Excellent points on both fronts!

Here's the irony! It goes back to the metaphysical sense of wonderment in our consciousness. It goes back to why you contemplated the mysteries of consciousness in this thread.it goes back to wondering why we do what we do. And perhaps the greatest wonderment of all (aside from love) it goes back to understanding our existence (trying to).

So it's also perfectly fine to wonder why we wonder. And as you suggested, it's more than fine to attempt any measurement of same. How we measure it's important no doubt.

To that end, I also go back to what you said in an earlier thread that there is much value to analogizing existing phenomena and to make appropriate inferences accordingly...

If you grant reason is un-mystic, yet allow for its complement (....), then you are a dualist. But a dualist is a small kind of pluralist, so maybe you’re ok.
— Mww

A dualism between rational thought and feeling? — Janus

That’s one aspect of duality, yes. Feelings are not cognitions, but cognitions arise from rational thought. Ergo, rational thought and feelings suggest an intrinsic duality, either in form or substance, origin, purpose, or, something else theoretically untenable. But my point was that the human system is complementary, so it stands to reason that sooner or later we’re bound to arrive at the duality of immanent/transcendent, under which we can subsume all complementary pairs in relation to each other. Then we have the total rational dualism as the SOP for humans. There may be some over-arching monism, but it won’t matter to us; we still would have to use our innate dualistic nature to understand it.
——————

our propensity for reification so easily allows to become manifest in many forms of faux-determinate transcendence. — Janus

Yeah, we do seem to want to objectify our notions, don’t we?

To that end, I also go back to what you said in an earlier thread that there is much value to analogizing existing phenomena and to make appropriate inferences accordingly...

I relate qualia and EM fields in more than one way, three in fact. First is to ask why are we not disturbed by not knowing what EM fields really are, nor why or how they are. Those are exactly the same unknowns we face with qualia, and yet it not only doesn’t bother us, we actually feel we understand a great deal about them, perhaps all that really matters.

Second builds on the first one, so I claim if we discover how to decode all of the brain signals, so we can extract qualia from it to read thoughts and watch dreams, read memories and feelings or inprint new ones, then we would have solved all and every mystery there is about consciousness, still without really knowing what is it, why is it, or how is it even possible, but nevertheless we should feel satisfied by that type of explanatory and predictive knowledge just as we are in the case of magnetic and electric fields.

Because, what else is there to know? If I told you that EM fields are consequences of vortex dynamics of the Aether, what value does that information have when we can describe all the interactions with emergent formulas that work in our size level of complexity just fine. Similarly, what more could you possibly want to know about qualia if we can answer all the practical questions about how to read it, make it, or fake it.

I am saying there might not exist a better answer than the one ultimately describing some causal mechanics of the “mind system”, not because of our inabilities, but due to some objective and absolute epistemological limit where wanting to know more is meaningless like wanting to go more north of the north pole.

So you intend a falsification of A = A, insofar as some occasions permit A = not-A? I submit that if you’re daydreaming you’re not driving
— Mww

Mww, precisely! As far as our consciousness is concerned, we are not driving, which is why we have the potential to crash and kill ourselves. Cognitive science says that our subconscious is driving. Hence, I'm driving and not driving at the same time. Therefore, consciousness is beyond our logical understanding. — 3017amen

OK, fine. If you’re not driving and your subconscious is, then it follows necessarily the dichotomy (I am both driving and not driving) is false, because “I am driving” is contradicted by the “subconscious is driving”, while the “I am not driving” remains true. Otherwise, you and your subconscious must be identical, in the exact same way you and your consciousness are identical, which is quite absurd.

While I grant consciousness is beyond our empirical knowledge, it does not follow from being beyond knowledge that it is also beyond logical understanding. As a matter of fact, if consciousness is considered as merely some metaphysical abstraction, the only possible way to understand it at all, is from logical conditions. And as we all know, all logic needs for certainty, is identity and non-contradiction, consistent with itself. So if a theory speculates an identity and adds in a purpose for good measure, consciousness is no longer beyond our logical understanding, as long as the theory for it holds no contradictions in its construction.

