From: oldernow@dev.null
On 2024-04-27, Richmond wrote:
> I am just trying to explain why I said what I said, and
> the context is relevant to that, because you asked what it
> is accomplishing a little further back. (Perhaps there is
> some merit in quoting everything). But for me to discuss
> consciousness is interesting in its own right. My only
> purpose is to understand it and what it means. Lately
> I have been finding that people have various meanings
> attached to the word consciousness which are different
> from mine. These terms like conscious, unconscious,
> subconscious, awareness, knowledge, perception, all get
> mixed together with woolly boundaries.
To my way of thinking, that's a good description of
one aspect of why word-mediated "knowing" seems to be
accomplishing very little. "People have various meanings
attached to the word consciousness". Exactly! So
what's accomplished when beings using private
definitions-of/meanings-for words use those words between
themselves to discuss something?
Ever hear of the "Tower of Babel"? ;-)
That's all this exercise in futility known as online
interaction is. I've no idea what 'futility' - or any of
the other words I've used - means to you. Like AI, I can
try to draw conclusions from your usage of other words,
especially those most often surrounding your usage of
'futility'. Ditto on 'consciousness'. Ditto on *'ditto'*,
even! And so on.
The reason they don't work between separate minds is
because they don't even work - in the sense of drawing nigh
unto underlying (i.e. beneath representation) reality -
for us personally.
We learn a word, i.e. how to pronounce it, spell it, and
what set of other words is said to define it. But for us
individually/personally, the words in that "set of words"
are also privately defined, and actually have considerably
more to do with each other (by perpetually repeating their
relationships to ourselves, and between ourselves with
others) than with any underlying reality. That remains
safely out of "word reach".
But we pretend it doesn't. We think we "know" the
underlying reality by attempting to comprehensively
labeling it. We even label the labeling! (e.g "describing",
"knowing")
Conceptuality seems to be an endless labeling exercise
while being careful not to notice the circularity of it
all lest its efficacy for bridging the gap between our
separate selves and some "reality" come into question.
> I'd like to know if dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees, dogs,
> cats, whales, are conscious, even though it is not of any
> use to me to know.
But you already essentially admitted the only thing we know
about "consciousness" is some spectrum of other words we
associate with the word 'consciousness': "These terms like
conscious, unconscious, subconscious, awareness, knowledge,
perception, all get mixed together with woolly boundaries."
So there's some alleged reality labeled 'consciousness'.
But sometimes that label isn't satisfying for "what we
really mean". So we pick another label we think is closer
to "what we really mean". And then that's not quite it,
so we pick another. And everyone's doing that round robin
word thang within (mind) in real time, and each has all
those words privately defined, and the words "doing the
defining" privately defined, and... and...
Now I'm wondering if "knowing" ever really anything more
than word games....
But, whatever. The important thing is my typing skills
improved incrementally while I so enjoyed seeing words
appear on the screen while the typing of this.... ;-)
--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
