You could do this (both sound odd to me, to be honest), but this seems like a stipulative definition, in which case it's not clear what the impetus for doing this is. — StreetlightX

It's just an attempt at finding a most comprehensive definition possible. Anyway, I think the word fact would be somewhat deficient if it were limited to only one definition when it's supposed to include propositions which express subjective statements. I think I'm looking for something I can find to be more comfortable, and possibly more personal, than accepting the whole range of meanings available in philosophy or semantics. I'm just being stubborn for no good reason.

How about a fact is an expression of a state of affairs or circumstance. This can also fit in statements like "it is a fact that force is defined as mass multiplied by acceleration," and "it is a fact that fraud is illegal under the law."

I thought axiom was appropriate because it is composed of a premise which leads to a conclusion through a particular line of reasoning/logic. This, to me, seems to imply a level of definitiveness to the process thus enabling a clear judgement of whether it is right or wrong, true or false.

If not axiom, then what? Theory?

Thanks. It's illuminating.

I seem to have a problem with a proposition being characterized as true or false because, by my understanding, a proposition is not definitive. Its values of truth and falsity are potential. To me, if the potentiality is verified, then it becomes an axiom.

I understand a proposition to be an attempt to express meaning or value, but whether or not it is true or false is beyond the proposition itself. By this I mean that, the proposition has to be examined in relation to something like evidence (the object/subject, the significance of which, the proposition is attempting to express) so as to determine whether its value is true or false. And, whether the evidence is itself a fact or truth is again dependent on another degree of relation, viz, meaning.

Is my explanation sound?

Um, no. Providing you understand the terms, you can always demonstrate that 2+3=5. Facts you can never demonstrate. You can exhibit supporting documentation, or make probabilistic arguments, but never more than that. — tim wood

I've never thought of truths and facts in this way before. At first glance I seem to want to protest but there is a simplicity to the explanation that makes me think it might be right. I'll have to think on this for a long while before I can say anything pertinent about it. Thanks for the perspective.

(Imo) you're exactly right. I'll add a refinement that likely you had in mind but that I'll just make more explicit. Truth and fact are different animals. Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon is a fact. 2+3=5 is true. — tim wood

Thanks for this. I take it to mean something like, "truth is enduring, that is, it will always be relevant, while a fact is relative.

A fact is a true proposition. Nothing more or less. — Douglas Alan

This has become interesting. Can a proposition be true? I mean in the sense that, if it is true, is it still a proposition?

And what is your perspective of facts with respect to truth when the conditions which determine them change? That is, do facts change?

First, there is no 'nothing' because every way it is defined, it is always related to 'something'. Sometimes the 'nothing' is the source, cause of 'something'; other times it contains potential, capacity, etc for 'something'; and, lastly, it is also considered as the end of 'something'. Therefore, it is simpler to just call it 'something' since it is the undeniable common factor. ('Something' is what is known about 'nothing'.)


About being trapped in the infinite prison, I think you've already found the answer = Going Crazy!!!
It seems crazy :wink: but one of the fundamental defining factors of craziness/madness is a certain degree of lowering/lessening of inhibitions. How trapped can anyone be without inhibitions? That's the freedom we instinctively strive to seek from within.

Long story short, the many paths and ideas to enlightenment and freedom are just ways to go crazy consciously, deliberately and definitively. It's quite the trip! :wink:

mystical stuff rarely translates into a road-map towards much useful science. — Sir Philo Sophia

Meditation was once mystical. Acupuncture... ?

I don't think that is correct. they always came from experimental observations which needed new theory to explain. mystical stuff rarely translates into a road-map towards much useful science. — Sir Philo Sophia

Isn't metaphysics just another way of explaining our observations?

I'm not sure how such ideas further science, but they do support a good spiritual feeling philosophy, which seems in synch with many ancient eastern philosophies. — Sir Philo Sophia

Science has always had a 'mystical' component to it. It doesn't mean it's wrong. Science has always had room for conceptual/theoretical stuff which in some ways is very close to metaphysics. Theories of atoms and dark matter were not developed from proof or experience but from translations of metaphysical ideas about the nature of things and such.