If you want to attribute the impossibility of logical understanding to something, might I suggest you attribute it to the subconscious you used to justify your falsification of the Identity Law? I mean, you can always use the subconscious as a logical premise, insofar as the possible availability of something in juxtaposition to consciousness. But consciousness lends itself to theoretical speculation, whereas the subconscious cannot be the subject of a meaningful theoretical speculation because of the very quality our own rationality demands of it, without opening the door to the bane of all speculation, infinite regress.

Now....science. Do you really give a crap what science says, with respect to driving your car? Tell me the truth....do you flash on a peer reviewed paper when the phone rings and you go through the mental motions of whether or not to pick up? If not, and I certainly hope not, then how can you possibly justify negating a purely rational law (A = A) with a purely empirical doctrine (cognitive neuroscience)?

The phrase "gaussian uncertainty" does not and can not exist in computer science. — Zelebg

I get the belated impression that your original post was talking about Computer Consciousness, while most of the discussion here has been about Human Consciousness. That may explain the failure to communicate.

"Gaussian Uncertainty" applies only to non-semantic numerical Information. "Bayesian Uncertainty" is necessary for analyzing semantic verbal Information. If you only communicate with computers in machine language (1s & 0s), uncertainty is at a minimum, but meaning is also minimal : syntax without semantics. But, if you want to communicate with humans in one of the thousands of historically-evolved culture-bound languages, uncertainty is high, yet the potential for transmitting meaning is also high.

Computers talk to other computers in binary (digital) language. And they can interface with programmers in one of the many artificial programming languages. But when they must communicate with ordinary humans, they have to translate from the sterile purity of syntax to the contaminated complexities of semantics. Apparently, you are trained to think in simplistic binary terms, so the ambiguities of confusing multi-value language makes human-speak sound like "greek" to you. :smile:


Human vs Digital Language : https://medium.com/@anaharris/human-languages-vs-programming-languages-c89410f13252

Semantics : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) — Gnomon

I can understand why you would think "ultimate or absolute reality" is "ideal" for us as opposed to phenomenal reality which is concrete or physical for us. But the very notion of 'ultimate' or 'absolute' connotes 'in itself'; an existence which is neither concrete nor physical, but which gives rise to the emergent properties of physicality and ideality.

Spinoza already nailed this with his understanding of substance and its attributes and modes. Do we need to reinvent the wheel?

You are confusing computation with communication, neither of which is 'information', but integration and transfer of information. Transfer of information, i.e. communication, is subject to loss of information and only as a consequence of that there is uncertainty on the receiving end, which then has to do with 'interpretation', 'semantics', 'meaning' and 'understanding' of information. Computation in turing machines, on the other hand, is not subject to loss of information, or any kind of uncertainty regarding validity, integrity, or interpretation of the computed information.

Therefore, again, your statement 'information is measured in degrees of uncertainty' is not simply wrong, it is terribly confused and misplaced. It would be slightly less wrong if you said ‘information is measured in degrees of entropy’ since that could be applied not just to communication, but also compression (computation) of information. However, in either case ‘uncertainty’ is only a side effect of interpretation or decompression of information by _another system_, so in the case of algorithmic computation in turing machines entropy and uncertainty have no meaning or application, and yet algorithms contain information. Ok?

For an Amazonian tribesman, the coded information may be completely meaningless

Any information may be misunderstood or not understood by something or someone, and cars can go slow and fast. It is pointless observation, except it contradicts your earlier nonsense when you said: “information causes meaning”. Information causes nothing by itself, just like shape of a ball does not cause it to roll down the hill without the hill and the force of gravity.

Otherwise, you and your subconscious must be identical, in the exact same way you and your consciousness are identical, which is quite absurd. — Mww

But one does not know the difference. All the person knows is he or she is in another reality and that's why they crash and kill themselves.

Hence their driving but not driving. Otherwise why would the person want to accidentally kill themselves?

Think of it as a person exercising and getting an endorphin high. They're not aware of the biological and physiological brain states; all they know is they are running feeling good.

