistic explanation.


I think I understand your point but I'm a bit tired and I;m not really getting this sentence. Could you elaborate?

[Bleid]

I think I understand your point but I'm a bit tired and I;m not really getting this sentence. Could you elaborate?

Well from what we've gathered here, we were talking about how all of the sensory experiences had some part that we couldn't really justify through any sort of materialistic means.

So that's all well and good, but leaving it right there, we'd get:

These sensory phenomena are unexplained through materialistic means.

So wouldn't this imply that either the phenomena themselves are non-materialistic
or our consciousness that perceives the phenomena is non-materialistic?

[Miserabilia]

Well from what we've gathered here, we were talking about how all of the sensory experiences had some part that we couldn't really justify through any sort of materialistic means.

So that's all well and good, but leaving it right there, we'd get:

These sensory phenomena are unexplained through materialistic means.

So wouldn't this imply that either the phenomena themselves are non-materialistic
or our consciousness that perceives the phenomena is non-materialistic?

Can't we rule out that the phenomena themselves are non-materialistic, simply because they must be materialistic for us to perceive them? That they are by definition of what they are, materialistic, like an orange, unlike our perception of an orange?

[Bleid]

Can't we rule out that the phenomena themselves are non-materialistic, simply because they must be materialistic for us to perceive them? That they are by definition of what they are, materialistic, like an orange, unlike our perception of an orange?

If we could verify the properties of non-materialistic things, then I'd say we could rule them out. But that's tricky, because by the definition of them being non-materialistic, we wouldn't be able to justify them through any scientific means.

It's also possible that both consciousness & the unexplained phenomena (such as color) are both non-materialistic.

[Miserabilia]

If we could verify the properties of non-materialistic things, then I'd say we could rule them out. But that's tricky, because by the definition of them being non-materialistic, we wouldn't be able to justify them through any scientific means.

It's also possible that both consciousness & the unexplained phenomena (such as color) are both non-materialistic.

True. The whole thing is kind of icky in it's logic and definition.

And yes it's perfectly possible, as a matter of fact I'd say that unexplained phenonema are a direct result of consciousness, consciousness in this case being the hypothetical explanation for those phenonema.
Sorry If I'm not making sense right now :lol:

I've always thought of it as a translating machine, translating materialistic data into perception.

[Bleid]

True. The whole thing is kind of icky in it's logic and definition.

And yes it's perfectly possible, as a matter of fact I'd say that unexplained phenonema are a direct result of consciousness, consciousness in this case being the hypothetical explanation for those phenonema.
Sorry If I'm not making sense right now :lol:

I've always thought of it as a translating machine, translating materialistic data into perception.

It makes sense. I like your assessment.

Glad you brought up such an interesting topic. It's always nice to look at the limits of our knowledge. :)

[Miserabilia]

It makes sense. I like your assessment.

Glad you brought up such an interesting topic. It's always nice to look at the limits of our knowledge. :)

Thank you! I aggree. :metal:

[DeadEyes]

I would say none of that,
consciousness, self-awareness are plain sings of intelligence, we are aware that we are alive.
Nothing more, nothing less.

[Miserabilia]

I would say none of that,
consciousness, self-awareness are plain sings of intelligence, we are aware that we are alive.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Note my sign in my OP, in large red letters it said
(*PHENONAMAL CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. When I say consciousness, I mean phenonmal consciousness, not our ability to know that we exist!!! Important! *)

:yes:

[dakeep18]

being aware

[Miserabilia]

being aware


Note my sign in my OP, in large red letters it said
(*PHENONAMAL CONSCIOUSNESS, NOT SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS. When I say consciousness, I mean phenonmal consciousness, not our ability to know that we exist!!! Important! *)

:yes:

[darthearth]

I admit I haven't read all the responses here (don't have time now), but I've talked about this over and over on ROTW. One more time? I feel compelled.

#2? I can't believe this. How is this even an option?? ANY illusion is a perception (the very definition of illusion is that it is inherently something that one perceives) and the nature of perception itself is the question. Fail. This option is nonsensical.

#4? Again, as I have stated repeated times on previous threads on this subject, consciousness affects the world when you move your mouth and say "consciousness". Fail. If consciousness didn't affect the book, the book would not reference consciousness.

