Another consciousness issue is "What is consciousness a property of?"

Consciousness is not property described by other fields such as the study of electricity and magnetism or the study of cells or neurotransmitters/biochemistry.

So either we need a new theory in these fields or a new property or paradigm postulated. If neurons can create consciousness and subjectivity we need a convincing causal/emergent theory of that. (A theory that makes predictions I imagine)

But whatever theory of emergence is posited will that amount to an explanation for subjectivity which is more than merely a third person correlation?

Your description also didn't sound very logical for that matter. — Cavacava

I was talking about the logical relation between one and many, which I explained. You still haven't gone back to address how it is possible that we, implying many, is prior to I, implying one.

Lacan's explanation makes no sense to me. The child takes itself to be its mother seems like nonsense.

Lacan also conceptualized the mirror stage in relation to Hegel's concept of recognition and desire. The infant has a sensuous relation with its mother. Its needs are fulfilled by her and she is in tactile relation with it. In addition to needs, and quite distinct from them, the child has desires (libido) and, as Hegel says, the prime desire is to be recognized by the other's desire. The desire of the mother and the desire of the child thus enter into a complex, confused relation.

This actually contradicts "the child takes itself to be its mother. It talks about a relation between child and mother, and a relation between the desires of the mother and desires of the child. And, it clearly refers to a recognition of the other. If the child takes itself to be its mother, then obviously there is no recognition of the other. What you have presented is nothing more than contradictory nonsense.

The issue I suppose, is whether prior to recognizing the mother as other, does the child recognize the mother as itself. Why would you think that this is the case? If the child recognizes the mother at all, wouldn't the child recognize the mother as something other than itself? Why would you think that when the child first recognizes the mother, it recognizes the mother as itself? That doesn't make sense.

Here is what you said:

A plurality is made up of a group of individuals, so the individual is a necessary component of the plurality. However, the existence of an individual does not require the existence of a plurality, so a plurality is not necessary for the existence of an individual. Therefore it is impossible that the plurality is prior to the individual, yet possible that the individual is prior to the plurality. Furthermore, arguments can be made which indicate that it is probable that the individual is prior to plurality, as one is prior to two.

An individual suggests a differentiation, and how could that differentiation be possible if not from other individuals..duh.

The differentiation need not be a differentiation from other individuals. It might only be a differentiation between oneself and what is other. So if I differentiate myself from that which is other than me, I need not recognize the "other" as individuals. It is simply other.

The differentiation need not be a differentiation from other individuals.

So you are not denying that the individual distinguishes itself from the many because of the existence of other persons.

My contention is that in the real world the only actual way for a person to realize that it is an individual person is because it is able to distinguish itself from other persons and this can only be possible due to the pre-existence of other persons. If other people did not exist then I too would not exist.

My contention is that in the real world the only actual way for a person to realize that it is an individual person is because it is able to distinguish itself from other persons and this can only be possible due to the pre-existence of other persons. If other people did not exist then I too would not exist. — Cavacava

I don't see this as logical. The person distinguishes itself from all that is other than itself. Why does the person need to consider the pre-existence of other persons to do this?

Because they say "eat your beans, little meta"

How does a person talking to you in such a way, produce a need to recognize the pre-existence of that person? I would think that the desire to recognize another comes from within, not from the other, a personal reason.

It does not work that way. It is though interactions with others that we come to realize that we are separate individuals with similar likes, dislikes, fears and so on. If you had no such interaction you would not, could not become a person.

Your desires are not your desires, they are the desires of others.

Is this a "What am I?" question?

Surely I can only be whatever the experience happens to be. Everywhere I go there I am.

The puzzling thing for me is how we come to inhabit this conscious location of having experiences of a reality and how this subjective location arises. (People have framed this issue with the question "Why am I me?") — Andrew4Handel

Awareness ( a perceptive, sensitive, and cognisant condition) and self identification (the recognition of one's self as distinct from the environment and others) combine to produce subjective experience (the effects of an object upon an organism).

