Pure Consciousness?

[Greylorn Ell]

That's probably because you've spent a long while learning to ignore the body.

Blessings,

While i have spent many years meditating, the truth of the matter is, we have these experiences all the time. We can be completely absorbed in thought to the point where all our senses are forgotten, the pains of the body disappear, etc... Be this thought spiritual, scientific, or just plain ole' obsession. In the same way, we can be so enraptured with the sense experiences that thought disappears. Be this some visual experiences, the sounds of beautiful music, or an orgasm. In both cases the flashlight beam of awareness brings us so closely to our chosen focus, that everything else is left out: even out of the periphery.

As for Samadhi, in my experience, when we continue to rest our attention on some one thing/experience/etc... we start to meld/fall/morph/or whatever appropriate word we can use to describe the experience of the subject (meditator) and object (focus) disappearing. There is just this experience of being without reference point. It lasts only a moment in my experience, but it seems to be something that we can familiarize ourselves with and practice to lengthen in duration.

One thing is for certain, upon coming back to my body/mind, i am unbound-fully-joyful and want nothing else but to somehow abide in that state, if state is what we call it?

Bringing this all back to Gee's original thought, i wonder if consciousness could be tainted/impure? Is it like water, where it can be clouded like a muddled mind, agitated like a frazzled one, and so on. The Eastern Tradition has a nice bucket analogy that goes along with this line of thought. Or is it more like energy, which, while not taintable, at least, as far as i understand energy, it is merely channeled, used, and experienced via the system/packet/particle from which it is connected/associated/partook/etc. in/with? (i have a really hard time finding the right words because each word used often shines light upon the subject in a different way, that while one word cannot encompass the whole of the subject matter, it does participate in helping us understand the subject. In saying, please forgive me if i slash words together in the hopes of capturing more of what i am thinking:)

In a nutshell, my personal belief/thought/opinion and feeling/intuition is that consciousness cannot, in anyway, be impure - it just is whatever the heck it is. For instance, the crystal analogy seems to draw this out. Lets for fun sake say that a crystal is analogous to consciousness, and no matter how many colored pieces of fabric or lights are placed under it or shown through it, the crystal never changes even though it appears to take on the color as itself. To complicate things a little bit, i believe consciousness is experienced in degrees, not because consciousness is gradient-ed, but because of the capacity and complexity of the object/organism/or whatever you want to call it. This belief of course does not include the different facets/aspects/domains/dimensions/etc. of consciousness, that's a completely different subject to discuss. To continue the crystal analogy, the capacity and complexity of the whatever (for no better word), is more like a smearing/dusting of the crystal faces. While it does not directly change consciousness, it does impact the whatever's ability to experience the fullness/pureness of consciousness. In other words, depending on the capacity/complexity of whatever will determine not only its level/depth/breath of experience, but also its degrees of consciousness. So while an elemental particle will not have any sense of self, it does have preference, in that, it is attracted to some things, repulsed from others, and indifferent to one or the other given different circumstances and environmental factors. Moving on up the evolutionary chain we get distinct feelings and experiences, degrees of environmental awareness, variety of personality traits, self-consciousness, mystical experiences of consciousness colored by a person's beliefs, and, what some believe to be the pinnacle of conscious experience, the pure experience of consciousness uncolored by sensory experiences or thought/memory/etc.

Blessings Be...

Consider your experiences and insights in terms of this simple model:

1. Some entities with the potential for consciousness exist. However, left to their own devices they would never achieve consciousness. (I call them beons. Beon is kind of a physical version of soul.)

2. Some of them are connected with a brain, whose purpose is to feed them sensory information so as to invite them into consciousness.

3. Beon comprises the superconscious mind. You apparently have experienced moments of superconscous, or beon-level awareness, and realized that this was not a normal form of consciousness.

4. The cortical brain is the subconscious mind.

5. The "conscious mind" is a dualistic phenomenon, the combination of beon and brain working in conjunction with one another.

[Gee]

Uwot;

Please consider the following:

Well, I enjoyed Yogisuba's prose and thought that it was insightful. Since there are very few members responding to this thread, who have a clue as to what I am trying to discuss, I appreciate all posts that are on target.

Pure consciousness, presumably. The problem I have with that is that I am not pure consciousness

Now this is the kind of post that I do not appreciate at all. It is very frustrating for me to have to address posts that are completely off target -- over and over. If you actually read the OP, you would note that the last line, quoted below, makes it clear that I do not believe consciousness can be pure -- so what are you arguing about? I do not recommend that anyone use presumption to do philosophy, and would prefer that you actually read the thread before posting.

I could very well be wrong, but seriously doubt that consciousness can be pure.

It is true that many great philosophers have considered and studied consciousness, but it is also true that most of them have had their considerations limited and stymied by the times that they lived in. Even if they had the ability to understand consciousness as we can now, they would never have been able to publish their papers, because in order to truly understand consciousness, one has to be able to cross over from science to philosophy to religion. This would not have been allowed in the last few thousand years in Western philosophy.

This is nonsense. As Alfred North Whitehead said: "The safest general characterization of the philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato." That is hardly to philosophy's credit, but there is some truth in it. Plato was struck by Socrates emphasis on the role of philosophy in guiding lifestyle. Unlike the Pre-Socratics, Socrates was only interested in the world as the place his 'soul' happened to inhabit at the time. If you are interested, you should read the Phaedo http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedo.html

Yes. "Footnotes to Plato." Please note that "the last few thousand years" did not include Plato. He was long dead by then. Philosophers from Plato's time and before did not have access to the knowledge that science has provided us, so they were limited in their understandings.

Eastern philosophy has long ago combined the ideas of philosophy and religion in the study of consciousness, so it is ahead of the game.

If you trouble yourself with a bit of western philosophy, you will discover that that is not true.

Bullshit. After Plato, his work was interpreted and converted into Neoplatoism, which was quickly incorporated into religious teachings. The Christian religion dominated philosophy and denounced anything that was close to science, science being a branch of philosophy, for more than a thousand years. Then came the Enlightenment where science finally returned, but it had a grudge against religion, so they have never worked together. This is Western philosophy. First philosophy was dominated by religion, so incorporating science into your ideas was heresy. Now philosophy is dominated by science, so incorporating religion into your ideas is professional suicide. And the paranormal is ignored by both science and religion, so I do not agree that there is much cooperation going on.

I very much enjoy talking to Greylorn about consciousness for three very important reasons;

1. He does not participate in the Science v Religion games.
2. I do not have to convince him that the paranormal/supernatural exists.
3. He realizes that at least some aspects of consciousness are physical and real.

If you add to this the idea that he seems to be intelligent, has a sense of humor, and writes well, then it is like icing on the cake.

So have you stumped up the cash for his book?

No. My bookstore can not get it. But the brilliant lady, who works there, told me that I can go to Kroger and buy an Amazon gift card, which will work. So when my daughter goes shopping for me later this week, I will ask her to pick me up a gift card.

If you could recommend any philosophers, who meet with my three requirements, then I will look them up.

