Being — Mikie

...

Awareness

A being is aware of X if the following hold: X is causally related to the being, X constrains the being's possible states and the being has a process of representing X's causal and informational relationship to itself. A process of that being is a means of being aware if that process' normal functioning establishes that the being is aware of some X - it can have more than one role. A being's awareness is the sum total of its means of being aware.

Consciousness

A being which can represent its own awareness is conscious.

Time

A time is process whose events index another process's, treated solely as the derived index.

Sensation

Perception

Thinking

The internal state of an aware being is the aggregate of the conditions which minimally determine its awareness at a given time point. The internal state is modular, in the sense that it arises from the inter-relation of different modalities (sense organs eg) and processes (inference, head tilting, chewing). The internal state is hierarchical, in the sense that those inter-relations, modalities and processes have different activation conditions and reaction rates. Sensations, perceptions and thoughts are parts of an internal state which involve a means of being aware.

A sensation is a component of the internal state which is relatively low in the hierarchy - a minor abstraction from the data of a sense organ. It stipulates little about the aware being's environment and state.

A perception is a component of the internal state which is middling high in the hierarchy - a moderate abstraction from, and correlation between, sense organs and exploratory behaviours to manipulate those sense organs' states. It stipulates quite a lot about the aware being's environment and state. Perceptions react slower relative to sensations, and thus are a fabricator of times.

A thought is a component of the internal state which is very high in the hierarchy. It's a great abstraction from sense organs, exploratory behaviours and correlations between them. It correlates perceptions and causal interventions. It stipulates a lot about the aware being's environment, and state, and past environments. Thoughts react slower relative to perceptions, and thus are a conjuror of histories.

In that respect, sensations are the least conceptualised components of awareness, thoughts are the most.

Mind

The ongoing updates of an aware being's internal state.

Body

A closed collection of means of interacting with an environment.

Good

Optimal action. One can be good at something unjust.

Happiness

A judgement which applies to a life spent in pleasant internal states.

Justice

Optimal action without unjustified prejudice.

Truth

Optimally justified assertability.

I'll use the words differently obv, but we all know that how words are used is not how things are! So I wanted to write down how I thought things are.

No, but the aim (provide no answers but assist others in discovering their own) seemed similar. — Mikie

But that wasn't my aim. An answer might have been provided by the parent once the context and circumstances were known. If the answer was not known, then they could both find out together. Google.

But more like getting to know them better. — Mikie

Yes, it kinda works like that but not always.

And I don’t consider this a “test,” really — although I can see how it would be viewed that way. I’m in no position to grade anyone’s work. — Mikie

I know. But it does test the mind and memory box!!
It's a great thread and the replies are fascinating. I'll grade you as Excellent!
And I am in a position to know. Being an authentic Goddess. True that.

But that wasn't my aim. — Amity

Fair enough!

I'll grade you as Excellent!
And I am in a position to know. Being an authentic Goddess. True that. — Amity

:grin: Can’t argue with that.



Appreciate the response.

Being: what perception and consciousness are aware of, what thinking is about.

Awareness: perception, thinking, and consciousness

Consciousness: awareness, perception, thinking.

Thinking: conscious awareness of perceptions and being.

Sensation: perception

Perception: sensation

Mind: place where consciousness, perception, sensation, and awareness happen.

:cool: EZPZ

How would you use those terms if you do not know their definition? — javi2541997

Quite easily. We use terms for which we don't have ready definitions all the time. That's why we need dictionaries, and why good ones are so difficult to write.

If the current fashionable state of philosophy is to answer with a slogan like “it’s how it’s used,” I think we’re in real trouble. — Mikie

I agree. If people present their understandings of the meanings of the terms then they are presenting their own usages, That's what definitions are: descriptions of usages, or we could even say that they are usages. I didn't take the OP to be implying that there could be only one meaning of the terms it asks people to define; on the contrary I took the purpose to be the very opposite: to draw out some different usages. When I hear the simplistic slogan: "meaning is use" I always think "yeah, whose use?". Giving a definition of a term is one kind of use.

So:

Being: as a noun, 'what is', As verb": the act, state or process of existing.

Awareness: autonomously responding to some stimulus.

Consciousness: At a minimum, awareness, at a maximum, self-reflective awareness.

Thinking: imagining, remembering, conceiving, comparing, judging, believing.

Sensation bodily feeling arising from internal or external stimuli.

Perception: sensing as, sensation mediated by association, recognition, conception or judgement.

Mind: A fictive "location" where awareness, consciousness, perception and thinking go on or are "contained".

