Finding the definition of consciousness is one of the most important goals of consciousness research! If you even try to give an absolute definition at this point, you're not being honest. But demanding a definition is what we all should do, as this demand is the core reason of why we're watching this series in the first place. OrchOR proposes a definition.
Grass is ideally green, but in reality is so more or less. Fuzzy logically determined. A tomato is both the plant and it's fruit. Some plant fruits are vegetables, but not every vegetable belongs to the fruits set. Language is broad semantics. For me it is much more clear and not conflicting when conceptualized and described within fuzzy sets system. Thank you for bringing such untriguing questions out. Video lectrures are great 🤗❤
You’re totally right about arguing definitions standing in the way of understanding consciousness. Been there done that, it’s much more fun to dive into the actual discussion of what it is to have a mind. Great lesson!
I started putting this series on in the background during work, but had to switch to watching it more actively during my down time because it’s just that interesting. My one complaint thus far is the missed opportunity to say “tomayto/ tomahto” in this episode. I would have also accepted a “depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” joke, but otherwise this series has been totally reality-shifting 🤯
We remembered the rheomode differently. I remembered it as trying to use verb form instead of the noun counterpart to reflect the dynamic nature of phenomena and ideas. Some quote from Bohm: 'rheo' is chosen because it means 'to flow' in Greek (p39 of Wholeness); "we have to try here, of course, to work with a structure in which the verb has a primary function, and to take this requirement seriously" (p38). Another thought, I completely disagree that if one seeks definitions then there is no interesting conversation. The whole series of Socrates dialogues prove otherwise. The most interesting conversations emerge from defining things and come to the realization of it's inadequacy (Theaetetus is a great example for the definition of knowledge). Without the attempt to define, one only have an inadequate realization of the transient nature of all definitions (back to the rheomode: Bohm would love it if you can accept the joy of "defining" in place of "definitions"). On "is". Besides the use of is as in A is B, ancient Greeks also have a different use. As for Parmenides: Being is; non-being cannot be; being cannot come to be.
Excellent contributions to the dialogue! Thank you :) Bohm indeed is attempting to emphasize that the universe is a flowing of events not discrete events as language often implicitly asserts. This is definitely a comment on metaphysics itself (more so than I emphasize in this episode!). I also think that each of his suggested words have an inherent inclusion of the cognitive process associated with the statement about reality itself. If this comes up in a future episode, then I will be sure to emphasize this as well! I do enjoy the process of defining things and then seeing the fault in the definition. However, I have had many experiences with people that use this failed definition as an excuse to not engage in dialogue. For example, Sam Harris often insists on defining terms with his podcast guests before diving into the core of a topic and the conversation will sometimes get stuck at first principles and the conversation never reaches the depth that it could have. This is definitely not a strong critique on using definitions at all - I like your suggestion on the process of defining, rather than needing a definition! Totally onboard with that. Nice quote here about "is" and "being". Often times using a wider variety of verbs will avoid the "is" problem, but in practice it's challenging to keep coming up with interesting verbs as you talk organically. I do not think there is a strong "is" problem, just a problem with some people fixating on certain words or terms rather than grappling with the concepts themselves. Most of these suggestions come down to a focus on the TERRITORY not on the MAP. :) Thanks again for your thoughtful contributions Mengsen
Omg, I want to have a bunch of conversations with you about this. Me myself are studying mediasociology, and I have recently become very interested in Nikola Tesla and his theories - especially in the context of what sound is; its vibrations, frequencies and energies (which Tesla said are the basis for understanding the "secret of the universe"). What are the energies behind words and sentences? How the energy of the word can be fluid if we change the collective consciousness around a word; to take examples such as conspiracy theorist which is negatively charged and restricts the human being from thinking outside the box, which can also when repeated by significant others mean psychological consequences. But also how certain tones and voice modes can affect consciousness, where the spelling of words comparatively between different languages can be interesting to investigate energetically. Looking at it from a helicopter perspective and including media, history, sociology, social sciences, psychology etc. in the framework, the nature of language can be a major influence on its impact.
An interesting thing I've noticed in mathematics (perhaps the most precise of human languages) is that some basic mathematical objects are not defined at all (while most are defined very rigorously) and human intuition is relied upon for these. The properties of these objects are agreed upon and one works from there. Perhaps, consciousness can be viewed as one such object ... especially if the most precise of languages also resorts to appeals to intuition in some cases (!)