Well, once you've finished the Phaedo, Rene Descartes would be a good place to continue, but frankly most of the philosophers you will have heard of fit your criteria. The most obvious exception is Hume, but if you are serious about philosophy, you really can't ignore him.

You can review my thoughts on Descartes ideas of the "self" toward the bottom of page 10 in this thread in a post to Immanuel Can.

G

[Greylorn Ell]

... I'm happy to address ancillary subjects such as Uri Geller, who bent a spoon upward within six inches of my face, twice, in front of skeptical witnesses at close range, but such subjects belong on separate threads. ...

Just goes to show that physicists believe the evidence of their senses.

Actually, that is a good point. It relates to Greylorn's comment on Feynman in another thread.

Yes, evidence is what physicists believe-- at least the good ones. Modern physicists, not so much.

But what is sensory evidence to a physicist, compared to the sensory evidence which non-physicists experience?

You can go on a camping trip in the Rocky Mountains and pitch your tent atop a half-billion dollars worth of uranium, yet awaken in the morning and go on your way without ever realizing that by staking a mining claim instead of a few tent fasteners, you would become a multimillionaire. But a smart prospector walking the same place with a scintillometer in hand would know immediately about the wealth beneath his feat. Yes, he'd use his senses, not to detect the radioactive particles ripping out of the mountain and through his body, but to observe the movement of a pointer on an instrument, or listen to its audible clicks and bleeps.

That he brought the instrument along at all would have been the consequence of faith-- faith in the scientists who figured out how to detect radioactive particles invisible to the normal senses.

Evidence to a physicist is a more subtle thing than the observations we can make with our eyes and ears, because at the level of human senses, evidence is typically no more than the movement of needles, voltage levels at the output pins of photomultipliers or CCD chips, or digital bits coming out of an electronic box. Such evidence demands the mind's engagement, a comprehension of how parts of the universe work at the deepest possible levels.

[Greylorn Ell]

Well, once you've finished the Phaedo, Rene Descartes would be a good place to continue, but frankly most of the philosophers you will have heard of fit your criteria. The most obvious exception is Hume, but if you are serious about philosophy, you really can't ignore him.

You can review my thoughts on Descartes ideas of the "self" toward the bottom of page 10 in this thread in a post to Immanuel Can.

G

This prompted me to check out your referenced post. It triggered lots of neurons, so I've read it before, but rereads sometimes come with a different focus, and therefore take away different insights. You'd written,

Then we must consider that thought and emotion are two very different things. They have different properties, work differently in the brain, and work differently in different species. So the "self" is made up of at least two different things, has two components, so it is not singular.

This comes amid a post pointing out faults in Descartes' dualism, yet, you've identified and described dualism in modern terms.

Your differentiation is between thought and emotion. Thought and emotion are both what a mathematician would call "functions." Behind every function there is a mechanism.

Since you were not trained in hard sciences, it was natural for you to describe your version of dualism in terms of functions. When you peruse DUAS you will find the mechanisms behind the very functions you described. Roughly speaking, beon is the mechanism behind thought, and brain is the source of emotion.

Descartes got the functions wrong but the mechanisms generally right. You've gotten the functions generally right.

Some weeks ago I was tempted to PM you with the comment that, had you chosen physics instead of law, you would have derived my theories independently and probably done a better job of it. Had I done so, I would be reiterating that post along with a friendly "See! Told you so!" Now is not the time to get into details, but I expect that we shall revisit dualism another time, and from different perspectives. I'm looking forward to this.

[uwot]

[/quote]

Now this is the kind of post that I do not appreciate at all.

It's the risk you take, Sunshine. You get all sorts on this forum.

Bullshit. After Plato, his work was interpreted and converted into Neoplatoism, which was quickly incorporated into religious teachings.

That's not really what happened. Some philosophers have been Neo-Platonists and a lot of his ideas were incorporated into Christianity, see the Myth of Er if you want to know where the medievals got their ideas of hell from. Plato was believed by his more enthusiastic followers to be the son of the god Apollo. His mum, Perictione, was supposed to be a virgin too, but she was a bit too posh to give birth in a stable.

The Christian religion dominated philosophy and denounced anything that was close to science, science being a branch of philosophy, for more than a thousand years. Then came the Enlightenment where science finally returned,

This is a bit wiki-lite. Science and religion actually got on rather well. I think you are confusing that Galileo episode with the entire millenium.

but it had a grudge against religion, so they have never worked together.

This is just silly. What on Earth could you possibly mean by 'it'? Science is not a 'thing' that holds grudges.

This is Western philosophy. First philosophy was dominated by religion, so incorporating science into your ideas was heresy. Now philosophy is dominated by science,

No it isn't. The dominant epistemology in English speaking philosophy is empiricism, which also happens to be the modus operandi of meaningful science. Philosophy in part, is making sense of the world around us, scientists happen to have the best equipment for discovering what the world does, but there's little evidence that they are any better at working out what to do about it.

so incorporating religion into your ideas is professional suicide.

Never has been, never will be. There are plenty institutions that are willing to pay religious nuts handsomely.

And the paranormal is ignored by both science and religion, so I do not agree that there is much cooperation going on.

It's not an issue of cooperation. Anybody can make any claim they like. If they then devise some experiment that consistently gives results commensurate with their claim, other people , possibly hostile to the claim will run the same experiment, or devise others that test another aspect of the claim. If the results keep showing that the hypothesis 'works' it will be taken seriously, some scientists might even change their minds, glad to have a new insight into the workings of our world. Others will think they have a better idea. The idea that there is a cohesive entity called science is as persuasive as assertions about Santa Claus.
Paranormal claims have been investigated in ways that can be described as scientific and the evidence is, so far, fairly compelling: there's very little in paranormal claims. Those scientific findings are just as well founded as all the stuff we have discovered since Plato about consciousness that you apparently believe gives us greater insight.

[Blaggard]

Science is like a bag of cats, seriously you would have more chance of herding cats than making a scientist follow a trail. They are the most contrary non group like individuals, but if you can get them to co-operate you get something like CERN or ITER.

Basically proving a theory will give your career a boost, disproving an existing paradigm will get you tenure, A Nobel prize and probably an emeritus or lifetime paid position. It's hence in every scientists best interest to be the one who disproves the current theories, which means there is a great deal of healthy competition.

If you want herding then become a priest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk7yqlTMvp8

Anyone can herd cows. Pfft.

[Gee]

This prompted me to check out your referenced post. It triggered lots of neurons, so I've read it before, but rereads sometimes come with a different focus, and therefore take away different insights. You'd written,

Then we must consider that thought and emotion are two very different things. They have different properties, work differently in the brain, and work differently in different species. So the "self" is made up of at least two different things, has two components, so it is not singular.

This comes amid a post pointing out faults in Descartes' dualism, yet, you've identified and described dualism in modern terms.

But I was not pointing out the flaws in Descartes dualism; I was pointing out the flaws in his rationalization. As I stated before, I have not yet come to conclusions regarding a theory of consciousness, just small simple truths. It is my hope that enough simple truths will lead the way to a valid understanding of consciousness.