And so the person daydreaming is not aware that they're daydreaming otherwise they would avert the accident. ( Some say sleepwalking is the equivalent... during which, are you sleeping or walking or both? )

. And this doesn’t run afoul of physicalism on my account because the concrete physical world just is one of those forms/ideas/mathematical structures — Pfhorrest

Is 'just' that, eh? The problem with this is that sticks and stones are demonstrably different to fours and fives. Simply saying that the physical IS forms or ideas or mathematical structures, doesn't say anything meaningful.

The point where this radically diverges is that in Platonism, 'the physical' is distinguishable from the intelligible. The material domain is inherently changeable and separated from the changeless. The hoi polloi are bamboozled by appearances into believing that it has inherent worth, which generally manifests as avarice, attachment to pleasure and status, and all of the other illusory goods which worldly people pursue. Whereas 'the philosopher' ascends by dint of hard intellectual and noetic discipline to understand the source and origin of things not simply their manifestations in the world of form.

So the point which your account is lacking, is any sense of the requirement for the ascent to a higher understanding. That is preserved in science in some sense, but the consequences, in modern science, are instrumental or utilitarian, not qualitative and ethical. In other words, if we only retained the principles of Greek philosophy that were relevant to science and engineering, but jettisoned the spiritual principles that were felt to be even higher in the grand scheme - then you would have the kind of scientific philosophy that we see the effects of today.

All mammals, including humans, are Pragmatic Materialists by nature, because it is adaptive to assume that what you see is what's really out there. But humans are also capable of looking beneath the superfical surfaces to the underlying "foundational principles". Yet, what we have found there is the weird world of Quantum Physics, where the foundation of reality can be described, not in terms of macro-level space-time properties, but only in terms of arcane quantum mathematics, and of Unicorn metaphors for individual Particles that behave like holistic Waves. Counter-intuitively, "Wavicles" seem to be both particles and waves — Gnomon

But, the only reason to regard the sub-atomic domain as foundational, is a hangover from philosophical materialism and the quest to resolve everything to 'fundamental particles'. '

Although Quantum theory has turned Classical Materialistic Physics inside-out, it is now grudgingly accepted by most scientists — Gnomon

Whoa. Quantum theory as a means of prediction and control is intrinsic to all modern physics and a huge proportion of modern technology. But the interpretation of what it means is intensely contested and controversial. There is no way to claim that there is one accepted, authoritative and mainstream consensus on the meaning of physics.

I've read quite a few popular accounts of this, notably Manjit Kumar's Quantum (excellent), David Lindley's Uncertainty (3 stars) and most recently Adam Becker's What is Real? Hey, note the title! This is the question at issue!

Sean Carroll, a physicist and pop-philosopher (and a poor one, in my opinion) has just published a book assuring us that the multiverse is the ultimate reality. Yet he's also embroiled in a massive stoush with other scientists who think the whole idea is unscientific. I don't expect any of this to be resolved in my lifetime - or ever!

We have to always remember that the basic meaning of philosophy is 'love~wisdom'. We have to find some source of those qualities in our own being and the being of those around us.

Sticks and stones can be constructed out of atoms that are constructed out of particles that are constructed out of fluctuations of quantum fields that are constructed of mathematical spaces and groups that are constructed in a long process I won’t detail here out of numbers and other things that are constructed out of sets. Or else those particles are effects of some other structure besides quantum fields as we now know them, which in any case is still something that can be described perfectly by mathematics (even if we have to invent/discover some new math to do it) and so identical to some mathematical structure.

Time is an aspect of that structure, so only things that are a part of that structure, or similar structures that also include time, experience change. Only things that are part of the same structure as us are empirically sensible to us. That is the important difference between what is part of this world and separate from it. But that’s just like acknowledging that there’s an important difference between now and other times, or here and other places, or the actual world and other possible worlds: it’s importantly different to us because it’s where we are, but in a more absolute less relative sense they’re all ontologically the same.

All the stuff about ethics and spirituality is besides any of this. This is just descriptive; any prescriptions could be paired with this. Accepting this description of the world doesn’t say anything about what is or isn’t valuable or good or etc.

All the stuff about ethics and spirituality is besides any of this. This is just descriptive; any prescriptions could be paired with this. Accepting this description of the world doesn’t say anything about what is or isn’t valuable or good or etc. — Pfhorrest

My point, exactly. There’s the hard problem in a nutshell.