For self identification, see Rochat, Philippe (2003). "Five Levels of Self-Awareness as They Unfold in Early Life". Consciousness and Cognition 12 (2003): 717–731.

And I don't see how we can know the true nature of reality without knowing how we consciously access and to what extent that perceptual access is accurate or illusory. — Andrew4Handel

I agree.

It does not work that way. It is though interactions with others that we come to realize that we are separate individuals with similar likes, dislikes, fears and so on. If you had no such interaction you would not, could not become a person. — Cavacava

You know I disagree. You've described two distinct things here, and conflated them as one. Realizing that we are separate is one thing, and realizing that we have likes, dislikes, etc., which are similar to others is another thing. The former, recognizing that we are separate, does not require a recognition of other persons, as I explained, the latter does. The two are clearly not the same sort of thing, and ought not be classed together, as you do.

Your desires are not your desires, they are the desires of others. — Cavacava

Consider this. Do you agree that in order to believe that others have desires, likes and dislikes, which are similar to your own, you must first recognize such things within yourself? You cannot recognize a desire within another, as similar to your own, without having first recognized your own desire in order to make the comparison.

The question I have for you, is how can your own desires come from others, if you cannot even recognize a desire in another without first recognizing that desire within yourself?

It seems to me that we only become who we are by way of others. — Cavacava

Then how did the others become aware of who they are? Am I not an "other" to others? Does not that make me the creator of others? Others are only one type of object in the world. Why would I need other people to become what I am, and not the simple recognition that I am not a tree, dog, or a rock based on my own observations of myself and other things? How would I interpret my own reflection without others around? Maybe you mean that we need language to become who we are - with a narrative?

Even if I were defined by others, I can interpret how others define me incorrectly, which means that I can't be completely defined by others. I have the "power" of misinterpretation that distinguishes me from others and their interpretations of me, which can also be wrong. Your explanation doesn't seem to account how others improperly define you, especially when they don't know YOU.

If consciousness is just "in the brain" how do you come to be the subject of that brains experiences? — Andrew4Handel

The same way that any unique array of information is about some unique states-of-affairs. A subject emerges from the kind of, and how the, information is presented. Your information entails your location in space-time and your history - which is unique and relative to every one else's. Your unique array of information is what it is like to be you.

You know I disagree. You've described two distinct things here, and conflated them as one. Realizing that we are separate is one thing, and realizing that we have likes, dislikes, etc., which are similar to others is another thing. The former, recognizing that we are separate, does not require a recognition of other persons, as I explained, the latter does. The two are clearly not the same sort of thing, and ought not be classed together, as you do.

An infant is like a sponge it soaks up everything it experiences, it does not differentiate it self from what it experiences until it starts to develop language and its self realization (the mirror stage) which is not fully developed until around age 5.

Consider this. Do you agree that in order to believe that others have desires, likes and dislikes, which are similar to your own, you must first recognize such things within yourself? You cannot recognize a desire within another, as similar to your own, without having first recognized your own desire in order to make the comparison.

The question I have for you, is how can your own desires come from others, if you cannot even recognize a desire in another without first recognizing that desire within yourself?

It is the individual's desire for recognition that causes it to mimic what others desire, the desire for what we believe others desire actually structures the individual's desire. Again the infant is not born self aware, this develops as the child develops, so your attempt to rationalize this process is in principal otiose.

Personal consciousness is literally the only access we have to reality (or our awareness of a reality).

It is hard to imagine describing something with no observer describing from their perspective.What features would exist when you strip away perspective and qualia? Would objects exist or just strange quantum fluctuations of matter?

This why I have strong sense of self and solipsistic senses because I realise everything I believe or perceive is being channeled through me.

I am an antinatalist and I think one reason fro reaching that conclusion is realising the vividness and centrality of another persons experiences so they are not just a statistic or object to be manipulated.