Language has definitely got to refer to the dynamics, the doing-ness of things, if language as we know it could be used at all to describe complex processes in a way that is conversation-ready at multiple levels of understanding. I think maybe entirely new models would be needed. Not everyone has the patience to listen to long winded science talk (I do though, and love it even if I don't quite understand some things yet. lol). As someone who gets paid to make things, it feels more natural to speak in those terms. Lots of metaphors tossed around in the studio, often times nonsense.
10:37 lol "The dictionary is a lie." This thought puts me in mind of Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander's extraordinary "Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking." It was after reading that work that I began to think of the meaning of a word as the union of all of the situations in which it has been used (and misused).
Asking people to define something is a way to stop the constructive discussion. We need to get past definitions. Unles, of course, the discussion is about defining an idea better or a concept.
To define free will. You say to the person asking, OK and nothing else. Because to show the definition you have to exert the free will to not define free will.
I would like someone to acknowledge all the synchronicity I found in anagrams! All the names I had Daniel Ray Waters Hazelton Ortiz DrWho a zany letters realization Antenatal lie's a zero ritzy DrWho
3 mins into this episode and I can't take it anymore. You speak of a “physical world“ as if the quantum domain was unphysical. I'm sure you know that Quantum Mechanics is a part of physics, as you have explained a lot of its aspects in detail. What you mean by “physical world“ is actually called the “world of classical physics“, “deterministic“, “macroscopic“, “Newtonian“ or some other term depending on the context. Sigh, I'll continue through this episode, ignoring the cringe feeling that I get from hearing you call physical the opposite of quantum.
Finding the definition of consciousness is one of the most important goals of consciousness research! If you even try to give an absolute definition at this point, you're not being honest. But demanding a definition is what we all should do, as this demand is the core reason of why we're watching this series in the first place. OrchOR proposes a definition.
Grass is ideally green, but in reality is so more or less. Fuzzy logically determined. A tomato is both the plant and it's fruit. Some plant fruits are vegetables, but not every vegetable belongs to the fruits set. Language is broad semantics. For me it is much more clear and not conflicting when conceptualized and described within fuzzy sets system. Thank you for bringing such untriguing questions out. Video lectrures are great 🤗❤
You’re totally right about arguing definitions standing in the way of understanding consciousness. Been there done that, it’s much more fun to dive into the actual discussion of what it is to have a mind. Great lesson!
I started putting this series on in the background during work, but had to switch to watching it more actively during my down time because it’s just that interesting. My one complaint thus far is the missed opportunity to say “tomayto/ tomahto” in this episode. I would have also accepted a “depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is” joke, but otherwise this series has been totally reality-shifting 🤯
The map territory argument is very nicely done ✅
Giving definitions of consciousness is no go. I've been the enthusiast in the meme. Awesome serie!
You speak my thoughts, thank you! Skilled Trades, Toronto Canada
Proper use of Etymology and Polysemic definitions helps much in these situations.
It would be interesting to look at Quantum Linguistics and LLMs
We remembered the rheomode differently. I remembered it as trying to use verb form instead of the noun counterpart to reflect the dynamic nature of phenomena and ideas. Some quote from Bohm: 'rheo' is chosen because it means 'to flow' in Greek (p39 of Wholeness); "we have to try here, of course, to work with a structure in which the verb has a primary function, and to take this requirement seriously" (p38).
Another thought, I completely disagree that if one seeks definitions then there is no interesting conversation. The whole series of Socrates dialogues prove otherwise. The most interesting conversations emerge from defining things and come to the realization of it's inadequacy (Theaetetus is a great example for the definition of knowledge). Without the attempt to define, one only have an inadequate realization of the transient nature of all definitions (back to the rheomode: Bohm would love it if you can accept the joy of "defining" in place of "definitions").
On "is". Besides the use of is as in A is B, ancient Greeks also have a different use. As for Parmenides: Being is; non-being cannot be; being cannot come to be.
Excellent contributions to the dialogue! Thank you :)
Bohm indeed is attempting to emphasize that the universe is a flowing of events not discrete events as language often implicitly asserts. This is definitely a comment on metaphysics itself (more so than I emphasize in this episode!). I also think that each of his suggested words have an inherent inclusion of the cognitive process associated with the statement about reality itself. If this comes up in a future episode, then I will be sure to emphasize this as well!
