Is Consciousness an Emergent Property

[walterpthefirst]

Ok.

 

Alice and Bob want to communicate with each other.  But they are completely unique people with no overlap in their subjective experiences of reality.  All they share in common is an awareness of each other and a desire to communicate.

 

They have no common language.

 

So, how do they communicate?

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Ok.

 

Alice and Bob want to communicate with each other.  But they are completely unique people with no overlap in their subjective experiences of reality.  All they share in common is an awareness of each other and a desire to communicate.

 

They have no common language.

 

So, how do they communicate?

What type of awareness please... that's rather vague.

[Edgarcito]

6 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

What type of awareness please... that's rather vague.

Let me try again.  If they are people then we may surmise they share some subjective experiences.  How do they not overlap?

[walterpthefirst]

43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me try again.  If they are people then we may surmise they share some subjective experiences.  How do they not overlap?

 

Yes, ordinarily any two people would overlap with each other and share at least something.  But I've selected an extreme example with Alice and Bob, Ed.  

 

I'm doing this to illustrate an important point.  All will become clear as we go along.

 

So, if Alice and Bob share nothing in common except an awareness of each other and a desire to communicate, how can they communicate?

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Yes, ordinarily any two people would overlap with each other and share at least something.  But I've selected an extreme example with Alice and Bob, Ed.  

 

I'm doing this to illustrate an important point.  All will become clear as we go along.

 

So, if Alice and Bob share nothing in common except an awareness of each other and a desire to communicate, how can they communicate?

 

 

 

 

 

I gather they would have to manifest awareness and desire into an objective response that might form unity of understanding.

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

I gather they would have to manifest awareness and desire into an objective response that might form unity of understanding.

 

Too complicated.  You are overthinking this, Ed.

 

If Alice and Bob do not share a common means of communication, then they cannot communicate with each other.

 

 

 

But Alice and Bob are an extreme (and unrealistic) example.  In reality, any two people have a lot in common and also share a means of communication.  We call this language.  Which leads me to my next question.

 

 

Has subjectivity stopped people from communicating by word of mouth and by writing for thousands of years?

[Edgarcito]

10 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Too complicated.  You are overthinking this, Ed.

 

If Alice and Bob do not share a common means of communication, then they cannot communicate with each other.

 

 

 

But Alice and Bob are an extreme (and unrealistic) example.  In reality, any two people have a lot in common and also share a means of communication.  We call this language.  Which leads me to my next question.

 

 

Has subjectivity stopped people from communicating by word of mouth and by writing for thousands of years?

Not that I am aware.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Not that I am aware.

 

Exactly.  It hasn't.

 

Despite everyone being different and unique, we all manage to communicate with each other.

 

So, whatever obstacles subjectivity presents to us, we've managed to work around them.

 

 

Next questions.

 

 

How did we do that?

 

What was it that humans did to work around their own subjectivity so they could communicate with each other?

 

Hint:

I've already mentioned the answer when I was talking about science, yesterday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Exactly.  It hasn't.

 

Despite everyone being different and unique, we all manage to communicate with each other.

 

So, whatever obstacles subjectivity presents to us, we've managed to work around them.

 

 

Next questions.

 

 

How did we do that?

 

What was it that humans did to work around their their own subjectivity so they could communicate with each other?

 

Hint:

I've already mentioned the answer when I was talking about science, yesterday.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm guessing you are wanting me to understand a standardized definition(s) to facilitate communication?

[walterpthefirst]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

I'm guessing you are wanting me to understand a standardized definition(s) to facilitate communication?

 

That's it.

 

We agree standardized meanings and interpretations of words.

 

So, even though everyone is a unique person, by working together we agree on the common meanings of words.

 

 

Next question.

 

Do we need to totally eliminate subjectivity from our lives to communicate with each other?

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's it.

 

We agree standardized meanings and interpretations of words.

 

So, even though everyone is a unique person, by working together we agree on the common meanings of words.

 

 

Next question.