So if people say why am I me I think they are referring not a just a technical or vague concept of body but to this all encompassing vivid personal location of perceiving reality through your own eyes (consciousness).

The issue for me is how to inhabit that very specific personal subjective portal to reality being subject to experiences.

The same way that any unique array of information is about some unique states-of-affairs. A subject emerges from the kind of, and how the, information is presented. Your information entails your location in space-time and your history - which is unique and relative to every one else's. Your unique array of information is what it is like to be you — Harry Hindu

Information is a problematic notion. You are invoking the notion of mental representation it seems. This kind of information requires a preexisting subject.

For example if you cannot read Chinese the symbols mean nothing to you and don't convey any information. I don't think reproducing is the same as information so that if a gene preserves the pattern of biochemical activity that produces body parts it is just a mechanical procedure. But our kind of knowledge is mental representation.

When you say "information presented" who is the information presented to? Also I don't think we know where we are in space apart from relative to what is around us and things are relative to where we are conscious of being.
So for example we are assuming we are all humans on earth but we are not imagining being another organism light years away with different senses and cognitive abilities.

So even the general human perspective is not objective in the sense we are based in from just one location in the universe with a particular array of cognitive and perceptual apparatus molding our intuitions.

It seems to me that we only become who we are by way of others.
— Cavacava
Then how did the others become aware of who they are? Am I not an "other" to others? Does not that make me the creator of others? Others are only one type of object in the world. Why would I need other people to become what I am, and not the simple recognition that I am not a tree, dog, or a rock based on my own observations of myself and other things? How would I interpret my own reflection without others around? Maybe you mean that we need language to become who we are - with a narrative?

Others are always there, that's an empirical fact, not some sort of logical regress argument. It is only by means of interactions with those closest to you that you can become you, that your desire for recognition can be realized. And, yes we begin to become self aware around the time of language acquisition, the mirror stage of development starts at around 24 months (the terrible 2s) goes on until around age 5.

The 'I' is derivative of the 'We'.

The 'I' is derivative of the 'We'. — Cavacava

I am not sure what you are referring to by the "I"

I am using to describe the subjective of experience. The person having experiences and not their self concept. There are numerous aspects to a persons identity and cognition etc but I am only referring to the need for a consciousness to have a subject to be the person having experiences.

I think when people discuss the self they are often discussing different things and the same happens with consciousness. I am using it in a technical sense of what constitutes an experience and a subject is required for an experience.

The scam, the trick we all fall for, is thinking that we are a conscious thing trapped inside our body peeping out at the world — gurugeorge

There is substantial evidence that consciousness is internal and subjective. Illusions are one example. How can you mispercieve the external world if you are are just having a brute direct experience of it.

The stick is not bent in the water the Muller-Lyer lines are not unequal length but they appear that way to someone.

Then there is the privacy or memory and pain. I have a lot of information only immediately accessible to me that I can choose to share via language and pain is not something we can share, it is our own and only our pain reactions are publicly observable.

Musical tastes differ as people have different reactions to and experiences of the same piece of music.

I am using the "I" to refer to the self conscious self, the self that recognizes itself as such in a mirror, which I maintain is not possible without the interactions of others, is in fact derivative of these interactions and which first occurs around the same time as language acquisition begins.

I am using to describe the subjective of experience

This POV is not possible without self consciousness, reflexive awareness of oneself as a separate person...you asked for the location of the concept of being a person, and I suggest that location is derived from others.

This "others".

Essentially I am not really aware of others. The only proof of I that I have is whatever the experience happens to be. Now I am not being deliberately tricky or just trying to seem intelligent. I am talking about what seems to me to be absolute indisputable fact, although you may dispute it if you want of course.

If you do dispute this then this still does not prove there is other than I. All that would have occurred is the experience, I, of some apparent dispute.