Descartes was brilliant and probably one of the most logical and rational men ever born. But because he understood logic and rationalization so well, he understood the weaknesses as well as the strengths in these processes. Logic and rationalization are internal and linear processes. What does this mean? It means that in these processes, we place sequential cogent steps from one place to the next in order to validate the connection between two things. So if I wanted to go shopping, I would get my wallet and car keys, put on my shoes and coat, then get in the car. This is logical and rational behavior. But if I got my wallet and keys, put on my shoes and coat, then got in the shower, it would be neither logical nor rational. So we are talking about procedures wherein the steps lead to a conclusion that is logical and rational.

So what happens when we are dealing with an unknown? Where would we place the sequential cogent steps in order to bring us to this unknown? It can't be done. One can not find an unknown through a linear processes. We have to make a guess as to what we think this unknown is, then we have to prove it. The problem here being that if one is intelligent enough, one can rationalize almost any unknown -- but that does not make it true. It is my thought that this is the reason that Descartes told us that we must doubt ourselves -- because of his understanding.

If you go to Wiki and look up Rationalism, you will find all kinds of advice on how to avoid the pitfalls of rationalization. But it is my thought that it is better to avoid these processes altogether when dealing with the unknown. In my youth, I was entirely too intelligent and soon realized that I could make many things appear to be rational and true, even though they were not true. So I have come to rely heavily on critical thinking as the process that should be used to discover an unknown, and reserve logic for things that have already been learned. Critical thinking is exploratory like examining puzzle pieces, so it does not require a "guess" as to the conclusion. Consciousness is very much an unknown, so I think that developing a theory prior to learning all of the facts that are available is a guarantee of failure to find the truth of the matter.

Your differentiation is between thought and emotion. Thought and emotion are both what a mathematician would call "functions." Behind every function there is a mechanism.

After leaving this forum last year, I went to another philosophy forum and did a lot of work on emotion. At that time, I solidified my ideas about a division between thought, knowledge, memory, and emotion, feeling, awareness. (When I mention "thought", I am referring to it as a thought, not as the process of "thinking", as that is not static.) The first division, thought, knowledge, and memory, is private -- not shared -- it is internal, and it is static. The second division, emotion, feeling, and awareness, is shared -- not private -- it is external, and in motion.

So if one put this idea in terms of a sentence, the first division would be the subject/noun, and the second division would be the verb. All action and states of being are defined by the verb.

Since you were not trained in hard sciences, it was natural for you to describe your version of dualism in terms of functions. When you peruse DUAS you will find the mechanisms behind the very functions you described. Roughly speaking, beon is the mechanism behind thought, and brain is the source of emotion.

OK, but I may not agree with your mechanisms. I would think that "beon" would be more closely related to emotion and would think that chemistry -- not the brain -- stimulates emotion. There is evidence that chemistry stimulates emotion inside and outside of the body. My thought is that species with a brain "feel" the emotion, but that does not have anything to do with the function of emotion.

Some weeks ago I was tempted to PM you with the comment that, had you chosen physics instead of law, you would have derived my theories independently and probably done a better job of it. Had I done so, I would be reiterating that post along with a friendly "See! Told you so!" Now is not the time to get into details, but I expect that we shall revisit dualism another time, and from different perspectives. I'm looking forward to this.

Dualism? I did not say that there are two components to the "self". What I stated was that there are at least two components. Big difference. Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings -- three things. This is a truism. So I think that the Dualists need to learn how to count higher.

G

[uwot]

Dualism? I did not say that there are two components to the "self". What I stated was that there are at least two components. Big difference. Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings -- three things. This is a truism. So I think that the Dualists need to learn how to count higher.

You need to look up truism.
The problem with dualism has always been to explain how two such different substances, mind and matter could interact. By introducing a third entity you compound the problem. Do you have any suggestions for how the mental and the spiritual interact? Does one affect the other? If so, how?

[Gee]

Dualism? I did not say that there are two components to the "self". What I stated was that there are at least two components. Big difference. Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings -- three things. This is a truism. So I think that the Dualists need to learn how to count higher.

You need to look up truism.
The problem with dualism has always been to explain how two such different substances, mind and matter could interact. By introducing a third entity you compound the problem. Do you have any suggestions for how the mental and the spiritual interact? Does one affect the other? If so, how?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A truism is a claim that is so obvious or self-evident as to be hardly worth mentioning, except as a reminder or as a rhetorical or literary device and is the opposite of falsism.[1]

Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings. This is a truism that people tend to forget.

The problem with Dualism is that it has always been a war of "Who's the Boss" between "God" and man; religion and science. You can deny it if you like, but I am not going to believe you.

People are so involved in the religion v science debates that they have warped the truth of who and what we are. If you need proof of this, then stop and consider; how is it possible that we have forgotten that we are physical, mental, and spiritual beings? This is a truth that has been known for tens of thousands of years as far as I can tell, and it is a truth that is extremely obvious. So why do people question it? My thought is extreme bias.

I did not introduce a "third entity" as it has always been there. Others denied and forgot this third entity because it did not fit in their damned wars. I decided to consider all of the aspects of what we are, while trying to understand consciousness, because there is this thing about truth that philosophers are always going on about. They seem to think that a valid premise or axiom is necessary as the foundation for any philosophy. Don't know why they are such sticklers, but I agree that it is better to start with a truth, than with a lie.

At this time, I suspect that the physical, mental, and spiritual all equally affect each other.

G

[Greylorn Ell]

Dualism? I did not say that there are two components to the "self". What I stated was that there are at least two components. Big difference. Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings -- three things. This is a truism. So I think that the Dualists need to learn how to count higher.

You need to look up truism.
The problem with dualism has always been to explain how two such different substances, mind and matter could interact. By introducing a third entity you compound the problem. Do you have any suggestions for how the mental and the spiritual interact? Does one affect the other? If so, how?

uwot,

Gee probably does not. Beon Theory does.

[Blaggard]

Dualism? I did not say that there are two components to the "self". What I stated was that there are at least two components. Big difference. Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings -- three things. This is a truism. So I think that the Dualists need to learn how to count higher.

You need to look up truism.
The problem with dualism has always been to explain how two such different substances, mind and matter could interact. By introducing a third entity you compound the problem. Do you have any suggestions for how the mental and the spiritual interact? Does one affect the other? If so, how?

uwot,

Gee probably does not. Beon Theory does.

Your tenuous hypothesis it seems to me is little more than saying magical faries exist at the bottom of my garden because they just do alright. You have yet to justify anything in any logical manner let alone explain how science would hope to test this spiritual beon thing, so it's really not doing anything at all. Despite your protestations to the contrary, and the woeful ignorance about biology, it is really just mental masturbation indulged by you which no one really gets or buys because your reasoning seems based on one or two gapingly badly described arguments, that apparently we can only really understand if we, conveniently, buy your book, and are some sort of massive genius, because apparently science can't understand it either and they are all idiots.