Being: An agent. A complex existent integrated enough to have acquired a concept of identity, self, and other. An entity capable of complex behavior in relation to its environment. The essence of being alive without necessarily being organic.

Awareness: The function of relating information to the sense of self, selective in nature according to internal motivations primed by prior experiences.

Consciousness: The working together in an integrated way of various regions of a brain and nervous system (or neural network) to bring about a coherent informational representation or internal dynamic simulation of both internal body states and external world states in the "global workspace", evolutionarily tuned for survival. (Integrated Information Theory, and Global Workspace Theory)

Thinking: The different neural patterns or modalities that can arise in the brain that are adapted for specific types of information processing (conscious and unconscious).

Time: The most fundamental aspect of the universe. The "thing" that allows or permits change to happen in the universe. It is not just the measurement of change or duration. Time and energy are one and the same. Without time no event could ever have happened, or would ever happen.

Sensation: The specific type of low level information representation derived from different sensory apparatus presented to the "global workspace" where consciousness resides. They take the form of various qualia in the context of a conscious mind.

Perception: The filtering and selective result of raw sensation deemed salient by the conscious and unconscious parts of the brain.

Mind: All the emergent properties of sufficiently complex neural networks or brains that exists in a latent space above and in between the information processing of the network nodes. The part that is more than the sum of its parts.

Body: From the perspective of the mind, the body is its supporting structure and infrastructure; the hardware to its software.

Good: That which confers advantage to an agent.

Happiness: The result of what is good and advantageous, a reduction in the tension and stress of the mind and body especially in relation to frustration. "Don't worry be happy."

Justice: A cultural adaptation aimed at mitigating acts of revenge in a sufficiently complex society. The attempt to resolve feelings of unfairness and injustice in the population in order to foster sufficient trust in the society so that cooperation is possible and/or more efficient/effective.

Truth: Anything that is possible or permitted by the laws of physics or the universe, either in actuality or as potentiality.

(all subject to change, incomplete, ...)

Being
• a being often refers to a (possibly supposed) sentient lifeform
• being in general can more or less be synonymous with existence, whatever is, real or imaginary/fictional alike, known or unknown alike, has no complement

Awareness
• self-awareness is included in awareness, meta-cognition, awareness of something
• usage overlaps with consciousness

Consciousness
• self-conscious and self-aware differ in usage, the former is about how one thinks others perceive oneself
• part of some minds, sometimes (I think it might be a necessary part, in some uses anyway)

Thinking
• mulling things over, contemplating, reasoning, peripherally or concentrating, recalling something
• part of some minds, sometimes (rarely in certain cases :grin:)

Time
• Time and such (Nov 11, 2017), might need an update

Mind
Body

↑ known cases, exemplifiable

Perception
• "if anything significant differentiates dreams hallucinations etc, and perception, then it's the perceived"
• the self part of interaction with the perceived
• part of some minds, sometimes
• also related to phenomenology

(...)

I'd use the term, and encourage them to use it, so the child can see how it is used.
— Banno

All kind of sounds like a cop out to me. — Mikie

So what happened? A few folk provided their own lists of synonyms, then the thread petered out.

Providing a definition is not doing philosophy, anymore than shuffling a deck of cards is playing Rummy. If there is a cop out here, it is in thinking that by providing a definition, one is doing philosophy. Philosophy is not a list of facts, so much as an ongoing conversation.

So what happened? A few folk provided their own lists of synonyms, then the thread petered out. — Banno

Yeah, as I expected. I said at the beginning there were no wrong answers, so there was no follow up from me— despite the fact that disagreement and desire for further clarification was present. I was interested in how one would respond on the spot, if asked. The answers I did get were interesting.

If there is a cop out here, it is in thinking that by providing a definition, one is doing philosophy. — Banno

Except I have never once made that claim, and in fact have often argued against the idea for the last four years.

Philosophy is not a list of facts, so much as an ongoing conversation. — Banno

Funny that you’d end your post with a definition of philosophy as an “ongoing conversation.”

Funny that you’d end your post with a definition of philosophy as an “ongoing conversation.” — Mikie

I disagree. Banno's comment is an explanation of doing philosophy, not its definition.

“Philosophy is not x, but more y.”

An explanation of what something “is” or isn’t— that’s dealing with meaning, and is a kind of definition.

“ongoing conversation.” — Mikie

@Banno

An ongoing conversation always conducted elsewhere.

Not for me. I often think in terms of opposing viewpoints, or a triangle, or a square.