I see the points that you're making in several succinct ways. The how's and why's of existence, as well as explaining and/or describing conscious existence.

1. How do you build a human being with consciousness.
2. Why do human beings have a consciousness that provides for self-awareness.
3. Explain consciousness; is consciousness logically possible.
4. Describe conscious existence.

Arguably I think the best we can do is posit number 4.

I agree, and I think that this is analogous to the situation with incompatibilist free will. Incompatibilists insist that free will means being undetermined. Okay, electrons are undetermined, according to contemporary physics. So electrons have free will? Sounds like kind of a useless definition of free will then. But hey look over there, those compatibilists have a much more useful definition of free will according to which humans sometimes have it but electrons don't... it just has nothing to do with (in)determinism.

Likewise, phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness. — Pfhorrest

This interesting, and I think I understand your point. In the analogy, phenomenal consciousness is like incompatibilism - a coherent and meaningful idea, but not useful or particularly interesting. And compatibilism is like access consciousness - it's actually interesting and useful to be able to talk about the particular capabilities, powers and limitations of the mind in question.

I half agree with you. I'd be interested in your views on overdetermination. I eat because physical events in my brain cause, in law-like ways, my muscles to pick up food, put it in my mouth and chew it and swallow it. And presumably these causal pathways are in principle traceable. But I also eat because I feel hungry. And I wouldn't eat if I didn't have that feeling - the physical story is not the whole story of why I eat. So we have two causes (don't we?), and the question is, what is the relationship between them? There is a problem, because when we speak about machines which we presume are not conscious, an account of the physical processes is taken as sufficient to explain the behaviour of the machine. But in humans it's not enough, and we then have to try and explain why the situation is different in humans. My panpsychist answer is to say that it is not ultimately different. The problem is resolved if we can reduce one explanation to the other. Attempts to reduce will or consciousness to physical explanations have so far failed, but I think the reverse reduction can perhaps be made. Physical explanations refer to laws, causes, forces, all of which are presumed to be insentient. But these are just made up ways to refer to what things just do. To illustrate this, consider a crude analogy. Imagine an alien race of giants who discover humans. However they see only our behaviour and have no idea we are conscious. They design a light switch (admittedly a rather crap design, but bear with me). They put a giant 100m rocker switch like a see-saw on the ground. 20 humans are placed on one end and the whole lever is enclosed in a cage so that the humans can't escape. Now they wait a bit. To operate the switch they put some bags of food at the other end. The hungry humans move to the other end to get to the food, and the switch tips over and is operated. Now we know that the switch depends on phenomenal states to work, because we know what it is like to be a human experiencing hunger. But the giant aliens, who are not like us at all, presume that we do not possess consciousness, because we are very different from them. So Prek the alien giant observes this behaviour very carefully and invents Prek's law, namely that human particles follow a four-hour cycle of attraction to carbohydrate particles which are then absorbed by the humans particles. This is just taken as a fundamental law which 'just is', and it works. It successfully predicts the behaviour of the switch. (Yes, I know it is a really crap switch). We know Prek's law is a made-up law, because it is just a stand-in for the real cause, which is the phenomenal state of hunger. And the panpsychist thought is to simply extrapolate this to everything, so when we look at the behaviour of a system, we are looking at conscious things following their will. And mechanism can emerge from this, and predictable results can be exploited which are not intended or understood by the constituent entities. Any time we appeal to a force in a physical explanation, I suggest we are referring to the phenomenal states of the entities involved. And if we remember that entities are really persistent doings themselves, even the very existence of anything depends on will. This is of course problematic and raises a lot of questions. But it seems to me that reducing physical explanation to will is a much more hopeful project than reducing will to physical explanation. So I am an emergentist after all, but not about consciousness, but about mechanism. If we think 'reduction' is a dirty word then we are the stuck with the problem of the relationship of the mental to the physical. Do you find this at all plausible?