#1 and #3? In these cases, the effects of consciousness must be theoretically measurable, because we say the word "consciousness". Our brains could not physically reference consciousness if there were no physical effects of said consciousness. I believe science might eventually be able to measure the effects of consciousness, in fact they have already in some studies that note conscious control of neurons. Sorry I don't have time to search for links, but do web searches and you will learn alot about what is going on right now in consciousness studies.

[Miserabilia]

I admit I haven't read all the responses here (don't have time now), but I've talked about this over and over on ROTW. One more time? I feel compelled.

#2? I can't believe this. How is this even an option?? ANY illusion is a perception (the very definition of illusion is that it is inherently something that one perceives) and the nature of perception itself is the question. Fail. This option is nonsensical.



This is the same reason I tend to not follow #2 anymore. It seemed too strange after this conclusion.



#4? Again, as I have stated repeated times on previous threads on this subject, consciousness affects the world when you move your mouth and say "consciousness". Fail. If consciousness didn't affect the book, the book would not reference consciousness.


Ah, this is the part where it would have helped to read some of the responses. I think I managed to explain what i meant there to Bleid fairly enough at some point.
Basicly I'm talking of perceived consciousness; the mere perception, not the awarenes that we can perceive. These seme similar but they're different. I suggest reading one of the earlier posts.



#1 and #3? In these cases, the effects of consciousness must be theoretically measurable, because we say the word "consciousness". Our brains could not physically reference consciousness if there were no physical effects of said consciousness.

It can if consciousness doesn't physicaly exist; as an illusion or, in other words, a side effect of increased sentience and perception.
There's no evolutionairy purpose to my specific perception being the way it is, and I can not communicate to even myself that it is that way, suggesting that there is in fact nothing in my brain to actualy show perception.

[DeadEyes]

Note my sign in my OP, in large red letters it said


:yes:

Then, it's very simple, there's no such thing. So, that would be 2.

Well, all I can add at this point is, so much rambling for nothing. What baffles me is that you guys are over thinking it all over the place, you are doing so much rambling babbling that you stray light years away from the sense of the topic. I see some of you (you know who you are) who are fuelling each others with so much nonsense that it's just beyond ridiculous.

#2? I can't believe this. How is this even an option?? ANY illusion is a perception (the very definition of illusion is that it is inherently something that one perceives) and the nature of perception itself is the question. Fail. This option is nonsensical.

Wrong, an illusion is something that was not proved to exist for a fact. It's you who fail to see the sense in that.

I don't have a justifiable answer.

And here is what sums it up right there. Everything following that is not even rambling anymore, it's pure absolute divagation.

[Miserabilia]

And here is what sums it up right there. Everything following that is not even rambling anymore, it's pure absolute divagation.

Nice out-of-context quote mining you've got going on there. What exactly was the context of that? Do you have a reply to the context or just this quote of it?

Wrong, an illusion is something that was not proved to exist for a fact. It's you who fail to see the sense in that.

An illusion is defined as
a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.

or

something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.

or

Psychology; a perception, as of visual stimuli (optical illusion) that represents what is perceived in a way different from the way it is in reality.



Then, it's very simple, there's no such thing. So, that would be 2.

It would, yes. Is there anything more to your stance on this?

Well, all I can add at this point is, so much rambling for nothing. What baffles me is that you guys are over thinking it all over the place, you are doing so much rambling babbling that you stray light years away from the sense of the topic. I see some of you (you know who you are) who are fuelling each others with so much nonsense that it's just beyond ridiculous. If this is what you consider to be a so called intelligent debate, then you can count me out of it.

I'm kind of tempted to outright call this irrelevant and perhaps even report it as this is no way to even participate in a debate, but I suppose the fact that I can still manage to reply to this shows it's still fairly relevant to ROTW.

First of all.=;
you are doing so much rambling babbling that you stray light years away from the sense of the topic.

This is literaly the topic I chose to create the thread for.
If anyone can decide what is related to the topic it's me and the ROTW mods. Secondly. It's called ramblings of the wise.

We are free to ramble about this topic as long as we want. It doesn't matter in the slighest that you think it's absurd, ridiculous, or plain stupid. As long as you don't present a counter argument, don't reply to a point made, or don't contribute to the topic, it's pointless and irrelevant.