Beon theory does one thing, it shows how easily religions or I should say cults get started. Well when you couple delusional thinking with a pathological personality and charisma. You don't seem to be able to persuade people about this, so fortunately at least you must lack the personal magnetism required to really fool people into buying a religious idea.

I'd steer clear of investing in anything on the internet as a general rule myself, unless you know the source personally or it is a well established respected one. I certainly wouldn't pay money to a shameless self publicist on a forum, in fact this is the sort of proselytising that is banned on the 99% of philosophy forums.

At least Bob Evenson has the decency not to charge for his nonsensical ideas.

[Greylorn Ell]

This comes amid a post pointing out faults in Descartes' dualism, yet, you've identified and described dualism in modern terms.

But I was not pointing out the flaws in Descartes dualism; I was pointing out the flaws in his rationalization. As I stated before, I have not yet come to conclusions regarding a theory of consciousness, just small simple truths. It is my hope that enough simple truths will lead the way to a valid understanding of consciousness.

That is, for most people, a fine and somewhat arcane distinction, since the customary way to trash a theory is to shred its derivation. Nonetheless, you are correct. An opposite but related example is James Maxwell's theory of electrodynamics which first described and predicted electromagnetic waves. His theory worked, and still does. Yet in the 1950's or thereabouts some mathematicians analyzed his derivation and found several errors that turned out to be self-cancelling, nonetheless leading to a valid result.

After a lifetime of making a living by solving engineering problems I can assure you that the accumulation of simple truths will only lead to the solution of simple problems. While richer problems also depend upon such truths, the difficult ones also require an inductive leap or two along the way.

There is yet another issue that I think you have not addressed. It is that of validating the simple truths upon which a larger theory must rest. After reading many of your posts on this thread I conclude that you are the most cogent mind I've encountered in a long time, and that you have accepted as true many opinions that are false.

The key to my development of Beon Theory was to identify such a truth that was not. The particular truth is so powerful and so universally accepted that it is shared by religionists and scientists alike. Worse, because it is universally accepted, it is implicit in everyone's way of thinking and never questioned, despite that it is contrary to all evidence.

Descartes was brilliant and probably one of the most logical and rational men ever born. But because he understood logic and rationalization so well, he understood the weaknesses as well as the strengths in these processes. Logic and rationalization are internal and linear processes. What does this mean? It means that in these processes, we place sequential cogent steps from one place to the next in order to validate the connection between two things. So if I wanted to go shopping, I would get my wallet and car keys, put on my shoes and coat, then get in the car. This is logical and rational behavior. But if I got my wallet and keys, put on my shoes and coat, then got in the shower, it would be neither logical nor rational. So we are talking about procedures wherein the steps lead to a conclusion that is logical and rational.

So what happens when we are dealing with an unknown? Where would we place the sequential cogent steps in order to bring us to this unknown? It can't be done. One can not find an unknown through a linear processes. We have to make a guess as to what we think this unknown is, then we have to prove it. The problem here being that if one is intelligent enough, one can rationalize almost any unknown -- but that does not make it true. It is my thought that this is the reason that Descartes told us that we must doubt ourselves -- because of his understanding.

Some part of a linear process is essential to discovering the unknown. One takes as many linear, logical steps as possible in the direction of the unknown. Upon discovering that they do not lead to an immediate resolution of the mysterious unknown, one waits, keeping in mind that the mystery, the unknown remains unresolved. Then one gathers information related to the mystery, especially the most indirectly related information. One keeps wondering. If one's mind is open to an understanding of the mystery, it might appear.

Most people do not suspend judgment in this manner. Faced with an unknown, they invent a crummy explanation for it, usually one that their friends/co-workers/perfessers accept. By accepting a crummy explanation they close their minds to any better understanding that might have otherwise come. This is the rationalization process that you describe below.

Often the linear, logical approach will lead to the conclusion that all current theories or explanations are incorrect. The trick to finding a better theory is to fully accept this conclusion, gather information, continue to pursue the question, and be patient.

If you go to Wiki and look up Rationalism, you will find all kinds of advice on how to avoid the pitfalls of rationalization. But it is my thought that it is better to avoid these processes altogether when dealing with the unknown. In my youth, I was entirely too intelligent and soon realized that I could make many things appear to be rational and true, even though they were not true. So I have come to rely heavily on critical thinking as the process that should be used to discover an unknown, and reserve logic for things that have already been learned. Critical thinking is exploratory like examining puzzle pieces, so it does not require a "guess" as to the conclusion. Consciousness is very much an unknown, so I think that developing a theory prior to learning all of the facts that are available is a guarantee of failure to find the truth of the matter.

That's a philosophically comfortable belief that does not, in my experience, apply to physics and engineering problems. I see no compelling reason why it should apply to philosophy. Too many "facts" can confuse a person, because not all of them will be facts. An effective theorist appreciates facts but learns to distinguish the few that are truly relevant from the general glut of information. The really fine scientists who have made significant contributions to human understanding all work this way. Max Planck (who discovered quantum theory) and Big Al are notable examples.

How has your logical, linear thought process worked for you so far? From here it looks like it has served you well in the elimination of bad ideas. Has it helped you to devise a better theory?

In both work and philosophy I use the engineering approach. First learn the requirements of the expected problem solution. In engineering this is easy because the problems are well defined. (E.g: get a computer to point a telescope at stars without human assistance.) Then assemble the requisite tools needed to do the job, which may mean creating some of them. Then get to work. The work itself can be time consuming and difficult, but if the problem parameters were mostly well considered, the work gets done.

The engineering approach applies nicely to philosophy. The problem is that philosophers have no practice in utilizing the engineering approach to their work, and apparently have been taught some kind of philosopher-approved method for solving perceived problems. It does not appear to me that they spend much energy identifying all aspects of their problems, but prefer to focus on small subsets. (Hence some of them are fond of the mystic's story about a gaggle of blind men feeling up an elephant, each focusing upon a single part of a larger body, and each triumphantly declaring that he knows the truth of it. Mystics and philosophers tend to say that all the blind men are right, whereas I think that the entire lot-- blind men, mystics, and philosophers who agree-- are mindless incompetents.)

Looking at the sample material in our host magazine, I see that philosophers continue to do the same thing. Each is a specialist in some ideas, but there is no one to put it all together. Whatever large scale problem they might be trying to define remains undefined. Imagine if Boeing built airplanes that way!

By learning some simple basic physics, defining the problem, and applying sound engineering techniques to its solution, we can answer all interesting metaphysical questions and derive a credible and verifiable solution to the origin of consciousness.

Your differentiation is between thought and emotion. Thought and emotion are both what a mathematician would call "functions." Behind every function there is a mechanism.

After leaving this forum last year, I went to another philosophy forum and did a lot of work on emotion. At that time, I solidified my ideas about a division between thought, knowledge, memory, and emotion, feeling, awareness. (When I mention "thought", I am referring to it as a thought, not as the process of "thinking", as that is not static.) The first division, thought, knowledge, and memory, is private -- not shared -- it is internal, and it is static. The second division, emotion, feeling, and awareness, is shared -- not private -- it is external, and in motion.

