Sharing Consciousness with Helois

Quote:
Originally Posted by Helios Panoptes

I don't see where I suggested that there is no such thing as consciousness, nothing denoted by the word. Nay, I don't think that, nor have I put it forward for consideration. I was making a suggestion about what sort of entity consciousness is. My view is that it is a property.



I thought that was the import of the quote cited. To advance the notion that one would be fooled if they took 'consciousness' to be a denoting term is precisely the way those who practice ideal language philosophy assert it* doesn't exist, that there is no such thing. This assumes, of course, that denoting expressions have reference (denote something), which is precisely the difference between the IDEAL object language and informal discourse (the common conversational patois, like here). It was Wittgenstein's transcendental contribution (I am going to be replying to others as well as your post, HP -- my chief complaint is that these things are never brought together after decline of classical logical empiricism) that ordinary language does not provide rules for use for terms for all grammatical occassions. Which is how it is distinct from object languages with a formal syntax. In the latter case you aren't free to make up rules as you go along. The tokens are set up in concrete, as it were, before any text is added at all. The language of science has to be that way or else subjective conjunctions, with Jewish-Chinese slants, will slip in. Then we will call it "Intelligent Design In the Year Of The Pig Universal Science". See what I mean? -- and why I talk so much about the 'tokens'?

To introduce a new connective, punctuation convention, or any notational change at all into the ideal 1-1 name-thing (or true proposition-reality) mapping IS A BIG DEAL. Which is why Gustav Bergmann devoted practically his whole life to formalizing the notion of "Means" -- introducing a 'quoting device' to get a "means" operator ( ""S*" means S*" ) -- as a primitive for analysis of intentional contexts (See his Metaphysics of Logical Positivism). This is taking metaphysical responsibility for what you say. (He couildn't have said 'your' there, though.) As later Wittgenstein pointed out, NO WORD is a BIG DEAL in ordinary language; all are tools, and smileys can pop up as periods. I'm hoping against hope all this sashaying around consciousness which the great philosophers of Recent Formation engaged and engage each other in is coming into view on the intellectual-phenomenal horizon (S*6 distinction reflecting in S*2) as due to lack of rigorous observance of the distinction between text and token in sign-use

This is bigger than both of us, Helios.

Taking consciousness* as I use it, as the non-integral field of tokenspace (among other designations), all levels of sign-use, S*2-S*7, are stratified predicates of S*1, which, on the 7-tier psychosemiotic system proposed here, correspond to atoms of consciousness; these further correlate, with neuro-electronic discharges of a certain sort in the anatomical apparatus that have reached a certain level and coherency. As a result of the confluence of three entirely separate and independent factors, namely, flow of physical pulsation; flow of grammatized words, pictures, intra-systemic reactions; and flow of the Holy Reconciling force proceeding from the Djarklon process in the Etherokrilno, again through the Omnipresent Okidonokh, finally through what three brained beings on earth call "soul", .... as a result of this confluence, a Triamizikamno of consciousness comes to exist, completing itself in seven 'notes' radiating from its center.


Note:
...positivists like Carnap will simply refuse to discuss
anything realting to 'property', 'individual', "particular", "event", outside the contet of a formally constructed object-language.

(Wittgenstein's main error was to infer that outside such formal languages with rigid rules of use there could be no formal system of consciousness per se. His bent is nominalistic. But consciousness* is a true 'universal' in the medieval (Anselm vs Occam) sense.)

(yes -- not facetious! --- belief* IS something one has to believe in* in order to for it to exist. It* is a second-level attachment to signs used assertorically sans claim to knowledge.)
__________________