I do enjoy the process of defining things and then seeing the fault in the definition. However, I have had many experiences with people that use this failed definition as an excuse to not engage in dialogue. For example, Sam Harris often insists on defining terms with his podcast guests before diving into the core of a topic and the conversation will sometimes get stuck at first principles and the conversation never reaches the depth that it could have. This is definitely not a strong critique on using definitions at all - I like your suggestion on the process of defining, rather than needing a definition! Totally onboard with that.
Nice quote here about "is" and "being". Often times using a wider variety of verbs will avoid the "is" problem, but in practice it's challenging to keep coming up with interesting verbs as you talk organically. I do not think there is a strong "is" problem, just a problem with some people fixating on certain words or terms rather than grappling with the concepts themselves. Most of these suggestions come down to a focus on the TERRITORY not on the MAP. :) Thanks again for your thoughtful contributions Mengsen
Omg, I want to have a bunch of conversations with you about this. Me myself are studying mediasociology, and I have recently become very interested in Nikola Tesla and his theories - especially in the context of what sound is; its vibrations, frequencies and energies (which Tesla said are the basis for understanding the "secret of the universe").
What are the energies behind words and sentences? How the energy of the word can be fluid if we change the collective consciousness around a word; to take examples such as conspiracy theorist which is negatively charged and restricts the human being from thinking outside the box, which can also when repeated by significant others mean psychological consequences. But also how certain tones and voice modes can affect consciousness, where the spelling of words comparatively between different languages can be interesting to investigate energetically.
Looking at it from a helicopter perspective and including media, history, sociology, social sciences, psychology etc. in the framework, the nature of language can be a major influence on its impact.
An interesting thing I've noticed in mathematics (perhaps the most precise of human languages) is that some basic mathematical objects are not defined at all (while most are defined very rigorously) and human intuition is relied upon for these. The properties of these objects are agreed upon and one works from there.
Perhaps, consciousness can be viewed as one such object ... especially if the most precise of languages also resorts to appeals to intuition in some cases (!)
Language has definitely got to refer to the dynamics, the doing-ness of things, if language as we know it could be used at all to describe complex processes in a way that is conversation-ready at multiple levels of understanding. I think maybe entirely new models would be needed. Not everyone has the patience to listen to long winded science talk (I do though, and love it even if I don't quite understand some things yet. lol). As someone who gets paid to make things, it feels more natural to speak in those terms. Lots of metaphors tossed around in the studio, often times nonsense.
10:37 lol "The dictionary is a lie." This thought puts me in mind of Douglas Hofstadter and Emmanuel Sander's extraordinary "Surfaces and Essences: Analogy as the Fuel and Fire of Thinking." It was after reading that work that I began to think of the meaning of a word as the union of all of the situations in which it has been used (and misused).
Tomato is a berry if you didn't knew.. :D
Ty for sharing ideas
Haha the goalpost keeps moving! What is a vegetable anyways?
👍👍
💖💖💖💖
R.A.W. ❤
Asking people to define something is a way to stop the constructive discussion. We need to get past definitions. Unles, of course, the discussion is about defining an idea better or a concept.
Also if you say ¨I think this because I saw this this and this way¨, people would probably argue: that's just what you think lol
agreeable ENTP with developed Fe
TLDR of the language part: just don't generalize from your own experience.
To define free will. You say to the person asking, OK and nothing else. Because to show the definition you have to exert the free will to not define free will.
However, if you read this. Your reaction will be different than if you had not.
I have free will you say. And I can prove it.. OK then. Just. Stop reading. Go on. Prove it to yourself.
Oh, you couldn't. So sorry. Better luck next time.
I would like someone to acknowledge all the synchronicity I found in anagrams!
All the names I had
Daniel Ray Waters Hazelton Ortiz
DrWho a zany letters realization
Antenatal lie's a zero ritzy DrWho
3 mins into this episode and I can't take it anymore. You speak of a “physical world“ as if the quantum domain was unphysical. I'm sure you know that Quantum Mechanics is a part of physics, as you have explained a lot of its aspects in detail. What you mean by “physical world“ is actually called the “world of classical physics“, “deterministic“, “macroscopic“, “Newtonian“ or some other term depending on the context.
Sigh, I'll continue through this episode, ignoring the cringe feeling that I get from hearing you call physical the opposite of quantum.
You must not have made it to the tomato section.