If you think of your own ideas about Being, notice that they make sense relative to the opposing view. What is that opposing view? What are its strengths and weaknesses? Are there other views that lie at an angle to this opposition, so they partake in some ways from each pole of the original opposition?

If you can't do this, it's probably because your intellect is being controlled by emotions on this one issue. If you let emotions go (or put them on a shelf), your mind will be able to move freely, recognizing that the question is beyond the limits of language anyway.

...always conducted elsewhere. — fdrake

It's often a different conversation about something more useful.

An explanation of what something “is” or isn’t— that’s dealing with meaning, and is a kind of definition. — Mikie

You're not convinced with your own assertion. "Kind of"?

I want to use the example of surgery. If you find someone cutting though the flesh and rearranging the organs of another human being, is he performing surgery? After all, these are what surgeons do when they operate. But what if that someone is not a doctor? -- certainly he's not performing surgery because the definition of surgery is limited to the "practice of medicine" which could only be applied to doctors.

Philosophy involves ongoing conversation -- whether written or verbal. But not all ongoing conversations are doing philosophy.

But not all ongoing conversations are doing philosophy. — L'éléphant

No one said they were.

Philosophy involves many things. To privilege or emphasize “ongoing conversation” is a definition, or at least part of one. It’s distinguishing one phenomenon from another — philosophy is not x (a set of facts), but y (an ongoing conversation). The meaning of philosophy is the subject.

To argue it’s an “explanation” is just playing games. Trees aren’t so much clouds as they are entities with trunks and leaves — I’m not defining a tree, I’m just “explaining” the features of a tree. Come on.

True. Still, I’m sure you use these words like anyone else, and usually mean something by them. So that’s what I was asking for. If a kid would ask for your own take on these terms, would the answer be “it depends on use” or would you have some (albeit provisional) answer? — Mikie

If the current fashionable state of philosophy is to answer with a slogan like “it’s how it’s used,” I think we’re in real trouble. — Mikie

“Philosophy is not x, but more y.”

An explanation of what something “is” or isn’t— that’s dealing with meaning, and is a kind of definition. — Mikie

All good and important points. :up:

Yes, of course all material definitions are nominal. But if you don't admit the existence of [definitions] then you cannot say that A is a better X than B. . . — Leontiskos

So if we take your interpretation of Searle then we get, "B(L, f(a)) is a better construal of belief than B(L,p)." Once we understand what a real definition and a nominal definition are, then this is just to claim that the nominal definition B(L, f(a)) better approximates the real definition of belief than the nominal definition B(L,p). If there is no real definition, then there can be no approximation or comparison. — Leontiskos

Being: Whatever it is that everything is doing without qualification.

Awareness: The activity that brings beings into presence

Consciousness: Whatever conditions that make awareness possible

Thinking: Talking with others and myself through making or following connections.

Time: That one is very tricky. I don't have time to explain myself.

Sensation: An integral component of perception

Perception: Distinguishing things given through sensation. (I recognize this is straight up Aristotle)

Mind: A way to talk about consciousness as an agent.

Body: What every being is with qualifications.

Good: The idea of the best as conceived against the reality of its absence.

Happiness: When I feel good.

Justice: Another very tricky one but am convinced of its importance for the Good to be.

Truth: Not sure I can handle the truth.
— Mikie

Being — Mikie

...

Awareness

To be conscious or cognizant of.

Consciousness

Intellectual awareness.

Thinking

The ordering of ideas.

Time

The viscosity of succession.

Sensation

The perceptible acting of a physical object on a subject.

Perception

The awareness of sensation. Also used metaphorically with respect to cognitive objects.

Mind

The seat of that which thinks in a discursive manner.

Body

That part of the human being which has extension.

Good

That which is in some way desirable.

Happiness

What all men seek.

Justice

The rendering of that which is due.

Truth

The adequation (or correspondence) between thought and thing.

:up: :up:

Consciousness — Mikie

I think it is a couple things.

1) Subjective experience
Having a point of view, which means one experiences things. As opposed to things simply happening to an object. Rocks don't have a pov. Neither do robots with parts that detect light, and parts that perform actions when the light-detectors send signals to them.

2) Awareness
-Awareness of a subjective experience is possibly redundant? If you weren't aware of it, it wouldn't be a subjective experience.

-Self-Awareness is more. I doubt a bat is self-aware.

-Awareness of awareness seems more still. Are there animals that are aware of themselves as individuals, but not aware that they are aware of themselves?

I presume the higher levels of awareness require more intelligence than the lower levels.