Hence their driving but not driving. — 3017amen

Ok. Driving but not driving is very much an argumentative improvement over driving and not driving.
————————

But one does not know the difference. All the person knows is he or she is in another reality..... — 3017amen

True enough, but one doesn't have to know the difference to know there is one. And it does seem like a different reality, when it is actually quite impossible to show it isn’t just a different perspective on the same reality. If you crash while daydreaming, the car is every bit as damaged as if you’d crashed under purely accidental conditions, through no fault of inattention.

I’ll end this by stating for the record I do not deny daydreaming and the like, done it myself more than a few times, both naturally and .........shall we say, chemically stimulated (gasp)......but I maintain such mental distractions are merely reason without due restraint. Maybe like Janus’ “mystic unreason”. Transcendental philosophy seeks to bound reason so as not to cause confusion within itself, but subconsciously, the rational gloves come off and reason is allowed to think whatever it wants. And I prefer my reason to be under control, thank you very much, so while granting the subconscious its existence, I consciously allot to it no power.

Ok. Driving but not driving is very much an argumentative improvement over driving and not driving. — Mww

Hey Mww!

Sure but I would just caution against splitting semantic hairs. Driving and not driving, or driving but not driving in our context means the same.

1. Sleepwalking: the person sleep walking has an empaired self- awareness.
2. Daydreamer: the person daydreaming has an empaired self-awareness.

1A. A person speaking with the sleepwalker, concludes that they're both sleeping and walking at the same time.

2B. A person speaking with the daydreamer who survived an accident, concludes that they were simultaneously driving while dreaming they were surfing.

If A and -A holds ( law of non-contradiction/LEM ), one could reasonably conclude that consciousness is logically impossible.

It seems absurd to the layperson. (As a Christian Existentialist, that does not seem so absurd.)

I would just caution against splitting semantic hairs. — 3017amen

Yeah, that is a common problem. But what about this, and pardon me, everybody, for stealing from another thread:

“When someone shuffles a deck of cards and deals you the first twenty cards, the probability of getting those specific cards is extremely unlikely.”

Is it extremely unlikely?

And intriguing question. And speaking of context, I haven't checked to see where that other thread was located. So without that information I would have to first define the premises.

Assuming a transaction has occurred, or in the law of contracts-promise for a promise, what then was the promise made?

In other words was there a promise to receive a specific amount or type of cards, or was it a promise of chance or randomness (?).

Sorry I couldn't be specific on that one for now...

I haven't checked to see where that other thread was located. — 3017amen

To answer the question, you don’t the thread. All the context you need is given.

Mmm, let's see in the context of this thread, I would say the natural swarming effect found in Emergence, might suggest that eventually, you will receive "the hand " that is dealt to you.

That’s not the Hard Problem of Consciousness at all. That’s just the fact-value distinction. The Hard Problem isn’t about evaluation, and a mathematicist description of the world being independent of any evaluation of the world just means that evaluation is a different topic, one we’re just not talking about yet: it’s not saying there is nothing to say about it, it’s just refraining from saying anything about it, leaving you free to figure that all out separately.

I very roughly agree with all that.

Hmmmm......So instead of splitting semantic hairs, we have successfully compounded propositional hairs.

Be that as it may, you’ve deduced the correct answer, although you should have been able to deduce the correct answer without invoking swarming or emergence, or anything else, except what was contained in the question itself. Which is where the semantic hair-splitting quibble is to be found, and a perfect example of why sometimes such quibbling is proper dialectical procedure.

Ha! Well your point is very well taken!

And accordingly, I would say it was more based upon inductive reasoning, not really deductive reasoning (inference based on empirical observation of cause and effect, randomness, et al.).

But back to the main point of consciousness. I believe the key distinction here is the fact that the individual experiencing that so-called illogical phenomenon believes that they are in a different reality. They are not aware that they are not aware. How can that be?

Your serve

I can understand why you would think "ultimate or absolute reality" is "ideal" for us as opposed to phenomenal reality which is concrete or physical for us. — Janus

You may have misunderstood my usage of abstract "ideality" in contrast to concrete "reality". Plato's realm of perfect Ideas or Forms was never meant as a perfect abode for flesh & blood humans. Instead, it would be more suitable for the generalization "humanity", which is merely an abstract idea, a concept, which has no concrete instance. We can go to that ethereal "place" in MInd, but not in Body. :smile:

Ideal :
1. satisfying one's conception of what is perfect; most suitable.
2. existing only in the imagination; desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality.