So if one put this idea in terms of a sentence, the first division would be the subject/noun, and the second division would be the verb. All action and states of being are defined by the verb.

This is a divergent style of thinking, so I'll need to think about it and perhaps revisit it with you another time. Some immediate comments are that thoughts and knowledge, even memory, are often shared. The sharing might be imperfect, in that we use languages to share them. With additional communications and a precise language, the sharing of thoughts (concepts, in particular) becomes more precise. E.g: Millions of people throughout the world understand and use the mathematical form known as integral and differential calculus, a brilliant insight developed by Issac Newton in England a few centuries back, while Leibnitz developed the same form in Germany almost simultaneously. Newton's private and deepest conceptual thoughts stopped being private long ago, when he published them.

It is easier to share mathematical thoughts because the language of math is more precise than normal human languages. It is so precise that it is the only universal language.

Since you were not trained in hard sciences, it was natural for you to describe your version of dualism in terms of functions. When you peruse DUAS you will find the mechanisms behind the very functions you described. Roughly speaking, beon is the mechanism behind thought, and brain is the source of emotion.

OK, but I may not agree with your mechanisms. I would think that "beon" would be more closely related to emotion and would think that chemistry -- not the brain -- stimulates emotion. There is evidence that chemistry stimulates emotion inside and outside of the body. My thought is that species with a brain "feel" the emotion, but that does not have anything to do with the function of emotion.

How could you possibly agree with mechanisms about which you currently know nothing? Perhaps we can revisit this later, elsewhere, if you learn something about alternative mechanisms. Or not, as things work out.

Some weeks ago I was tempted to PM you with the comment that, had you chosen physics instead of law, you would have derived my theories independently and probably done a better job of it. Had I done so, I would be reiterating that post along with a friendly "See! Told you so!" Now is not the time to get into details, but I expect that we shall revisit dualism another time, and from different perspectives. I'm looking forward to this.

Dualism? I did not say that there are two components to the "self". What I stated was that there are at least two components. Big difference. Humans are physical, mental, and spiritual beings -- three things. This is a truism. So I think that the Dualists need to learn how to count higher.

G[/quote]

I'll accept your word for the "at least" phrase. Beon Theory does not deal with the so-called "spiritual" side of man, but if it did, based upon my experience with religion and the paranormal, I'd attribute it to both beon and brain, a shared category of phenomena not much different from other non-sophisticated and experience-derived forms of thought.

In my opinion, there are no such things as spirits. These things, souls, gods, and such were originally defined by people who thought that the entire universe revolved around a flat earth. They were correctly defined to be non-material, but in that time "physical" really was not an established concept. These days religionists and other mystics conceive of spirits as entities that are non-material and also non-physical, despite the fact that these days the term "physical" encompasses many real phenomena that are not material. Everything is physical. I use the term "beon" instead of soul because the soul is defined by religionists as a spirit, something that cannot be detected by the methods of science. If the soul cannot be detected by the physical instruments of scientists then how can it interact with a physical human brain?

So, in my understanding of what it takes to make a human being, there are only two components that are real: the material body/brain system, and beon.

I prefer to keep things simple. Two components are the minimum requirement for any interaction. Again, we may want to revisit this conversation in a different context.

Note that the fewest number of fingers upon which one can "count" is two. Works fine for computers. Back in the sixties some Czechoslovakians decided that a tri-state computer would be more energy (and therefore time) efficient, and developed a computer that counted on what amounts to three fingers. It did not work worth squat, and remains a trivial technological footnote. So I'm not anxious to introduce a tri-state version of consciousness, other than the one I've already introduced in which the normal conscious mind is not a thing in itself, but the functional consequence of beon and brain working more or less in concert.

[Blaggard]

It's just complete arse isn't it Grey, when you are challenged by people who do something that challenges your nonsense, you ignore them and the fraud goes on.

Everything you write is just word wank, and anyone who actually does challenge you ignore. It's awful word salad a tiny little word salad from a man who can't and never will explain himself.

You're a fraud trying to sell a book no one will buy and none ever should. Because it's bs.

You're not trying to explain how anything works just how your religion works and your religion works is so utterly without reason, that no one will ever believe it.

Give it up mate we already know what you are. You haven't got the first clue what you are talking about and you never will, although I am quite fascinated by people who will indulge such specious people. That is at least what philosophy is about.

[Gee]

Greylorn;

Hi. I hope that you can ignore Blaggard. That is what I have been doing. I suspect that s/he is baiting people in an attemp to get an argument going because s/he is an attention-seeking troll. S/he has added nothing to this thread, and I doubt that Blaggard has any real interest in the subject.

But I was not pointing out the flaws in Descartes dualism; I was pointing out the flaws in his rationalization. As I stated before, I have not yet come to conclusions regarding a theory of consciousness, just small simple truths. It is my hope that enough simple truths will lead the way to a valid understanding of consciousness.

That is, for most people, a fine and somewhat arcane distinction, since the customary way to trash a theory is to shred its derivation. Nonetheless, you are correct.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I don't know the "customary" way to discuss theories because I look at them a little differently. I rarely accept them in whole, but do not wish to trash them either. I investigate them much like I would a garage sale, looking to discern value and junk.

After a lifetime of making a living by solving engineering problems I can assure you that the accumulation of simple truths will only lead to the solution of simple problems. While richer problems also depend upon such truths, the difficult ones also require an inductive leap or two along the way.

Agreed. It is my hope that the simple truths will help me to not wander too far from the right path. When reviewing theories of consciousness, I have noted that most people will select truths that compliment their theory, while rationalizing away truths that oppose their theory. It is my thought that the only way to ensure that I am not wandering is to keep reminding myself of all of the little things that I know to be true. If I were lost in the mountains, it might be helpful to remember two simple truths; water flows downhill and people often settle by water.

After all, if consciousness were easy to figure out, then someone would have already done it -- so I must be very careful.

There is yet another issue that I think you have not addressed. It is that of validating the simple truths upon which a larger theory must rest. After reading many of your posts on this thread I conclude that you are the most cogent mind I've encountered in a long time, and that you have accepted as true many opinions that are false.

I sincerely hope that you will question me regarding these "accepted" opinions. It is entirely possible that I am dead wrong on occasion. It is also possible that I have reasons for accepting all, or more likely, part of these opinions. If you question me, then I can rethink my position, or I can explain my reasoning. Often I need to explain my reasoning because my thinking is off the normal paths.

Some part of a linear process is essential to discovering the unknown. One takes as many linear, logical steps as possible in the direction of the unknown.

If it is truly unknown, then which direction would that be? Consciousness is not like most problems, as it is even difficult to find the starting point, much less which direction to move. Consider that science generally starts with the brain; religion usually starts with a "vision"; eastern religion/philosophy starts with a study of self through meditation; you seem to have started with some paranormal experiences and physics; I started with a question regarding ESP almost 50 years ago, which was, "How does it get from here to there?". Critical thinking is expansive and exploratory, so it is a good place to start looking.

