what is "consciousness"?

As much as I like what you have been writing in the past few posts I must remind you that there´s no "clean" way to debate an obscure theme such as Consciousness, it is messy from the start !

"You" comes not before but with the concepts...a nuance out of grasp to your kind of linear reasoning...

...the more concepts the more "you" there is, the less concepts the less "you" to look at them..."you" emerges progressively in between the pattern relations...it all comes down to progressive layers and sets of relative contextual measurement in which every new coordinate, every new reference, extends a more precise "location" to what the "you" is being...

...aside that, there´s not much more to say on the matter...

Oh, don't expect there to be a clean way to debate it. But i see little debate going on here--if people cannot agree on what consciousness is, then they need to start from the point of agreeing on terms, and then proceed to discussion of what consciousness is, or may be. But even that is not going on here. As i said before, people are just talking past one another.

Of course, my posts have been levity intended to lighten a mind-numbingly dull and ponderous thread. If people actually were to attempt to agree on the definitions of terms, and proceed from there to a debate of what consciousness is or might be, it might be worth the candle.

You've been ignored Mr. Righteousness.

Well . . . there's an end to my social life.

We had some form of debate going on here, but like you say Setanta, its descended into people talking past one another. Maybe there are just too many people on here who are nothing more than self-satisfied poo-flingers...I don't know.

I don't mind the poo-flinging, Dog knows i do it myself often enough, but it doesn't need to descend into personalities. I had grown tired of no real progress being made to define terms and come any agreement, but i was willing to endure that. I simply made a mildly humorous remark based on another member's silly posts, when it all seemed to blow up.

Oh well. Perhaps people here will buckle down and attempt to define terms and produce a discussion, or at least a debate worth reading. I don't have much to contribute a philosophical discussion, and have no conceits in that line, but i do enjoy reading them, if there is actual rhetorical give and take.

Actually, there was no descending into anything, and there was no poo-flinging.

The problem here is that what I am talking about can't be spoken about in the realm of 'definition'. To 'define' is to set forth the meaning of a word. 'Meaning' is an agreed upon assertion with proof. An assertion generally 'asserts' that some 'thing' exists in the world and provides proof by using length, width, depth, locality, mass to prove substantiality or substance (nouns and verbs are things).

What I'm talking about resides in the realm of 'possibility' and 'knowing'. It is an invitation to play.

In the year 2000 I went to work for a corporation that had purchased the company I was working for and they invited me to join them. Early on my first day I was required to attend an orientation. During the presentation, the lady at the front of the room announced that “If you are going to work for this company you have to think outside of the box.” I raised my hand and when called upon I asked, “What box?”

What I'm saying doesn't exist in the realm of definition or proving. It exists in the realm of knowing and possibility. You and I have proven that I can't prove or define what I know. Possibility is just well, possible, right?

So, the question is, are you going to accept the invitation to step outside of 'definition' and 'proof'?

Be informed that there are only 2 directions you can move in. You can move towards what I'm proposing and set aside your requirement for 'definition' and 'proof', or you can move away from what I'm saying. Do what you will.

Most people can't live life without a net. They 'have to' define the playground and make or enforce the rules so they can have some semblance of being in control (an illusion). They require the 'reflection in the glass' and 'self-imposed' boundaries to 'define' who they are.

All of this will be covered in my book.

This feels like a cop-out to me. You say that you cannot define what you know, but that just allows to avoid any kind of debate or argument with others.

How have you managed to fill an entire book with what you know, if you can’t define it?

How can I accept an invitation to something that cannot be defined?

If I accept your invitation where does it take me?

In order for me to engage in debate, it is required that I define my terms. If I reject defining what I know, or what I think, then I essentially have nothing to say. I don't know what you are referring to, and I'm not even sure that you are, because apparently you cannot provide a definition of what you know, beyond saying "It exists in the realm of knowing and possibility".

What you seem to be suggesting, at least in other posts of yours, is that you seem to be in possession of knowledge that is beyond conceptualisation. However, in order to know something, you need some sort of conceptualisation, which you should then be able to define.

You say that "people can’t live life without a net", and that they need to define the playground, impose rules etc. By saying that what you know "exists in the realm of knowing and possibility", you have defined it to that extent, and that is some sort of "net" presumably.

A lot of what you say doesn't make any sense.

It might be an interesting thread, this question of the significance of "defining our terms". I can see how it might be important to define terms when doing observational research so that we can know what to observe and what to ignore. It's a matter of focus. But sometimes arriving at a precise and thorough defintion of some phenomenon is the goal of research, not just a means for the conduct of research. Definition can come at the beginning as means or at the conclusion of research as ends, and it's probably a combinition of both.
Remember the bankrobber who was flustered and fled the bank when after giving his note to an intellectual cashier was asked to define his terms?

Of course it feels like a cop-out to you. It couldn't feel like anything else.

