Is Consciousness an Emergent Property

[◊ Krowb ◊]

Are you proposing that "consciousness" has an elephant problem?

 

If we can at first agree on a definition (any useful, though incomplete definition), we can then push that definition until it breaks. We then re-assess where our definition failed to properly account for the scenario.  We can then tweak the definition and try again.  These incremental changes through various hypotheticals should slowly lead to a better definition.  Not a perfect definition, but worlds better than what's happening now.

 

I do not find your insistence to stay adrift in a sea of intentional uncomprehending an enjoyable experience.  Once you draw some initial boundaries I may rejoin the conversation.

[walterpthefirst]

No sir.

 

The definition seems prohibitive to YOU.

 

But everyone else wants to use the proper definitions, properly.

 

If you fell into line with everyone else, then this discussion could go somewhere.

 

But because you won't do that, Krowb and everyone else can't understand you.

 

 

YOU are the logjam that is stopping this discussion from going anywhere.

 

And it won't go anywhere until you toe the line.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, Krowb said:

Are you proposing that "consciousness" has an elephant problem?

 

If we can at first agree on a definition (any useful, though incomplete definition), we can then push that definition until it breaks. We then re-assess where our definition failed to properly account for the scenario.  We can then tweak the definition and try again.  These incremental changes through various hypotheticals should slowly lead to a better definition.  Not a perfect definition, but worlds better than what's happening now.

 

I do not find your insistence to stay adrift in a sea of intentional uncomprehending an enjoyable experience.  Once you draw some initial boundaries I may rejoin the conversation.

 

See that, Ed?

 

Once again Krowb is asking you to agree.

 

 

So, are you going to go your own way again and carry on wrecking this thread?

 

Oh well, it's your thread.

 

If you want to wreck it, that's your choice.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

I predict this conversation will go where they have gone in the past.

[Edgarcito]

18 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

No sir.

 

The definition seems prohibitive to YOU.

 

But everyone else wants to use the proper definitions, properly.

 

If you fell into line with everyone else, then this discussion could go somewhere.

 

But because you won't do that, Krowb and everyone else can't understand you.

 

 

YOU are the logjam that is stopping this discussion from going anywhere.

 

And it won't go anywhere until you toe the line.

 

 

 

The damn problem sir, is the definition is meaningless at this point.....hence the ongoing debate.  You do realize this, right?

[walterpthefirst]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The damn problem sir, is the definition is meaningless at this point.....hence the ongoing debate.  You do realize this, right?

 

Ok then, let's see what Krowb has to say about it.

 

(Where's my popcorn?)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

What study, what instruments, what data do they use to make a distinction at those conditions.  

Umm... the study referenced (and linked) in the article:

 

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018JC014457

 

So far, I have made no particular statement and therefore there cannot be any implications.  Unless you are not using those words according to the standard definitions.

[◊ Krowb ◊]

Ed,

 

I'm not asking for the definition, I'm asking for a definition.  Something that at least gives the appearance of passably encompassing "consciousness".  There is no point discussing whether it is an emergent property if we can't even have a conversation on what it includes and excludes.

 

If you don't want to define consciousness by what it is, can you at least explain what it is not and we might be able to work from there?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

And I call horse shit anyhow Prof.  There has to be at some point in time where there is the exact point where water is between 3 phase changes.  I seriously doubt we have the ability to measure that.  Also, there are words like conscious, unconscious and sub conscious in our everyday modern language.  

 

COME on Man.   lol.

No one is denying that water can simultaneously exist in 3 phases.  The study shows, though, that at the molecular level, they are not the same.  I understood you to be an analytical chemist with the intellectual acumen to comprehend this.  I mean, if a mere biologist like myself can grasp it...

[midniterider]

Maybe we could all post our understanding of what consciousness is...

 

Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.

 

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

 

 

[Edgarcito]

The definition is likely relative to the conditions.  Seems reasonable.  Water is only water when it's subject to different conditions.  Otherwise, it's "the substance".  

 

My vote is we are more "substances" than we are the conditions in which we exist.  

 

Lots and lots of analogies, old and new that point this direction.  

 

And Walter doesn't want to build consciousness from scratch......so it's beer time.  

 

Tomorrow guys and gals....

[walterpthefirst]

14 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The definition is likely relative to the conditions.  Seems reasonable.  Water is only water when it's subject to different conditions.  Otherwise, it's "the substance".  

 

My vote is we are more "substances" than we are the conditions in which we exist.  

 

Lots and lots of analogies, old and new that point this direction.  

 

And Walter doesn't want to build consciousness from scratch......so it's beer time.  

 

Tomorrow guys and gals....

 

Actually, he does.

 

But to do that all the parties doing the building have to agree on definitions and meanings of words.

 

Tomorrow...

[pantheory]

On 4/6/2022 at 1:18 PM, Edgarcito said:

What study, what instruments, what data do they use to make a distinction at those conditions.  The implication of your statement would be that we can see better than we can see.  If it's there, I'll be happy to accept it.  Thx.  Which reminds me of another verse about seeing in part....js.

 

 

The unusual molecular characteristic of ice is that it expands as it gets colder from its water state. But I prefer the ice with Irish whiskey.

 

Of course observation with instruments that are more sensitive, or magnify our own senses, is a type of "seeing better than we can see," is it not? Another verse about seeing in parts might look something like this  , no?

 

All such beverages also give one an altered state of consciousness that many like as a change of pace