I suppose this is also the last time I am replying to a post like this. It's fairly pointless as long as you'll just skim through this text and reply with any variation of "you're wrong".

I wish I could actualy learn from this debate, ponder some new ideas, see some new arguments.
Do you know how different my views on everything were when I just joined? Completely different. I've learned by posting here, at first often with a lot of confidence but later learning that sometimes, the opposite view can actualy be the correct one.

I'd honestly enjoy seeing your thoughts on the things we discussed here about consciousness. I've enjoyed reading darthearth's views on this. They were different from mine, but atleast he posted his views and got to respond to them.

Sorry for derailing this much, but it had to be said. This isn't the first time a discussion derails like this.
But I take the blame for it completely, and feel free not to respond to any of this, but I ask you one thing:

Besides the rather short reply you originaly gave, what are your views on the discussed subjects?

[Bleid]

And here is what sums it up right there. Everything following that is not even rambling anymore, it's pure absolute divagation.

You mistake not having a justifiable answer with there not being any justifiable answer to be had. There is a distinction.

For example, 4,000 years ago the people of the Earth did not presently have a justifiable answer for what the Earth looked like. Could have been a cube for all they knew.

However, this does not mean that a justifiable answer did not exist. That is, after all, the purpose of communicating ideas on such topics. To find a justifiable answer. Which, this thread has managed to come to a point where it has a justifiable answer.

[DeadEyes]

this thread has managed to come to a point where it has a justifiable answer.

You may find it justifiable, but I did not see any senseful justification there whatsoever, which was my rant, yet I shouldn't have wasted time ranting about it the way I did. For me, everything still seems to indicate there's no superior or global consciousness.

Nice out-of-context quote mining you've got going on there.

An illusion is defined as
a distortion of the senses, revealing how the brain normally organizes and interprets sensory stimulation.

or

something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.

or

Psychology; a perception, as of visual stimuli (optical illusion) that represents what is perceived in a way different from the way it is in reality.


Besides the rather short reply you originaly gave, what are your views on the discussed subjects?

I don't see how it was out of context. Thank you for the definition, but I know what an illusion is and it's still fits what I said. I already stated my views, I just don't need to write a novel about it. I will only add that if there was such a superior consciousness or a god, it most probably would have been proven already.

[Bleid]

You may find it justifiable, but I did not see any senseful justification there whatsoever, which was my rant, yet I shouldn't have wasted time ranting about it the way I did. For me, everything still seems to indicate there's no superior or global consciousness.

Then I'd request you to demonstrate as to why you do not see a senseful justification.

Since, in this thread, it's been clearly demonstrated in numerous different ways. So, if you'd like to say it isn't, then why isn't it?

[DeadEyes]

Since, in this thread, it's been clearly demonstrated in numerous different ways.

So, you are actually pretending that you basically proved the existence of a god or a superior consciousness by rambling here, almost on your own?

[Bleid]

So, you are actually pretending that you basically proved the existence of a god or a superior consciousness by rambling here, almost on your own?

There's clearly a misunderstanding of what the OP was saying.
If it wasn't evident before, it certainly is now.

No, no one is in the thread titled "what is consciousness" is trying to demonstrate that there's a God. I'm not quite sure why that's even a confusion here.

And no, no one made any claims about this strange, as you say, "superior consciousness" idea that you're bringing up in these last few posts. Not sure what that's about, either, exactly. Formerly I thought you might just be using strange terminology, but now I'm not so sure you're talking about the actual topic under discussion.

I'd suggest re-reading the OP and maybe some of the other posts, since that's a bit off base.

[Babs]

It's difficult for me to fathom consciousness, but number three pretty much sums up my thoughts on it.

[darthearth]

.......
I don't see how it was out of context. Thank you for the definition, but I know what an illusion is and it's still fits what I said. ........

My point was that any illusion perceived is still a conscious perception. That simple. So, saying consciousness is an illusion makes no sense, because any illusion is still a perception. And it is perception itself that is the very question of phenomenal consciousness.

[DeadEyes]

My point was that any illusion perceived is still a conscious perception. That simple.

But if it's a false perception and not a tangible reality then, it still doesn't exist.