“I always Lie” and theories of consciousness

[fdesilva]

a non physical and subjective concept.

What would you call a Circle?

[pinkocommie]

a non physical and subjective concept.

What would you call a Circle?

A circle.

[pinkocommie]

Listen, you're not making sense to me.  I've played along with you for several posts now and you're still not making sense.  Maybe if you're making sense to someone else, they'll jump in.

[fdesilva]

Listen, you're not making sense to me.  I've played along with you for several posts now and you're still not making sense.  Maybe if you're making sense to someone else, they'll jump in.

Thanks for your responses much appreciated.
Here is my comments on what you have said to anybody else that may be reading this thread.
Consciousness is as you say a non physical and subjective concept. However that does not make it non quantifiable.
A circle is also a non physical and subjective concept.  It becomes  a non physical and objective concept only when 2 or more people agree on its definition. Obviously a circle is quantifiable ones its definition is agreed to.  The same applies to the concept of consciousness.

[Whitney]

but a circle is not merely a concept it's also a definition to describe the physical shape of an object...I can physically hold one.


if you are trying to say that words are meaningless unless society agrees on their meaning...well, duh; not anything insightful there.

[fdesilva]

but a circle is not merely a concept it's also a definition to describe the physical shape of an object...I can physically hold one.


if you are trying to say that words are meaningless unless society agrees on their meaning...well, duh; not anything insightful there.

Yes a circle is a concept that has a definition. It is by using this definition that you can verify if a given object has a shape (another concept) that fits the definition of the concept circle
Consciouness is also a concept that a physical object (brain) is said to have. It as such needs a definition

[Sophus]

A circle is also a non physical

Yes. That is, only if you mean the entirely flat geometry conception of it.

and subjective concept.

No. Mathematics is objective.

One thing philosophers always do is define the concept of what they're discussing first. So it doesn't really matter if everyone is in agreement with that or not, because the point is not to become a dictionary but communicate their thoughts with the world. I often throw out the word 'love' without meaning it in the way I define actual 'love'. It is essential we are on the same page as to what consciousness means to you.

[fdesilva]

A circle is also a non physical

Yes. That is, only if you mean the entirely flat geometry conception of it.

and subjective concept.

No. Mathematics is objective.

One thing philosophers always do is define the concept of what they're discussing first. So it doesn't really matter if everyone is in agreement with that or not, because the point is not to become a dictionary but communicate their thoughts with the world. I often throw out the word 'love' without meaning it in the way I define actual 'love'. It is essential we are on the same page as to what consciousness means to you.

“It is essential we are on the same page as to what consciousness means to you.”
This is precisely  what I did at the very start of this post
The Conscious experience consist of 3 components.
1. The observed. (U ) (I am looking at a computer monitor, the monitor is U)
2. The Observer (I)( The thing with me that I call me that’s looking at the monitor)
3. Free will ( The thing I call me can press any key on the computer key pad)

And what I have been doing subsequently is asking people that don’t agree with my definition to put forward one that they think.

My request to pinkocommie
“My understanding of what I mean by a "consciouss experiance" is what I gave by the 3 axioms at the start of this post. My guess is you dont agree with them. So why not tell me what your understanding of a "consciouss experiance" is and under that definition where the 2 cases fall. Thanks”

My request to AIP
“Ok how about giving me the properties and explaining why they cannot be applied in an a deductive argument. Thanks”

With regards
 To your statement
“No. Mathematics is objective.”
Whats your take on
"Considering the concept of consciousness is subjective"
Yes, this is the big statement that seems to be in the way of studying consciousness for what it is. Please consider the following. Let's say I am studying the properties of water. Now you would say that the study of water is something objective, am I right? However I put it to you that it is as subjective, as the study of conscioussness. Let me explain.
Lets take 2 people engaged is the properties of water.
Person A, may say that it is a liquid and is colourless.
Person B, may say the same or say if he/she as eyes that overly sensitive to part of the spectrum that it is green etc.
Now I put it to you that if A and B say the same thing, then what they are really saying is that water induces the same conscious experience with regards to fluidity and colour.
Further and this is the key to the point I want to make.
If these 2 people were the only people in the universe. It is possible that from this study they will each come up with a list of properties. In this list lets say A says its colourless and B says no. Then they would conclude colour is subjective. So all the properties they can agree will be considered objective and those that they cannot would be subjective.
Please note that I am not saying that the water does not have any objective properties. The point I am making is that when person A is studying water, what A is studying is the model of the water created by and within its conscious experience. That model is very much as subjective to A as the “conscious experience” of A is subjective to A.