OK, so, in your way of thinking, all humans have about the same level of intelligence (difference only in how much it is expressed) and consciousness which comparable in many ways to the intelligence and consciousness of a rock. — Sir Philo Sophia

Not really. Neither a rock nor human is intelligent in themselves and by themselves. The point is that, it is intelligence which manifests the activity and identity we refer to as a human and also a rock.

so, according to your views, a mentally retarded human (e.g., exhibiting less intelligent activity) has less consciousness than an average human (e.g., exhibiting much more intelligent activity than a retarded one) ? — Sir Philo Sophia

No, not less consciousness. Not even less intelligence in the ultimate sense. Just a lesser degree of expression of some attributes which seem to depend on the mental faculty for expression.

so you are coming from the camp of "God's intelligent design" as explaining our universe and human condition? — Sir Philo Sophia

Just intelligent design. I can't give any validation for God(s) but there seems to be a fundamental principle which acts as a unifying or connecting factor to everything. Intelligent design just means great patterns of activity (cause and effect).

also, you apparently are saying that you don't think that consciousness requires any level of agency. Have I got you right on that?? — Sir Philo Sophia

To me, consciousness is the fundamental principle underlying everything. God, energy, reality, etc, are just different names and perspectives of the same thing. Basically, all is consciousness (or God, energy, reality, etc).

what working-in-progress definition of 'intelligence' are you using to make these kinds of statements, in re consciousness? — Sir Philo Sophia

What we define as intelligence is just a level of activity of generating causes towards effects in as harmonious, and sometimes unified, a way as possible. In that sense nature (what we understand as nature) is a far superior activity.

if everything is conscious then how does that help us define it — Sir Philo Sophia

All our definitions are a 'work-in-progress' because our understanding is still far from absolute.

and why are our computers or electronics not conscious, not even the way a mouse is? — Sir Philo Sophia

Because human application of intelligence is vastly inferior to that manifest by nature (or reality).

why would biologically self-propagating be related to consciousness. Maybe you did not mean to say it that way. — Sir Philo Sophia

Because biology is just a dimension of activity and configuration of energies; and consciousness (interactive mechanism of energy) also manifests that paradigm.

why would degree of intelligent activity be determined and limited by the degree of 'consciousness'? — Sir Philo Sophia

I mean intelligence cannot surpass the level of consciousness which it is manifest in.

Clearly, "degree of intelligent activity" is not sufficient. e.g., a rock has zero "intelligent activity" which would mean by you it has zero 'consciousness', but then you say ' consciousness as the awareness-response (interactive) mechanism existent in everything', an apparent contradiction. — Sir Philo Sophia

There is a great deal of intelligence manifest through the configuration we call a rock, e.g. as conceived in the activity of its atoms and molecules.



However, the truth is that there is a fundamental flaw in the idea that humans (or anything) can be intelligent. This is because it presumes that humans determine their intelligence whereas the truth is that we work with whatever reality (or nature) has given us. Everything we do and have is as nature determined for us, and that is true of everything both living and non-living, organic and inorganic, etc, etc.

We are a mystery to ourselves. We are and we do. Any attempt at defining ourselves fails to account for the fact that we are already defined.

How about my a virus counter example, which exhibits a high degree of expressed intelligence yet in no way would we say it has consciousness? Virus are not even considered to be alive. — Sir Philo Sophia

Non-living and even inorganic configurations can have consciousness in the sense that they have preset states of conditioning which primarily define their identity and the activity of intelligence aligned with that identity. It's why we talk of intelligent design - because intelligence is an activity generated and propagated by certain predetermined states/configuration. Therefore, in a comprehensive sort of view, consciousness is that state which determines and compels an intelligent activity. It's like consciousness is the identity (in its totality), and intelligence is its activity.


Concerning viruses, they have consciousness in the sense of a state of conditioning which defines their identity and degree of intelligent activity. So, for me, it's not that viruses don't have consciousness, but that their level of activity is intermediate between that of configurations which self-propagate biologically and those which do not.


Sometimes, I simplify consciousness as the awareness-response (interactive) mechanism existent in everything.

I think your perspective of consciousness is really good especially since it's primarily wrt to experience, which means there's bound to be an underlying truth to it. And, I think my idea might be in close relation to yours in a way. So, for me, consciousness and intelligence interrelate in every activity. Intelligence is like the grooves of a vinyl record and consciousness (the one we usually refer to) is the sound produced when it is played. However, for me, there is another level/degree of consciousness which is in play before the intelligence is applied. That is, there is a consciousness which determines the intelligence to be used. This former/prior consciousness is analogous to the music pattern which determines how the grooves in a vinyl record will be organised. And, that initial music pattern is not yet sound but, through the use of an instrument, sound can be produced.