So "others" do not locate or define me. "Others" are the experience that is me. I cannot see how it can be otherwise.

Not sure I understand what you are stating....are you an idealist taking the position that the real structure of the world is in some sense identical and therefore ontologically dependent on the structure of thought, as suggest by a thinker like Berkeley?

I would have to know Berkeley, which I don't. I generally don't read philosophers.

Am I an idealist? Too much pain for that. If I was young and pain free while having the understanding I understand that perhaps I may have then maybe I would be an idealist.

No. I regard myself as a realist. I feel completely real about what I have said is me.

For example if you cannot read Chinese the symbols mean nothing to you and don't convey any information. I don't think reproducing is the same as information so that if a gene preserves the pattern of biochemical activity that produces body parts it is just a mechanical procedure. But our kind of knowledge is mental representation. — Andrew4Handel

I define information as the relationship between cause and effect. Even if you didn't know what the symbols mean (their abstract meaning, or the author's intent), the fact that there are written symbols (the effect) is indicative of the cause, (someone wrote them). In seeing written symbols, I can conclude the cause of the symbols based on my experiences - people write symbols. So the Chinese symbols carry more than just their abstract meaning, or information. They also convey concrete information.

Information is everywhere causes leave effects. Just because you aren't aware of it, doesn't mean that information isn't there. We also filter information based on the present goal in mind.

When you say "information presented" who is the information presented to? Also I don't think we know where we are in space apart from relative to what is around us and things are relative to where we are conscious of being.
So for example we are assuming we are all humans on earth but we are not imagining being another organism light years away with different senses and cognitive abilities.

So even the general human perspective is not objective in the sense we are based in from just one location in the universe with a particular array of cognitive and perceptual apparatus molding our intuitions. — Andrew4Handel

In a computer, information is processed and triggers certain behaviors not based on the physical interactions of the computer, but based on the logical interactions of the program. Different programs make the computer, which has the same hardware throughout each program that is run on it, behave differently. Just as you can behave differently based on the information you have in your head (working memory) at any given moment. You "physically" haven't changed, but the information inside you has, and accounts for your behavior. You can even behave differently than others given the same information because you have a unique history of experiences that allow you to interpret the information differently. In this sense, the information isn't really presented, but is the cause of our behavior as it is used by our body in order to achieve some goal.

based on the logical interactions of the program. — Harry Hindu

It seems that logic is in the human mind and they create structures in computers that behave based on the operation a human wants to achieve. The program has designed constraints to guide its capacities and to act in precise or algorithmic ways

I wouldn't make an analogy between humans and computers because the immense amount of design that goes into computers. If there is no design in making humans then we can't safely take for granted any of the aspects of human inventions that utilise this

There may be causal reason for behaviours and belief formation et al but I don't see how that explains the subjective perspective. For example it is possible that You and I are having a near identical experience of a tree. I don't think we are differentiated simply by possibly having a different combination of input.

Nevertheless I am not very knowledgeable about the concept of information in physics but if everything carries information in a sense of causal interaction and properties then it seems arbitrary that some information should become conscious.
So for examples all organisms receive input from and interact with their environments.

Others are always there, that's an empirical fact, not some sort of logical regress argument. It is only by means of interactions with those closest to you that you can become you, that your desire for recognition can be realized. And, yes we begin to become self aware around the time of language acquisition, the mirror stage of development starts at around 24 months (the terrible 2s) goes on until around age 5.

The 'I' is derivative of the 'We'. — Cavacava

What comes first the definition, or the thing being defined? It seems to me that what is being defined is what a definition represents. Definitions are simply representations used for categorizing and communicating states-of-affairs that exist(ed) a priori.

To say that "others" define me without recognizing that I am also an "other", isn't very well thought out.

What does it mean to "not live up to others expectations" if I am completely defined by others? Shouldn't I always live up to others expectations if others define me? If others define me, then it seems that there would end up being conflicting, even contradictory, definitions of me.