 

Do we need to totally eliminate subjectivity from our lives to communicate with each other?

no

[walterpthefirst]

Do we need to totally eliminate subjectivity from our lives to communicate with each other?

no

 

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

 

Exactly.

 

We know that subjectivity exists in all of us, but we work around it by agreeing upon a common frame of reference.

 

The common frame of reference for communication between people is called language.

 

Here, people work to agree upon what words mean and how they should be understood.

 

 

Next question.

 

What do we call the international language that is used to investigate reality by observing and measuring it?

 

[Edgarcito]

SI

[walterpthefirst]

5 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

SI

 

Did you mean this, Ed?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_System_of_Units

[Edgarcito]

Yes,

 

My point please sir, is despite our creation of objective definitions/language, we will always remain subjects to a greater definition and are limited by our own ability to create those definitions.

 

Our definitions place our reality in subjection.

 

I don't personally want to subscribe to the paved portion of the road adequately describing the infinite view that surrounds me.  Which I am labeling, that entity, as having its own level of subjectivity, despite it being objective.  If we can't reproduce the brain, what makes us think we can reproduce the Universe.  

 

Thank you for your patience, I actually did get an idea that science is a little more stable process that I gave credit.

 

Apologies if you still don't think I get it, but reasonably sure I do.  Thx again.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Oh I know that you get it, Ed.  But you can't accept it.

 

Even though you agreed that we have been successfully communicating with each other for thousands of years.

Even though you agreed that standardized and agreed languages facilitate communication.

Even though you agreed that we don't need to totally eliminate subjectivity to communicate properly.

Even though you agreed that scientists agree to use a common system of units and measures.

 

Despite all that you agreed with, you still want to go your own way.

 

That's fine.  No problem.  Nobody is stopping you or saying that you can't do that.

 

 

 

But if you want to do things your own way, why are you here?

 

If you want to give words the meanings you want, why ask us about it?

 

If you want to interpret the data as you want, why discuss that with us?

 

We can't join you on your solo quest to understand reality in your own terms.

 

So, why?

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Oh I know that you get it, Ed.  But you can't accept it.

 

Even though you agreed that people have been successfully communicating with each for thousands of years.

Even though you agreed that standardized and agreed languages facilitate communication.

Even though you agreed that we don't need to totally eliminate subjectivity to communicate properly.

Even though you agreed that scientists agree to use a common system of units and measures.

 

Despite all that you agreed with, you still want to go your own way.

 

That's fine.  No problem.  Nobody is stopping you or saying that you can't do that.

 

 

 

But if you want to do things your own way, why are you here?

 

If you want to give words the meanings you want, why ask us about it?

 

If you want to interpret the data as you want, why discuss that with us?

 

We can't join you on your solo quest to understand reality in your own terms.

 

So, why?

 

 

 

 

 

Very few people in my part of the world that care to have the conversation or want to debate it.  I enjoy the thought exploration.  A concentrated population of intelligent people here.

 

And despite my lack of proper nomenclature and ignorance, I believe ultimate understanding lies past our limits.  I gather many do as well... particle accelerators, spaced-based telescopes.  All of those are lifetime works, and I've already used 2/3rds, so I come by for cursory conversation to narrow my array of bs....lol.

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Very few people in my part of the world that care to have the conversation or want to debate it.  I enjoy the thought exploration.  A concentrated population of intelligent people here.

 

And despite my lack of proper nomenclature and ignorance, I believe ultimate understanding lies past our limits.  I gather many do as well... particle accelerators, spaced-based telescopes.  All of those are lifetime works, and I've already used 2/3rds, so I come by for cursory conversation to narrow my array of bs....lol.

 

Ok, Ed.

 

It's your life and yours to do with what you will, Ed.

 

Bye for now.

 

Walter.

 

 

[sdelsolray]

Not much of a discussion of whether consciousness is an emergent property.

[walterpthefirst]

7 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

Not much of a discussion of whether consciousness is an emergent property.

 

Well that's hardly surprising, sdelsolray.