[Sophus]

“It is essential we are on the same page as to what consciousness means to you.”
This is precisely  what I did at the very start of this post
The Conscious experience consist of 3 components.
1. The observed. (U ) (I am looking at a computer monitor, the monitor is U)
2. The Observer (I)( The thing with me that I call me that’s looking at the monitor)
3. Free will ( The thing I call me can press any key on the computer key pad)

No, you've jumped straight to what you think leads to it but leaving out what consciousness itself is. You must answer "What is the conscious being?" before you can answer "how is the conscious being conscious?" or "what allows for this to take place?". Don't get me wrong, it's necessary to put those ideas out there too. But it's not the whole story.

Whats your take on
"Considering the concept of consciousness is subjective"
Yes, this is the big statement that seems to be in the way of studying consciousness for what it is. Please consider the following. Let's say I am studying the properties of water. Now you would say that the study of water is something objective, am I right? However I put it to you that it is as subjective, as the study of conscioussness. Let me explain.
Lets take 2 people engaged is the properties of water.
Person A, may say that it is a liquid and is colourless.
Person B, may say the same or say if he/she as eyes that overly sensitive to part of the spectrum that it is green etc.
Now I put it to you that if A and B say the same thing, then what they are really saying is that water induces the same conscious experience with regards to fluidity and colour.
Further and this is the key to the point I want to make.
If these 2 people were the only people in the universe. It is possible that from this study they will each come up with a list of properties. In this list lets say A says its colourless and B says no. Then they would conclude colour is subjective. So all the properties they can agree will be considered objective and those that they cannot would be subjective.
Please note that I am not saying that the water does not have any objective properties. The point I am making is that when person A is studying water, what A is studying is the model of the water created by and within its conscious experience. That model is very much as subjective to A as the “conscious experience” of A is subjective to A.

Interpretations can be 'subjective' but that doesn't mean someone can't be flat out wrong about what definition they use for something, depending upon the context. The use of the word 'theory' for example can either mean a mere 'hypothesis' or a validated observation. This is why you have to clarify what you're speaking of first. Because no one can disagree with what your use of the word means in this context.

[fdesilva]

“It is essential we are on the same page as to what consciousness means to you.”
This is precisely  what I did at the very start of this post
The Conscious experience consist of 3 components.
1. The observed. (U ) (I am looking at a computer monitor, the monitor is U)
2. The Observer (I)( The thing with me that I call me that’s looking at the monitor)
3. Free will ( The thing I call me can press any key on the computer key pad)

No, you've jumped straight to what you think leads to it but leaving out what consciousness itself is. You must answer "What is the conscious being?" before you can answer "how is the conscious being conscious?" or "what allows for this to take place?". Don't get me wrong, it's necessary to put those ideas out there too. But it's not the whole story.

"What is the conscious being?"
Before you can answer that don’t you think you need to define, what you mean by “conscious”?
Otherwise the answer “A being that is conscious” would be fine.
To me consciousness is an experience that is defined by the axioms I gave before

Update

Maybe I did not understand your question "what is the conscious being"
The being is the person having the conscious experiance, in this case me looikg at the screen

[Heretical Rants]

There is only one way to know for sure...

You take the blue pill, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.

You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.

[Sophus]

"What is the conscious being?"
Before you can answer that don’t you think you need to define, what you mean by “conscious”?

That was my point. "What is the conscious man" is another way of asking "what is consciousness itself". Not "who is the conscious man".

[i_am_i]

I agree with everything that fdesilva is saying here. Can we all go home now?

[fdesilva]

"What is the conscious being?"
Before you can answer that don’t you think you need to define, what you mean by “conscious”?

That was my point. "What is the conscious man" is another way of asking "what is consciousness itself". Not "who is the conscious man".

I thought I was giving a minimal description of consciousness with my axioms. Let me try something slightly different.
I will define a new phrase. I will call it the “alpaness experience”
My definition of this phrase is as follows.
“alpaness experience”
This is the experience that I have when I watch a computer screen and I press a key on the keypad. This experience has  3 components to its description
1. The observed. (U ) (I am looking at a computer monitor, the monitor is U)
2. The Observer (I)( The thing with me that I call me that’s looking at the monitor)
3. Free will ( The thing I call me can press any key on the computer key pad)