Another analogy would be that I have a musical pattern in my mind. Before I express it or play it on an instrument, it cannot be said to be sound even though it is musical. However, through an instrument (which organisation of strings, chords, membranes, etc, represents intelligence), sound, which is kinda like an emergent property, is generated. Also, that initial music pattern has to be intelligently organised for it to have the potential of sound. Therefore, to me, it seems consciousness and intelligence are always interacting and there can never be one without the other. From such a perspective, I see consciousness as the cause to (source of) intelligence, and the environment in which intelligence manifests/acts, as well as, the emergent property which comes through the action of that intelligence. It's like consciousness is the soul manifesting through a human body (intelligent configuration) and emerging as personality or character (an outer expression of the initial consciousness).

So, from your perspective, what is consciousness? Or, what does it entail?

1. What is God?
"God is the Supreme Intelligence - First Cause of all things."

The Pantheistic theory makes of God a material being, who, though endowed with a supreme intelligence, would only be on a larger scale what we are on a smaller one. But, as matter is incessantly undergoing transformation, God, if this theory were true, would have no stability. He would be subject to all the vicissitudes, and even to all the needs, of humanity. He would lack one of the essential attributes of the Divinity -viz., unchangeableness. The properties of matter cannot be attributed to God without degrading our idea of the Divinity and all the subtleties of sophistry fail to solve the problem of His essential nature.
We do not know what God is but we know that it is impossible that He should not be and the theory just stated is in contradiction with His most essential attributes. It confounds the Creator with the creation, precisely as though we should consider an ingenious 'machine' to be an integral portion of the mechanican who invented it.

The intelligence of God is revealed in His works, as is that of a painter in his picture but the works of God are no more God Himself than the picture is the artist who conceived and painted it. — ALLAN KARDEC (THE SPIRITS' BOOK - 1857)

Just a little perspective. Sometimes there's more to the word God than meets our minds.

Every person, as a self, body, or both, knows they exist. But that knowledge is certainly variable with concern to each one, as a lot of philosophies about proving one's existence have emerged, and are known for their common contradictions.

What's yours? I would like to hear from you. — Unlimiter

Knowledge (or intelligence) cannot define or delineate existence because it is an expression of existence. Therefore, knowledge or intelligence can be defined/delineated with respect to existence but not vice versa.

Also, it's not that we know we exist but, rather, we can't deny that we exist. Existence is an absolute affirmation. IT IS that which IT IS (Existence Is).

I AM that I AM -> In other words, I AM, no matter how we choose to designate it.

The 'I' is not a presupposition. It is an affirmation of that which is, and cannot be denied.
The meaning attached to the 'I' is what is usually presupposed. The 'I' never needs any of the types of qualifications that it is given. It is, essentially, always itself by itself and for itself. Basically, "I... AM".

Somebody consider the possibility that quantum mechanics applies to all phenomena since even complex configurations (e.g rocks) are an aggregation of simpler configurations (e.g. molecules, atoms, sub-atomic, etc). Therefore, even a rock could act as both wave and particle in the sense that it has a corresponding force resonance (vibration sequence/pattern -> a wave property) aligned with its apparent physicality (or interactive configuration).

If complex configurations are an aggregate of simpler configurations and, quantum mechanics is a perspective on those simpler configurations, doesn't that mean that every complexity we seem to have has a field of activity in which quantum mechanics applies?

But is it certain that the exact thought I am consciously aware right now is happening? — Kranky

Firstly, what does it mean to be aware of thought?

The reason I'm asking is because I seem to have a perspective from which the awareness and thoughts are different and somewhat separate though not completely independent. I would put it as, "thought is an expression of awareness."
To me, "I think, therefore I am," seems more appropriate when it means, "I am aware, therefore I am." I think awareness (for me, consciousness is a more comprehensive terminology) is the fundamental person (or existence) because there's no way of getting past its ever-ness. For example, being conscious means being aware and having it on record while being unconscious means being aware without being impressed on any record. Either way, no matter the degree, consciousness/awareness is ever-present.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, and others contributed to the idea by the 2nd century, and so did St. Augustine in 412 CE, all drawing on St. Paul. — Bitter Crank

Then how did it become a part of Christian teachings? I mean, sure, I get reasons why people would want to justify sin and the inevitability of it. But it seems like it's become quite an integral premise to the whole narrative of salvation despite having been designed outside of original scriptural literature. I've always thought the idea of original sin is weird (unreasonable) with respect to common sense reasoning but, it's even weirder now that I know it's provenance. It's like, so much of Christian belief is based on simulations such that it is almost impossible for that faith to be reasonable.