Often the linear, logical approach will lead to the conclusion that all current theories or explanations are incorrect. The trick to finding a better theory is to fully accept this conclusion, gather information, continue to pursue the question, and be patient.

One can use logical thinking with regard to theories and explanations because the theory is known, so there is something to work with. We can compare the theory with the realities that we understand, logic, and how the theory consistently explains it's "facts" or evidence. Every accepted theory of consciousness that I have read has some valid information about consciousness, this includes religions and philosophies, but also ignores some aspects of consciousness. The idea that every theory is a little bit right, but not complete, led me to the conclusion that consciousness is much more complex than people realize. We underestimate it.

That's a philosophically comfortable belief that does not, in my experience, apply to physics and engineering problems. I see no compelling reason why it should apply to philosophy. Too many "facts" can confuse a person, because not all of them will be facts. An effective theorist appreciates facts but learns to distinguish the few that are truly relevant from the general glut of information. The really fine scientists who have made significant contributions to human understanding all work this way. Max Planck (who discovered quantum theory) and Big Al are notable examples.

Agreed. But philosophy studies the unknown -- not physics and engineering problems. Philosophy is a discipline that studies what is real and true, which can get very complicated very quickly. Consider that when philosophy started to study reality, it was discovered that some truths were fixed. A "fixed" truth is a truth that is true in and of itself without regard to perspective and/or time. An example of a "fixed" truth would be a book. A book will remain a book no matter what time of day, or which day it is, or who examines it; it is still a book -- true in and of itself. As more was learned about "fixed" truths, an entire division evolved from philosophy to study these "fixed" truths. That division is now called science, and the "fixed" truths are now called facts.

But there remains a great deal of truth that is not fixed. There is truth in perspective; what may be true to you may not be true to me. There is truth that is relative to time; I can say that I am alive, and that would be truth, but it may not be truth in ten minutes. And there is the unknown. Consciousness is relative to perspective, time, and the unknown, so it is very much under the jurisdiction of philosophy.

Once we define something, so we know what it is, then we hand it off to science, so they can work their magic on it.

How has your logical, linear thought process worked for you so far? From here it looks like it has served you well in the elimination of bad ideas. Has it helped you to devise a better theory?

Well, I don't have a theory, but I do have some ideas.

In both work and philosophy I use the engineering approach. First learn the requirements of the expected problem solution. In engineering this is easy because the problems are well defined.

Note the underlined above. I knew there was a reason why I liked you -- you are a problem solver.

Back in the day when I was taking college courses, I had a speech class. On the first day of class, the instructor explained how to outline a speech and used a speech that he had given as an example by writing his outline on the blackboard. His speech was about problem solving. I carefully listened and watched until he was finished and turned to the class asking for questions. Being the idiot that I sometimes am, I put my hand up and explained to him that he had skipped the first and most important step in problem solving, which is to define the problem. Then I further explained that if this first all important step is skipped, then all of your further work is moot -- as it does not necessarily address the problem. He was embarrassed; I flunked the class. Oh well.

Given your above statements, I expect that you understand that most people invest way too much energy on solutions, and not nearly enough energy on defining the problem to be solved. Once a problem is well defined, the solution generally follows in a logical and linear manner.

I think that I am still defining consciousness, but if I had to give a definition of it, I would call it communication. Consciousness is nothing, if it is not communication. Whether it is internal or external, it is all communication.

The engineering approach applies nicely to philosophy. The problem is that philosophers have no practice in utilizing the engineering approach to their work, and apparently have been taught some kind of philosopher-approved method for solving perceived problems. It does not appear to me that they spend much energy identifying all aspects of their problems, but prefer to focus on small subsets. (Hence some of them are fond of the mystic's story about a gaggle of blind men feeling up an elephant, each focusing upon a single part of a larger body, and each triumphantly declaring that he knows the truth of it. Mystics and philosophers tend to say that all the blind men are right, whereas I think that the entire lot-- blind men, mystics, and philosophers who agree-- are mindless incompetents.)

I don't think that they are taught to solve problems. I have been told that there are universities that do not even require critical thinking classes in a Philosophy degree. I found an on-line site that has a professor of philosophy from a good school, who taped his classes, and I thought it would be interesting to study. After the third lesson I quit watching because all that was being taught was how to argue. I already know that.

It is funny that you mentioned the "elephant and blind men" story as a member of another forum was trying to use that to tell me that one can not understand consciousness. I remember telling him that although the men were blind, they could still speak and compare ideas -- this is what forums are for. If the blind men talked to each other, maybe the one from the front and the one from the side could help the one holding the tail to figure out why his feet sometimes get wet. (chuckle chuckle)

But that story is really about truth and how it relates to perspective -- not about problem solving.


I can't respond to the rest of your post now, but will try to get back to it later today. There are some points that I would like to address.

G

[Greylorn Ell]

Greylorn;

Hi. I hope that you can ignore Blaggard. That is what I have been doing. I suspect that s/he is baiting people in an attemp to get an argument going because s/he is an attention-seeking troll.
S/he has added nothing to this thread, and I doubt that Blaggard has any real interest in the subject.

Gee,

Thanks for the reminder. Since inviting others to ignore Blaggard I've followed my own advice, but for awhile scanned s/he/it's posts to see if s/he/it had followed Punxsutawney Phil's example and briefly extracted his head from the orifice where he'd been keeping it warm and cozy. Looks like he's due for another six years of intellectual winter.

Yet s/he/it is especially helpful to this thread. Look at its numbers! 14,000 views! By serving as a counterpoint to thoughtful discussion, s/he/it makes everyone else on this thread look more intelligent than we could possibly be.

After a lifetime of making a living by solving engineering problems I can assure you that the accumulation of simple truths will only lead to the solution of simple problems. While richer problems also depend upon such truths, the difficult ones also require an inductive leap or two along the way.

Agreed. It is my hope that the simple truths will help me to not wander too far from the right path. When reviewing theories of consciousness, I have noted that most people will select truths that compliment their theory, while rationalizing away truths that oppose their theory. It is my thought that the only way to ensure that I am not wandering is to keep reminding myself of all of the little things that I know to be true. If I were lost in the mountains, it might be helpful to remember two simple truths; water flows downhill and people often settle by water.

It is also good to remember that various four-legged critters with sharp teeth also need to drink, and eat, and know the mountain better than you. And while we are assembling simple truths with respect to philosophy, let's not forget that boulders and shit run best in the same downhill course.

When young I was a devout Catholic and used rationalization skills similar to yours to blow off opposing truths. Physics was a wake-up call. When I set about the job of devising a better theory I used the engineering approach, which required that all truth must be incorporated into a problem solution, else the solution sucks.

After all, if consciousness were easy to figure out, then someone would have already done it -- so I must be very careful.

It is easy, and someone has already figured it out.

What exactly must you be careful about?