Ideality :
In Plato’s theory of Forms, he argues that non-physical forms (or ideas) represent the most accurate or perfect reality. Those Forms are not physical things, but merely definitions or recipes of possible things. What we call Reality consists of a few actualized potentials drawn from a realm of infinite possibilities.
1. Materialists deny the existence of such immaterial ideals, but recent developments in Quantum theory have forced them to accept the concept of “virtual” particles in a mathematical “field”, that are not real, but only potential, until their unreal state is collapsed into reality by a measurement or observation. To measure is to extract meaning into a mind. [Measure, from L. Mensura, to know; from mens-, mind]
2. Some modern idealists find that scenario to be intriguingly similar to Plato’s notion that ideal Forms can be "realized", i.e. meaning extracted, by knowing minds. For the purposes of this blog, “Ideality” refers to an infinite pool of potential (equivalent to a quantum field), of which physical Reality is a small part. A formal name for that fertile field is G*D.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

Realize : 1.become fully aware of (something) as a fact; understand clearly.
[to form a mental image, not to make a physical thing]

You are confusing computation with communication, neither of which is 'information', — Zelebg

No. I'm using a broader definition of "Information" as both noun and verb. That's the whole point of the Enformationism Thesis. Information is not just 1s and 0s, it's also everything in between. Information is data, Enformation is energy, EnFormAction is both. Probably the best explanation of the development of Information theory, post-Shannon, can be found in the series of books by prominent Physicist & Cosmologist Paul Davies.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=paul+davies+books

The Mind of God is a 1992 non-fiction book by Paul Davies. Subtitled The Scientific Basis for a Rational World, it is a whirlwind tour and explanation of theories, both physical and metaphysical, regarding ultimate causes. Its title comes from a quotation from Stephen Hawking: "If we do discover a theory of everything...it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would truly know the mind of God."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind_of_God

But, the only reason to regard the sub-atomic domain as foundational, is a hangover from philosophical materialism and the quest to resolve everything to 'fundamental particles'. ' — Wayfarer

I agree. But I was including the current theoretical (immaterial) "foundation" of perceived reality, Quantum Fields, in the sub-atomic domain. I also agree with cognitive researcher Donald Hoffman, that what our senses perceive as real (matter, particles) is not fundamental reality, but symbols representing the underlying "ideality". He illustrates the perception/reality interface as a computer screen displaying symbolic icons instead of the invisible patterns of coded electrons in the CPU and memory. I think you would appreciate his mind-bending (idealistic) take on consciousness.

Vicktor Toth on Quora : But no, quantum fields do not interact with matter. Quantum fields are matter. In a quantum field theory, what we perceive as particles are excitations of the quantum field itself. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/12/20/what-is-a-quantum-field-and-how-does-it-interact-with-matter/#4082644728c4
I disagree. A sub-material field (empty space) has no real stuff to stimulate. The excitations are actually in the visual system of the observer.

Donald Hoffman to Francis Crick : I agree wholeheartedly with you that "seeing is an active, constructive process", that what we see "is a symbolic interpretation of the world", and that "in fact we have no direct knowledge of objects in the world.
Hoffman, The Case Against Reality
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evolutionary-argument-against-reality-20160421/

No. I'm using a broader definition of "Information" as both noun and verb.

Normal people would be ashamed to admit they were talking nonsense the whole time, that's what you just said. There is no such definition in English dictionary. Your imaginary language only makes you insane, and it does not answer my point: there is no uncertainty in computer algorithms, do you understand this?

Well your point is very well taken! — 3017amen

As well it should be, dammit!!!! A guy is dealt twenty cards, the probability of him getting those specific twenty cards is exactly 1!!!! It is absolutely impossible for him to be dealt any other than those specific cards, because those were exactly what he was dealt. Semantic hair-splitting quibble.....those. Attending to that quibble immediately falsifies the original proposition as stated.

