Re: Definition of phenomenal consciousness

The above probably doesn’t make much sense so I’ll try again ...
If everything is a shade of ‘blue’ no ‘blue’ exists. The ubiquitous nature of phenomenon as such suffuses them with a Realness. Maybe we would call certain parts of the experience as ‘blue’ but the whole would merely be ‘sight’ not the ‘experience of blue tones’ as blue would fail to have meaning in such circumstances.
The thrust if the point here is that variety and difference are necessary for experience. We do not experience something that doesn’t ‘alter’ other than by relation to something that does. The ephemeral nature of experience is such that whether or not it is not massively important in regards to the ‘what and where’ of some hidden attractor - hence the point of the phenomenological position so as to not pretend we’re more in tune than we have any serious right to say.
There is the scientific investigation into the biological mechanisms that coexist alongside/entwined with the ‘experience’ of being (consciousness ‘felt’ by me or you). I don’t really see what some ‘definition’ of ‘phenomenal consciousness’ is meant to do other than outline some proposed consciousness of consciousness as a concept of consciousness in relation to consciousness.
Looking into what ‘constitutes’ consciousness is to regard consciousness as an ‘item’ rather than as a phenomenon utterly distanced from some temporal schemata. Has anyone stopped to ask what it is in their head they mean when they say ‘consciousness’ and ‘phenomenon,’ let alone some abstract amalgam of ‘phenomenal consciousness’?
Hidden Attractors are, to my mind, the most obvious contributors to the hard problem of consciousness ... but there is nothing much we can do about that! The rest is about untangling the use of spoken language from the experience - one is far richer and one is far more obscure. Safety lies in the banal AND breaking up the banal exterior releases a richer brew to reduce to another flavour of banality.
I’m sure enough of one thing. The ‘solution’ - or clarity - of the problems addressed here won’t budge with verbal exchanges unless those verbal exchanges forcibly shake others free from banal worded thought. If you happen not to be able to visualise you can at least appreciate that ‘between’ the words you think/utter lies a far less explored level of being.
It is certainly fascinating to discuss a book cover if it is all we have to hand that allows for a degree of universal debate. The thirst to measure is an addiction not necessarily of much use in every given situation of life. The principle of ‘measure’ is embedded in ‘valuation’ anyway. It is just one colour though. Value exists through difference ONLY. If a tree is one metre tall and another is 2 metres tall they are not DIFFERENT because of arbitrary metres. They are DIFFERENT because they are noticeably SIMILAR, not because of some ‘part’ we call ‘height’ or ‘colour’.
Phenomenal Consciousness is a term that says something akin to Memorable Memories ... it’s silly.
Perhaps the question should be ‘Do we need a definition of Phenomenal Consciousness?’. If there is a response to that question and it goes something like because of X, Y and Z then my follow up question would be why on earth anyone is bothering to define ‘Phenomenal Consciousness’ and putting aside X, Y and Z?
Pedantry is the mainstay of philosophical musings, but it is also quite often believed to be insightful ... this isn’t the case in my experience. Pedantry can often do little more than construct a box from the inside out. The result being the persin can forget about the box and even end up denying there is a box.
Happy musings to you all. ‘Consciousness’ is no more mysterious than the term ‘and’ ... one we use all the time and ignore due to its banal nature ... perhaps the nose on our face needs greater respect?
If everything is a shade of ‘blue’ no ‘blue’ exists. The ubiquitous nature of phenomenon as such suffuses them with a Realness. Maybe we would call certain parts of the experience as ‘blue’ but the whole would merely be ‘sight’ not the ‘experience of blue tones’ as blue would fail to have meaning in such circumstances.
The thrust if the point here is that variety and difference are necessary for experience. We do not experience something that doesn’t ‘alter’ other than by relation to something that does. The ephemeral nature of experience is such that whether or not it is not massively important in regards to the ‘what and where’ of some hidden attractor - hence the point of the phenomenological position so as to not pretend we’re more in tune than we have any serious right to say.
There is the scientific investigation into the biological mechanisms that coexist alongside/entwined with the ‘experience’ of being (consciousness ‘felt’ by me or you). I don’t really see what some ‘definition’ of ‘phenomenal consciousness’ is meant to do other than outline some proposed consciousness of consciousness as a concept of consciousness in relation to consciousness.
Looking into what ‘constitutes’ consciousness is to regard consciousness as an ‘item’ rather than as a phenomenon utterly distanced from some temporal schemata. Has anyone stopped to ask what it is in their head they mean when they say ‘consciousness’ and ‘phenomenon,’ let alone some abstract amalgam of ‘phenomenal consciousness’?
Hidden Attractors are, to my mind, the most obvious contributors to the hard problem of consciousness ... but there is nothing much we can do about that! The rest is about untangling the use of spoken language from the experience - one is far richer and one is far more obscure. Safety lies in the banal AND breaking up the banal exterior releases a richer brew to reduce to another flavour of banality.
I’m sure enough of one thing. The ‘solution’ - or clarity - of the problems addressed here won’t budge with verbal exchanges unless those verbal exchanges forcibly shake others free from banal worded thought. If you happen not to be able to visualise you can at least appreciate that ‘between’ the words you think/utter lies a far less explored level of being.
It is certainly fascinating to discuss a book cover if it is all we have to hand that allows for a degree of universal debate. The thirst to measure is an addiction not necessarily of much use in every given situation of life. The principle of ‘measure’ is embedded in ‘valuation’ anyway. It is just one colour though. Value exists through difference ONLY. If a tree is one metre tall and another is 2 metres tall they are not DIFFERENT because of arbitrary metres. They are DIFFERENT because they are noticeably SIMILAR, not because of some ‘part’ we call ‘height’ or ‘colour’.
Phenomenal Consciousness is a term that says something akin to Memorable Memories ... it’s silly.
Perhaps the question should be ‘Do we need a definition of Phenomenal Consciousness?’. If there is a response to that question and it goes something like because of X, Y and Z then my follow up question would be why on earth anyone is bothering to define ‘Phenomenal Consciousness’ and putting aside X, Y and Z?
Pedantry is the mainstay of philosophical musings, but it is also quite often believed to be insightful ... this isn’t the case in my experience. Pedantry can often do little more than construct a box from the inside out. The result being the persin can forget about the box and even end up denying there is a box.
Happy musings to you all. ‘Consciousness’ is no more mysterious than the term ‘and’ ... one we use all the time and ignore due to its banal nature ... perhaps the nose on our face needs greater respect?