It seems that logic is in the human mind and they create structures in computers that behave based on the operation a human wants to achieve. The program has designed constraints to guide its capacities and to act in precise or algorithmic ways

I wouldn't make an analogy between humans and computers because the immense amount of design that goes into computers. If there is no design in making humans then we can't safely take for granted any of the aspects of human inventions that utilise this — Andrew4Handel

Sure. Computers don't have goals of self-preservation and procreation, like we do. If they acted for themselves, and were designed and programmed to use the information that they contained, or had access to via sensory devices, for their own benefit, then we could start talking about a more concrete analogy.

Humans were "designed" and "programmed" as well, via natural selection. Evolutionary biology explains how our bodies were designed over an enormous period of time with an immense amount of design. Evolutionary Psychology explains how we have been programmed over a long period of time. We also have the ability to (re)program ourselves with our ability to learn (our non-instinctive behaviors) so that we can adapt quickly to rapidly changing environmental conditions.

There may be causal reason for behaviours and belief formation et al but I don't see how that explains the subjective perspective. For example it is possible that You and I are having a near identical experience of a tree. I don't think we are differentiated simply by possibly having a different combination of input.

Nevertheless I am not very knowledgeable about the concept of information in physics but if everything carries information in a sense of causal interaction and properties then it seems arbitrary that some information should become conscious.
So for examples all organisms receive input from and interact with their environments. — Andrew4Handel

So it comes down to, "What is consciousness?"

We are differentiated in space and therefore can't have the exact same experience of the same tree. This slight differentiation is what gives us our uniqueness. This unique information about location is what gives each of us our individuality. I am not you because we both have different brains and support systems for those brains. I cannot will your body to move, and you cannot will mine. These are all things that we learn as an infant. We learn to control our own bodies, not others. We learn to manipulate others through indirect means, like using language, or using our own bodies.

Consciousness is probably nothing special. It is made of the same substance as everything else, or else how could it interact and cause changes in other things? I don't think that there is some impenetrable boundary between mind and body/world. It is our assumption that there is that is keeping us from really getting at what consciousness is.

I am stating that without Others the I is impossible...there are no "wolf children"

To say that "others" define me without recognizing that I am also an "other", isn't very well thought out.

No, others enable you to understand that you are a separate individual and at the same time Others effectively structure who you are, which you willingly accept because it reinforces their recognition of you as an individual.

What does it mean to "not live up to others expectations" if I am completely defined by others? Shouldn't I always live up to others expectations if others define me? If others define me, then it seems that there would end up being conflicting, even contradictory, definitions of me.

Our desire is a desire for recognition, which is also the desire for what we believe the other desires, which is why we are always asking what others desire or lack. Our beliefs can be mistaken, but the structuring process remains the same.

No, others enable you to understand that you are a separate individual and at the same time Others effectively structure who you are, which you willingly accept because it reinforces their recognition of you as an individual. — Cavacava

Our desire is a desire for recognition, which is also the desire for what we believe the other desires, which is why we are always asking what others desire or lack. Our beliefs can be mistaken, but the structuring process remains the same. — Cavacava

It looks to me that you can't talk about the we without using terms like, "I" and "you", and "others". Define others without making reference to something other than yourself - yourself being you - the thing that exists prior to being labeled by others for their own ends, which you possess your own ends and that is why conflicts and moral dilemmas arise, because our individual goals come into conflict.

I'm not always asking what others desire. That is the sign of someone who has no self-worth. You describe the symptoms of someone who has no self-esteem - who looks to others to define them. Transgenderism arises as the result of allowing others to define you as something that you are not. Transgenders are typically from homes where the parents raised them and treated them as the opposite sex, so that later in life they are confused about what they really are.

Like I said, your existence is a priori to the labels people put on you. Definitions and labels are for categorizing and communicating, not for creating something from nothing.