Where/when/by whom was the concept of original sin first developed?

There's an idea that love could be seen as an emergent property of the processes of unity. Therefore, love would be the essence (intent, need, desire, etc) of the pursuit for connectivity. For example, if we're looking to identify with something (and, consequently, develop a connection to that something), then love would be the embodiment of the efforts and conditioning involved in that pursuit.

So, "I love you," would translate to something like, "I appreciate our connectivity," or "I want to further our connectivity," or along those lines. And, I think it could work with anything, from people relations to sports, occupation, life at large, religious/spiritual dimensions, etc, etc.

If I say "banks are indivisible" and you reply "cornflakes are indivisible" then you are not addressing me. Sinking in yet? — Bartricks

If the meaning of indivisibility is identical, then banks and cornflakes are just synonymous names. Get it?

If you mean by 'consciousness' what I mean by 'mind', then you should use 'mind' not 'consciousness' as I'm the one who's made the argument. This is especially so given that I use 'consciousness' to refer to 'the state of consciousness' (like, you know, everyone else does). — Bartricks

Not unless I had a point to make. If mind meant to everybody what you say it does, then the contrast in the various arguments in this thread and even beyond would not exist. I mean, just by googling mind I begin to get different definitions and explanations. Therefore, I don't 'buy' your conventionality idea.

You mean 'imply' not 'infer'. — Bartricks

No. I meant infer. I gave an example of my observation of certain phenomena and from it deduced that possibility.

I argued that indivisibility entails immateriality. — Bartricks

Unless, immateriality here refers to subtlest or most tenuous. Otherwise, by being an existence (an object or 'thing'), it must have substantiality of some degree to be able to be interactive and for complexity to be able to arise from its simplicity. My point is immateriality implies a kind of relativity of conditioning and is often used to compare different states such as physical vs non-physical (spiritual) depending on context.

What I'm saying is, something can be indivisible and material. If indivisibility does not negate materiality, then that point about immateriality becomes moot.

No, I am using the word 'mind' conventionally. It is conventionally used to denote the object that bears our conscious experiences. — Bartricks

So has the word consciousness, brain, thoughts, etc, etc. Convention does not make it absolute. What is convention on one's side of town is not so on others.

If I say "banks are financial institutions and they're corrupt" you are not even addressing me if you say "banks are the sides of rivers and they are wet". — Bartricks

I have kept the relation to the significant factor, which is indivisibility. So, it's more like I said,

treasuries are financial institutions and they're corrupt.

I mean by 'mind' - the 'object that is bearing our conscious experiences'. — Bartricks

And, I mean by consciousness, that which is indivisible.

The philosophical debate is over what kind of an object it is - material, or immaterial. — Bartricks

Everything is material to itself and can only be immaterial to something less subtle (tenuous) than itself. The materiality and immateriality of something cannot be a fundamental description of anything. For example, magnetic force is immaterial to our sensations, yet it is material to its own kind. If immateriality is based on any gradation of intangibility and inertness (unreactive-ness), then it is not necessarily derived from indivisibility.

Immateriality does not automatically infer indivisibility.

Er, yes, obviously I have a problem because it is false. Baby steps. Consciousness is a mental state. Mental 'state'. That means 'state of mind'. A 'state of mind' is a - ooo wait for it - a. state. of. a. mind. State of a mind, not a mind. State of a mind, not a mind. State of a mind. not a mind. State of a mind. Not a mind.

The mind is the thing. Consciousness is a state of it. Write that out a thousand times. Then tattoo 'mind' on your left hand and 'state of mind' on your right so that you remember that they're distinct. — Bartricks

Long story short, it seems you have your own meanings for whatever you choose to express, while others have theirs. Current education has its own definitions of mind, mental states, consciousness, etc which you choose to ignore. I have no problem with that, I have done it and still do it, too. What matters is what is logical a.k.a the significance of what is being expressed and its right relations.

What I'm saying is, that which is indivisible, I name it, CONSCIOUSNESS.