 

You and the RedNeckProf asked Ed to define what he meant by certain words and he failed to do so.

 

I tried to show him that discussion proceeds best when there is agreement on definitions and terminology.

 

But he didn't want to be bound by any consensus or agreement with us.

 

He wanted to go his own way.

 

So, no discussion.

[Joshpantera]

1) Is consciousness emergent? 

2) Is god conscious? 

3) Are you conscious? 

4) If yes, you are god! 

5) End of religious journey! 

6) Monotheism is wrong, pantheism is right. 

 

This was all covered very well in our debate on human spirituality. Sinking in yet???

[midniterider]

So enjoy being eternal. And don't stress about those carbs. 

[Edgarcito]

On 2/28/2022 at 6:51 PM, sdelsolray said:

Not much of a discussion of whether consciousness is an emergent property.

Truthfully, I had forgotten where I was going with this.  I gather one could place limits on the relative and test the lower and upper limits.  Active components that might help define consciousness.  To the original comment, our standards certainly place limits or no limits on consciousness, science or religion.  I realize my words are wonderfully inaccurate in this post.  Please just attempt to grasp my intent.....which will suffice for me.  No disrespect intended.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Truthfully, I had forgotten where I was going with this.  I gather one could place limits on the relative and test the lower and upper limits.  Active components that might help define consciousness.  To the original comment, our standards certainly place limits or no limits on consciousness, science or religion.  I realize my words are wonderfully inaccurate in this post.  Please just attempt to grasp my intent.....which will suffice for me.  No disrespect intended.

 

We cannot grasp the intent of your posts because you have chosen to use words in your own way, Ed.

 

You want to use words in your own way, not in a way that we can all agree on.

 

 

My point please sir, is despite our creation of objective definitions/language, we will always remain subjects to a greater definition and are limited by our own ability to create those definitions.

Our definitions place our reality in subjection.

I don't personally want to subscribe to the paved portion of the road adequately describing the infinite view that surrounds me.  Which I am labeling, that entity, as having its own level of subjectivity, despite it being objective.  If we can't reproduce the brain, what makes us think we can reproduce the Universe.  

Thank you for your patience, I actually did get an idea that science is a little more stable process that I gave credit.

Apologies if you still don't think I get it, but reasonably sure I do.  Thx again.

 

 

That was you rejection of using words in an agreed way.

 

By doing that you've made it impossible for us to grasp the intent of your posts.

 

So, we're going nowhere with this.

 

 

Walter.

 

[Edgarcito]

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

We cannot grasp the intent of your posts because you have chosen to use words in your own way, Ed.

 

You want to use words in your own way, not in a way that we can all agree on.

 

 

My point please sir, is despite our creation of objective definitions/language, we will always remain subjects to a greater definition and are limited by our own ability to create those definitions.

Our definitions place our reality in subjection.

I don't personally want to subscribe to the paved portion of the road adequately describing the infinite view that surrounds me.  Which I am labeling, that entity, as having its own level of subjectivity, despite it being objective.  If we can't reproduce the brain, what makes us think we can reproduce the Universe.  

Thank you for your patience, I actually did get an idea that science is a little more stable process that I gave credit.

Apologies if you still don't think I get it, but reasonably sure I do.  Thx again.

 

 

That was you rejection of using words in an agreed way.

 

By doing that you've made it impossible for us to grasp the intent of your posts.

 

So, we're going nowhere with this.

 

 

Walter.

 

I believe certainly we can have a conversation.  I have a novel idea.  Why don't I submit an abstract thought outside of science and you translate it inside science.  For example, the limits of consciousness is my abstract thought outside science.  I think most people here would agree to believe it's an objective function, consciousness.  So this is where you would jump in and say, ok, Ed, let's start with sub atomic particles and add particles and ask ourselves at what point we will concede a shared definition of consciousness.....given I'm not so much in the objective consciousness court.  

 

How does that sound?  I'll concede you are more knowledgeable.  Doesn't have to be fancy or peer worthy, just scientific speculation would suffice for me.