Your entire response is an explanation and justification for definition. Maybe communication has nothing to do with debate or argument.

Maybe something is being communicated in my postings that has nothing to do with debate, argument, or definition. Maybe what is being communicated is what we call possibility. It could be that you are intrigued by what is being communicated even though you can't make any sense of it.

“Humans are noted for their desire to understand and influence their environment, seeking to explain and manipulate phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology, and religion.” - Wikipedia

Maybe the 'sense' you make has nothing to do with life.

Accept the invitation and find out where it takes you. If I called you up and asked if you want to fishing on Saturday you wouldn't have the huevos to tell me your answer is dependent on whether we are going to catch fish or not. Fishing and catching are not the same thing. Where is your thirst for adventure?

I started reading Being and Time by Martin Heidegger 15 years ago and I am on page 94 of my 74th reading. There is no way I could have told you 15 years ago where it would have lead me. 15 years and 74 1/3 readings later I can only tell you that is was worth it. Can I prove it to you - - - NO!I only have what I 'know' and that is something I can stand on. I am in possession of knowledge that goes beyond conceptualization. You have the same knowledge. The only difference is that you don't know you know what I know.

I invite you to read my book when it becomes available and I ask you not to make any sense of it. If after reading my book you are still intrigued, I invite you to pick up "Being and Time" and slug it out for 15 years. The journey is worth it. There are no guarantees in life. You can study it and go on living the rest of your life. I can't tell you if you're going to catch fish. All I can do is invite you to go fishing. What else do you have planned with your time on the planet?

I'll reply to this tomorrow, when I've had some sleep.

What I have decided to do with Dasein's posts is to just read them, 'get my rocks off' and go on with my day!!

Great stuff!! Look forward to your book, pleasee keep me posted!!!

After having thought about this for a day or so I realized that the 'cop-out' is demanding that everything be defined for you. It is also a 'cop-out' to noy uncover your own meaning for life and rely on the 'popular' meanings. You are the inventor of life and you are the one who uncovers the meaning. You can't do that by using 'popular' definitions.

BTW - making 'sense' is what humanity does to stay in control of something they have no control over.

I'm asking you to define what you know, why is that such an issue for you? In order to have a discussion, I need something that can be understood. If you don't present something to me in a definable way, there is nothing to discuss.

You assume I rely on what you call "popular meanings"-exactly what are they? And I wasn't asking for "popular definitions", I was asking for your definition. If you've "uncovered the meaning of life" for yourself, you would have presumably ceased relying on "popular meanings", whatever they are, and you must then have developed your own meaning, and you should be able to articulate it.

I was just asking for your point of view, but apparently you can't put it into words. Maybe its just because you don't want to discuss the contents of your book?


Have you stopped making sense?

'Definition' is an attempt to create predictability by using the past to explain the present, this can also be linked with what we call 'tradition', which only keeps you from uncovering your own existence/possibilities because you keep running in circles.

I, for one, have totally and completely 'understood' his posts. What is it that you do not understand? If what he was saying was not 'understandable', well then he himself would not have even been able to write it, now would he?

We have nothing more to talk about. I knew this when we were in our first flurry of postings to each other. I won't make that mistake again. I don't think you should read my book either.

You just opened the door for existential potential to continue doing with you what he has done with me. It is his strategy for avoiding what is being communicated. He may never look in the mirror and call himself on it. Until he does, this is what life will look like for him.

When you finally get that no amount of explaning or defining will resolve anything for existential potential you will close the door just like I just did. Most people don't know they don't want to resolve anything and move on to the rest of their life.

If you think for a moment you will find that, like me, you already know what existential potential's response will be to what I posted to him and this post.

When he has finished saying all he has to say about these postings, I, and eventually you, will be blamed for not being able to 'define' what I'm saying for him.

As I said above, no amount of explaning or defining will 'magically' give him the ability to cross the road. Given that he has already offered himself this opportunity and has turned it down, I know that he will come face-to-face with the opportunity 2 or maybe 3 more times before his demise. I have found that people don't take what I'm talking about seriously until the perceived time they have left on the planet is shorter than the time they have spent. I started taking the opportunity seriously around the age of 45. Up until then I was doing the same thing he is, which is why I have closed that door.

I can't avoid something that your not communicating. If there is anything you are referring to, it seems that it is something like a kind of attitude that you have developed, and attitude towards your life.

You talk about how you took this "opportunity" when you realised your inherent finitude, that your time is always running out, and that death is always a little closer. You must have read about this "Being and Time", the notion of "being-towards death"?

The "opportunity" you speak of, I think is a product of the realisation that one's demise is an ever-present possibility. Once you realise the inevitability of your own death, you start to live in a different, or so called "authentic" way.

I may not be referring to the same "opportunity" as you are, but I am forever reminding myself of it as a possibility.

My possibility.

You're already dead.