Easy-Peasy.
———————-

If A and -A holds ( law of non-contradiction/LEM ), one could reasonably conclude that consciousness is logically impossible. — 3017amen

Did you miss the part where I reasonably concluded consciousness is not logically impossible?

Within the context of “I am both driving and not driving”, the A and -A both driving does not hold. Either A is driving or -A is driving. There does exist both A and -A, but not in the same place at the same time. Or, not doing the same thing at the same time.

Easier-peasier.
———————

They are not aware that there are not aware. How can that be? — 3017amen

Damned if I know. It does seem to be the case, though. I’m never aware of daydreaming as such, until I’m no longer daydreaming. Then I can certainly tell I was, but am not now. What’s even cooler, is you can never tell exactly when the turnover occurred. I can tell I just fell asleep if I come awake soon after, but try as I may, I can never distinguish the point of departure from one state to the other.

Humans...every bit as amazing as they are ignorant.

Ha! I appreciate your sense of humor, dammit!!

Well in your last paragraph I'm glad you mentioned that....I was going to bring that up later; that so-called morphing effect between two realities. It's like radio waves fading in and out from one station to the next as one travels closer to the frequency... . I'll come back to that

The A and -A issue, is occurring in one's mind. And yes I must have missed your argument, I'll go back and look...you may have talked about conscious and sub-conscious distinctions though... . In the meantime, the reason why I am arguing that it's logically impossible ( driving and not driving at the same time) is because also, of the individual's perception of what they are actually doing.

Using the surfing example, all the person knows is they are surfing and not driving. Their awareness is on the Beach surfing. Their awareness, of course, is not driving.

And that leads us back to the fact that they are not aware that they are not aware. So how else should we put that phenomenon in words? How do we describe the fact that the person was driving but yet not really driving at all because they crashed and killed themselves? They thought they were on the beach.

Similarly, how about the sleepwalker who was sleeping and walking at the same time?

Seems to me one would have to drop the law of excluded middle since in order to describe the conciousness phenom correctly, you would say that he's in the middle somewhere doing two things at once. Kind of like the radio frequencies playing two songs at once.

Or kind of like propositions of self-reference. For example: This statement is false. It's both true and false at the same time; an unresolved paradox. Because if the statement is true, then it is false And if it is false, then it is true.

The other component we did not talk about yet is volition. The sleepwalker seemingly has no control over anything whereas the driver, what control did they have? For example initially, the driver chose to drive, but at some point during the act of daydreaming likewise they have no control over anything. Is that not logically impossible?

My question remains; how can consciousness be logically possible (?).

My question remains; how can consciousness be logically possible (?).

Consciousness is the primary and perhaps the only fact. So the question really goes the other way around: how or why is logic possible at all? And what you are actually asking is: why is there something rather than nothing?

Is your question different than: how can magnetic and electric fields be logically possible? Or, how can Periodic table of elements be logically possible? Or, how can water and liquidity be logically possible? Self-replicating molecules, living cells, organisms, life… how can anything be logically possible?

We accept all of it as a brute fact. Even for things like atoms where we can fully describe the mechanics of their properties, we still do not know how any of it is possible, why does it do what we see it does, or what “it” really is.

So, why not see the consciousness in the same light, as a brute fact, just as something that came along with all the rest, and just as mysterious, but not any more mysterious than the rest when the rest is already mysterious to infinity and beyond.

I am arguing that it's logically impossible ( driving and not driving at the same time) — 3017amen

Whoa, hold on there, mon ami. I’m arguing the logical impossibility angle. You started this free-for-all by claiming....and I quote...”I am both driving and not driving”. I wouldn’t even be here if not for that Aristotelian faux pas, which I am duty-bound to quibble over.
——————-

The A and -A issue, is occurring in one's mind. — 3017amen

Yep. It is logic in pure form only. The A means the form is without content, or, means that any content in general replacing A, that accords with the pure form, is going to be logically correct. It is an analytic proposition a priori, tautologically, therefore necessarily, true.
——————-

My question remains; how can consciousness be logically possible (?). — 3017amen

I done already told ya. At least, from how I think about it. I guess, according to you, it isn’t logically possible at all. In the immortal words of Stephen Stills....nobody’s right if everybody’s wrong.