If you get consciousness wrong, you'll simply join a long list of others who have done the same, and you will be ignored. All the intellectual acclaim that you currently experience will go away.

If you get consciousness right and share your insights, the shit will hit the Boeing wind-tunnel fan while you are standing in front of it admiring its engineering. You'll need to obtain a CCW permit and find the largest bore firearm that you can safely handle and punch holes in paper targets with.

There is yet another issue that I think you have not addressed. It is that of validating the simple truths upon which a larger theory must rest. After reading many of your posts on this thread I conclude that you are the most cogent mind I've encountered in a long time, and that you have accepted as true many opinions that are false.

I sincerely hope that you will question me regarding these "accepted" opinions. It is entirely possible that I am dead wrong on occasion. It is also possible that I have reasons for accepting all, or more likely, part of these opinions. If you question me, then I can rethink my position, or I can explain my reasoning. Often I need to explain my reasoning because my thinking is off the normal paths.

I will expect the same from you.

This morning I did some rethinking on a prior conversation re: the mechanism behind emotion, thanks to your conversations on the matter. Is it brain or beon (or soul)? After developing Beon Theory a half-century ago I realized that this was a problem to which I had no answer. My first answer was identical to yours, perhaps for the same reason-- emotions seem so personal, and so deeply associated with self that they had to come from beon level.

The little universe in which I travel has been an excellent, if often harsh teacher. To disabuse me of my original opinion it introduced me to emotional and physiological pain-- heartbreak, failure of a book, loss of job, idea rejections, personal rejections, divorce and depression; all followed with a new batch of shattered bones and lots of cuttings-on. In the midst of this I experimented with drugs, prescription and otherwise, learning this:

Drugs affect emotions. With pills you can feel great while making your last stand in bankruptcy court, or feel downright suicidal after receiving a big fat check, or angry after getting laid. Under pot, one can find great amusement over irrelevant trivia. Under speed one can feel invincible, or brilliant while composing drivel.

I took Prosac for a month, and noticed that I, whatever "I" was, had become decidedly suicidal. Yet I was no longer depressed over a recent heartbreak, and felt "fine," which translated into no longer caring about anything. This simple pill clearly affected my emotions on several levels, none of them positive.

Drugs affect brain, not beon or soul. It follows that if drugs affect emotions, they are doing so through the brain.

Since arriving at that conclusion I no longer used mood-adjusters, except for God's greatest gift to mankind-- ethanol. Nonetheless I continued to observe the effects of various drugs on others, by way of passive experimentation. I found nothing to change my new opinion that emotions are entirely a property of the brain.

However, I have noticed that at the beon level I can change my feelings, and overcome physiological pain. I have become expert at being socially rejected, which serves me as well on forums as on the dance floor. This is done by controlling brain chemistry from beon level. I suspect that you have done the same, but perhaps without analyzing the process. This would lead you to the conclusion that "soul" is the source of emotions, kind of like how Hubble's observations of the expansion of the universe led to the mistaken notion of a Big Bang.

Some part of a linear process is essential to discovering the unknown. One takes as many linear, logical steps as possible in the direction of the unknown.

If it is truly unknown, then which direction would that be? Consciousness is not like most problems, as it is even difficult to find the starting point, much less which direction to move. Consider that science generally starts with the brain; religion usually starts with a "vision"; eastern religion/philosophy starts with a study of self through meditation; you seem to have started with some paranormal experiences and physics; I started with a question regarding ESP almost 50 years ago, which was, "How does it get from here to there?". Critical thinking is expansive and exploratory, so it is a good place to start looking.

Critical thinking is a method, not a place. It is like a tool in a mechanic's shop. By itself critical thinking is just a tool, method, or process, and is inherently an undirected process. You must focus it. Waving a wrench around accomplishes nothing; applying it to the head of a bolt can remove or fasten the bolt, as needed. Critical thinking about how to manufacture better but cheaper nails is not likely to lead to insights about the nature of consciousness. But you know this already.

What direction in which to search? Lost on a mountain, you've already noted that you would go in the conforming path, downhill, the same direction as water, bears, wolves, rubble and other comfort-seeking philosophers. Seems to me that since everyone would go that way (and with respect to metaphysical answers, that is exactly the direction they take) you'd want to take a divergent path, sideways, upward, or into a cave or crevasse. Otherwise expect the same results that they have obtained.

My path was to declare that with respect to answers about the beginnings of things, religions, philosophies, and science were all wrong. It is so much easier to write on an uncluttered blackboard.

Often the linear, logical approach will lead to the conclusion that all current theories or explanations are incorrect. The trick to finding a better theory is to fully accept this conclusion, gather information, continue to pursue the question, and be patient.

One can use logical thinking with regard to theories and explanations because the theory is known, so there is something to work with. We can compare the theory with the realities that we understand, logic, and how the theory consistently explains its "facts" or evidence. Every accepted theory of consciousness that I have read has some valid information about consciousness, this includes religions and philosophies, but also ignores some aspects of consciousness. The idea that every theory is a little bit right, but not complete, led me to the conclusion that consciousness is much more complex than people realize. We underestimate it.

You made a serious error in that conclusion. Consciousness is a simple phenomenon with awesome potential, and, "What you mean, 'we,' Kemosaby?"

You were evaluating theories developed by individuals who all adopted the same false assumption at the core of them. (All of them strolling down the mountain, the easy route.) That's like trying to explain the output of our sun or any other star based upon the assumption that its energy comes from chemical reactions.

A century or two ago physicists adopted something called "phlogiston theory" to explain fire. It was consistent with some observations, but not all. The "not all" component was science's clue that the entire theory sucked.

As evidenced by the acceptance of Big Bang theory and Darwinian explanations of evolution, scientists have ignored this lesson. They always will.

That's a philosophically comfortable belief that does not, in my experience, apply to physics and engineering problems. I see no compelling reason why it should apply to philosophy. Too many "facts" can confuse a person, because not all of them will be facts. An effective theorist appreciates facts but learns to distinguish the few that are truly relevant from the general glut of information. The really fine scientists who have made significant contributions to human understanding all work this way. Max Planck (who discovered quantum theory) and Big Al are notable examples.

Agreed. But philosophy studies the unknown -- not physics and engineering problems. Philosophy is a discipline that studies what is real and true, which can get very complicated very quickly. Consider that when philosophy started to study reality, it was discovered that some truths were fixed. A "fixed" truth is a truth that is true in and of itself without regard to perspective and/or time. An example of a "fixed" truth would be a book. A book will remain a book no matter what time of day, or which day it is, or who examines it; it is still a book -- true in and of itself. As more was learned about "fixed" truths, an entire division evolved from philosophy to study these "fixed" truths. That division is now called science, and the "fixed" truths are now called facts.

The notion that philosophy studies the unknown and is somehow unique in this respect is, with all due and considerable respect, complete nonsense.

We are back to the problem-definition question.