Or you can have it this way:

Consciousness is the state of indivisibility and indivisibility is the state of consciousness.

Consciousness <=> Indivisibility.

First, no - if the steering mechanism fails 'I' lose the ability to steer the car. Second - congratulations on completely missing the point. — Bartricks

No. Your ability still exists and can be easily realised by steering a different but fully functional car. Hence, your ability is not diminished

Er no. I never said "consciousness is indivisible". I said my 'mind' is indivisible. Mind. Not 'consciousness'. Consciousness is a 'state' of a thing, not a thing itself. I am conscious. I am not consciousness.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, you need to go check if 'science' confirms that. — Bartricks

You call that which is indivisible, mind. I call it consciousness. Science calls it energy. Etc. Etc.
Like I said, you were right. Do you have a problem with that, too?

This sort of concept can be a tongue twister and philosophically mere speculation.

If one approaches the question from a spiritual perspective you can go a lot further and consider the absolute. — Punshhh

True. However, I think that philosophically, it will change because there is a growing realization that subjectivity does not negate objectivity. There is also a growing number of people who realise that subjective actions add up to some part of our objective processes, e.g. how meditation increases the proficiency of mental processes which earlier scientific thought had dismissed as hogwash but now has incontrovertible proof of increased brain gamma waves through prolonged practice of meditation as well as its connection to well-being through improved mental health and such.

I think eventually, philosophy will advance further when it realises that logic does not mean scientific. At that point, a great part of the spiritual perspective will have regained some of its lost trust.

Right now, no matter how chaotic it gets, everything is just roses, ...roses. (Emoji/Gif: Indian guy doing the head-bobble)

By refresh-rate, you are referring to the duration of a moment for a human, what we would describe as a few seconds. Or about a second with a fade in and out of a second each side, the past and future?
Also you are saying there are other reset periods, like day length determined by physical circumstances? — Punshhh

Yes. What we, humans, like to refer to as a moment is not and cannot describe a moment in its absolute sense. Ours is a kind of aberration built upon a specific kind of relation. It is also why, in all my explanations, I have insisted on perspective. It is also why, given a period of activity taking place beyond a humans comprehension of duration of a moment, e.g. a year, it becomes impossible to classify it according to linear time unless it hasn't happened yet, or it is has already happened. In both cases, time would actually be irrelevant unless in connection with memory relations (records) of events. Basically, it is always now.

Actually, consciousness (awareness-response mechanism) is indivisible. Science has proof that even after death, molecules and atoms retain their capacity to interact. In fact, energy, at its most basic sense, is interactive. Science also claims it can neither be created nor destroyed, only translated.

And, mind is what we, humans, refer to our awareness-response mechanism. So I guess you were right all along, consciousness is indivisible. :wink:

What mental processes would you be referring to that are not affected by damage to the corresponding brain centres and thus perpetuating your notion that the mind is still functional?

How does that follow? If the steering mechanism in my car fails, then I lose the ability to steer the car. — Bartricks

No. If the steering mechanism fails, then it, the car, looses the 'ability' to be steered.

If claiming that X is Y does not make it true despite the obvious connections, what makes your claim that mental processes occur in the mind have any validity in contrast to those made by scientists about the brain, especially since you haven't even offered a hint of empirical connection?

The mind is divisible by the fact that when you die it will disintegrate. Unless you also want to prove existence of mind and thoughts beyond that, too.

Also, if the mind is indivisible, then it would be the building blocks of reality and everything within. Therefore, not only would mental processes take place in it, everything would exist in and through it. Reality would be mind. I have arrived at that by reasoning out, if the process of cause and effect were to be reversed for everything and anything existent, then the fundamental resultant (origin) MUST be that which is indivisible.

Me thinks you conflate concept of mind with actuality of mind and, consequently, doth protest too much.

None of your arguments inform as to what the mind is. They just report that it's not the brain and that mental processes and thinking take place in it. However, you clearly fail to define or delineate its identity.
Science has a clear definition of the brain and its functions, and among them are the mental processes.

You claim humans have a mind. Where is it in humans? How is it perceived?

An argument that the mind (something not proven) is not the brain, is not evidence of what the mind is. You've said what the mind isn't, now inform us about what it is and how you came upon that revelation. Otherwise, all of the conclusions connected to that premise of mind would be baseless conjecture.

Scientific endeavours have connected thinking and mental processes with the brain. How have you arrived at the mind instead?