Here you conflate "unknown" with "not understood." Philosophy "studies" consciousness, in its customarily incompetent manner. Consciousness is known, which is why philosophers study it. They are insufficiently imaginative to study anything that is genuinely unknown-- that's NASA's job. Consciousness is known but is not understood, and the confused studies of the glut of mundane philosophers has only served to make it less understood, if that is even possible.

But there remains a great deal of truth that is not fixed. There is truth in perspective; what may be true to you may not be true to me. There is truth that is relative to time; I can say that I am alive, and that would be truth, but it may not be truth in ten minutes. And there is the unknown. Consciousness is relative to perspective, time, and the unknown, so it is very much under the jurisdiction of philosophy.

Again, and again with respect, nonsense! So called "truths" relating to perspective are the province of mystics. Philosophers who delve into them are nits who muddle the conversation.

Physics has long since learned to deal with the issue of perspective. No physics experiment will ever yield the precise, exact result as another because of experimental error. (Those errors are the physicist's equivalent of perspective.) Experimental physics is half art, half technology, and depends entirely upon humans more or less skilled in either. Therefore, every experiment comes with "error-bars," estimates of the experiment's precision.

Whereas physics has learned to deal with the vagaries of human observations and perspectives, philosophy seems to have made a separate and irrelevant art of it.

Once we define something, so we know what it is, then we hand it off to science, so they can work their magic on it.

I don't see philosophers as defining anything or handing off squat.

In pre-Newtonian, pre-Galilean times, there was a segment of philosophy that dealt with the real world, called natural philosophy. Some of its practitioners identified real problems but could not resolve them. Science came along with a different methodology to deal with that subset of philosophical problems.

In football a hand-off is the transfer of a ball to a member of the same team. Philosophers dropped the ball, whereupon another level of thinkers picked it up and ran with it. That's called a fumble and a turnover, not a hand-off.

In current times, philosophy and physics are on separate tracks. Philosophers rarely study physics and when they do it is at a superficial level. I doubt that there is a serious problem defined by philosophy on which some physicists have not picked up.

Yet, what I just said is, to some extent, bullshit. I've noticed a trend in physics over the last few decades toward mysticism, into some arcane corners of philosophy. I dislike it.

My approach to truth is to introduce physics into philosophy, but few philosophers are willing to accept such an intrusion. What I see happening is an intrusion of mystical philosophy into physics, and the consequent descent of hard-core physics into the realms of speculative nonsense. And that's another topic.

How has your logical, linear thought process worked for you so far? From here it looks like it has served you well in the elimination of bad ideas. Has it helped you to devise a better theory?

Well, I don't have a theory, but I do have some ideas.

Okay, Matthew 25:26-30 seems relevant here.

In both work and philosophy I use the engineering approach. First learn the requirements of the expected problem solution. In engineering this is easy because the problems are well defined.

Note the underlined above. I knew there was a reason why I liked you -- you are a problem solver.

Back in the day when I was taking college courses, I had a speech class. On the first day of class, the instructor explained how to outline a speech and used a speech that he had given as an example by writing his outline on the blackboard. His speech was about problem solving. I carefully listened and watched until he was finished and turned to the class asking for questions. Being the idiot that I sometimes am, I put my hand up and explained to him that he had skipped the first and most important step in problem solving, which is to define the problem. Then I further explained that if this first all important step is skipped, then all of your further work is moot -- as it does not necessarily address the problem. He was embarrassed; I flunked the class. Oh well.

You "flunked" only because you, at some level, accepted standards set by pinheads with two-digit IQs. By my standards (which I invite you to adopt) you simply transcended the course on the first day of it.

Given your above statements, I expect that you understand that most people invest way too much energy on solutions, and not nearly enough energy on defining the problem to be solved. Once a problem is well defined, the solution generally follows in a logical and linear manner.

I think that I am still defining consciousness, but if I had to give a definition of it, I would call it communication. Consciousness is nothing, if it is not communication. Whether it is internal or external, it is all communication.

The first paragraph is only partially true. I once wrote some code that required the computation of a trig function known as the secant, to run in less than 200 bytes on a tiny computer with the equivalent of 6144 bytes of memory. (That's 6144, not 6144K or 6144M.) The computer hardware could add and subtract but could not multiply or divide, operations needed to calculate the secant of an angle. After I'd been sent packing to another job, a young man working for my last employer called to ask questions about how the secant program worked. I was dumbfounded. He had all the code right in front of him, with notes. The code still worked (he just wanted to transport it to a more powerful computer). We both understood the problem, which had been solved. The solution was under his nose. The logic was upfront and the code was linear. Yet nothing I could say would have helped. He was insufficiently intelligent to understand the solution, and unwilling to put in the work needed to develop the requisite intelligence.

This is why Blaggard can only participate in intelligent conversations from the sidelines, as a troll lurking beneath a bridge, snorting and snarling at those traversing it.

Communication is a prerequisite for consciousness, but is not it. My old Pontiac's steering wheel communicates with its wheels rather reliably, and thankfully, does not intervene with a mind of its own. Its computer manages fuel flow rates as a function of velocity, acceleration, and dynamic load far better than I could with manual controls, communicating instructions to pumps and injectors and the ignition system, but it is not conscious of doing so, and I am glad of that.

Moreover it is an old Pontiac, and silent except for an occasional warning ding. It does not speak to me in a human voice as if it was conscious, so I have not shot it.

The engineering approach applies nicely to philosophy. The problem is that philosophers have no practice in utilizing the engineering approach to their work, and apparently have been taught some kind of philosopher-approved method for solving perceived problems. It does not appear to me that they spend much energy identifying all aspects of their problems, but prefer to focus on small subsets. (Hence some of them are fond of the mystic's story about a gaggle of blind men feeling up an elephant, each focusing upon a single part of a larger body, and each triumphantly declaring that he knows the truth of it. Mystics and philosophers tend to say that all the blind men are right, whereas I think that the entire lot-- blind men, mystics, and philosophers who agree-- are mindless incompetents.)

I don't think that they are taught to solve problems. I have been told that there are universities that do not even require critical thinking classes in a Philosophy degree. I found an on-line site that has a professor of philosophy from a good school, who taped his classes, and I thought it would be interesting to study. After the third lesson I quit watching because all that was being taught was how to argue. I already know that.

It is funny that you mentioned the "elephant and blind men" story as a member of another forum was trying to use that to tell me that one can not understand consciousness. I remember telling him that although the men were blind, they could still speak and compare ideas -- this is what forums are for. If the blind men talked to each other, maybe the one from the front and the one from the side could help the one holding the tail to figure out why his feet sometimes get wet. (chuckle chuckle)

But that story is really about truth and how it relates to perspective -- not about problem solving.

Tail? Wet feet? How about a snootfull of gooey Loxodanta spunk?

Methinks that your interpretation of the story's truth comes from a philosopher's perspective. From an engineer's perspective it shows why philosophers are incapable of solving interesting problems. (Extend the story to a blind man who climbed up the elephant's backside and stuck his head into the first available orifice, seeking his personal truth. Imagine that there was a which represented shared chuckles.)

Greylorn