Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 10

[Soupie]

Consciousness? Consciousness?

If we sincerely and completely throw out EVERY bloody thing that we currently believe or have ever read or heard said about consciousness -- what then is our first hand, uncompromised experience of it?
What?

If "consciousness" is a genuinely important subject -- then that's what really matters isn't it? Thoroughly forgetting everything that came before so we can discover what is the alive and intimate sense of consciousness right here, right now? All else is mental masturbation. He said, she said.

Unlike every-thing, consciousness -- is not an object. It is the aware-space in which all objects (thoughts, feelings, emotions, occurrences, etc. appear). Look and see. Consciousness comes before experience.

Do you want to really, really know what consciousness is? Then you have to place your most intimate sense of aware-presence under the microscope of an acute yearning and desire to know.
Simple, but very radical. A road less traveled.
You go it alone. You place importance on what is unmoving and silently looking and perceiving in this moment. Not on what changes, moves or can be observed (Just the opposite of everyday "life').

Looking at what is looking, we discover what we really are. Who knew?

Edited sometime later to add: IMO, the paranormal is only a subset of phenomenal experiences that consciousness observes like it does any and all experience. In the end it doesn't matter to consciousness what wisps of experience pass through it, either normal or "paranormal". Consciousness remains silent and pristinely untouched no matter. Look and see.

A good time for you to join the discussion. We have recently been exploring the idea that consciousness is primary. (Note the emphasis on exploring.)

The question is then (and always has been)—and feel free to take a stab—its relation to the body.

 

[Constance]

Hi all I'm okay computer crashed. Be well.

 

[Randall]

Hi all I'm okay computer crashed. Be well.

What brand is your system?

 

[Swamp Gas]

That sounds a lot like Husserl's phenomenology.

Sorry, I don't know anything about that. I have only found that any and every genuine revelation regarding consciousness comes via looking first-hand for oneself.
It is our most intimate sense of being and existing after all, on which everything else stands. Without any philosophical beliefs or book learning we all intrinsically know this (but may not give it any credence).

 

[Swamp Gas]

A good time for you to join the discussion. We have recently been exploring the idea that consciousness is primary. (Note the emphasis on exploring.)

The question is then (and always has been)—and feel free to take a stab—its relation to the body.

Considering that consciousness is the stage on which everything plays, what does it have to reveal about its relationship with the body? What is our first-hand experience void of all thoughts and beliefs about it?

 

[Randall]

Considering that consciousness is the stage on which everything plays, what does it have to reveal about its relationship with the body? What is our first-hand experience void of all thoughts and beliefs about it?

They refer to that as "prereflective consciousness". Here are a couple of references:

• Phenomenological Approaches to Self-Consciousness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• http://www.janushead.org/9-2/Legrand.pdf

 

[smcder]

Sorry, I don't know anything about that. I have only found that any and every genuine revelation regarding consciousness comes via looking first-hand for oneself.
It is our most intimate sense of being and existing after all, on which everything else stands. Without any philosophical beliefs or book learning we all intrinsically know this (but may not give it any credence).

I have only found that any and every genuine revelation regarding consciousness comes via looking first-hand for oneself.

Could you provide an example of a "genuine revelation regarding consciousness"?

 

[Soupie]

Considering that consciousness is the stage on which everything plays, what does it have to reveal about its relationship with the body? What is our first-hand experience void of all thoughts and beliefs about it?

As @smcder and @Usual Suspect have pointed out, this approach to the mind-body problem has a long history in the body of work known as phenomenology.

And while phenomenology has many strengths, it alone cannot be used to resolve the MBP.

A perceptual/observational process such as consciousness can only gain so much insight by turning its gaze back on itself. Other methods must be used as well to determine—as far as it is possible—the processes underlying prereflective consciousness.

For example, the notion that consciousness is an observational process implies a process of memory. Memory invokes the concept of time. Etc.

 

[smcder]

Welcome back, @Constance! I hope all is well with you.

 

[smcder]

As @smcder and @Usual Suspect have pointed out, this approach to the mind-body problem has a long history in the body of work known as phenomenology.

And while phenomenology has many strengths, it alone cannot be used to resolve the MBP.

A perceptual/observational process such as consciousness can only gain so much insight by turning its gaze back on itself. Other methods must be used as well to determine—as far as it is possible—the processes underlying prereflective consciousness.

For example, the notion that consciousness is an observational process implies a process of memory. Memory invokes the concept of time. Etc.

Well said.

 

[Constance]

Welcome back, @Constance! I hope all is well with you.

Thanks, Steve. Yes, all is well with me. I've had the data from my crashed computer migrated to my new computer (a refurbished Compaq employing Windows 10, which I'm now finding my way around in). I've read through the posts I've missed in this thread over the last two weeks and want to call attention to a very good discussion of developments in Quantum Biology that I linked just before my older computer crashed. Here is that link again:

Quantum Biology: The Hidden Nature of Nature

 

[Randall]

This discussion concerning the nature of time is also very good:

Fundamental vs Emergent Time | Perimeter Institute

Here's some more stuff: Time | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

BTW: I don't find the concept of time confusing and have answered most of the questions posed in the link above to my own satisfaction. The link is largely for those who find the topic interesting and want a half-decent reference to common notions about time.

 

[Soupie]

I updated my quora reply to include the paper above as it may be his answer

David Pearce followed me on Quora. I don't have any content and he seems to folly thousands, so I think it's just something he does. In any case it does indicate that he is active. He doesn't seem to have replied to your question.

I'm going to reach out to him regarding cosmopyschism and also predictive processing.

 

[Soupie]

@smcder

One of my thoughts regarding the mind brain relationship has been that 1. they appear/seem to be distinct due to the nature of perception but also 2. we will probably never be able to conclusively establish their ontological identity for that very same reason: we don't have direct access to the extrinsic interactions of what-is, but only inferential access via perception.

As it is, there is a plethora of evidence that the brain and mind are intimately related, but taking the next step to prove that they are one and the same is unpossible in practice and perhaps in principle.

I'm not seeing how Pearce's test can overcome this.

 

[Constance]

Stuart Kaufman, "Causality - Reality" -- from another recent conference highly relevant to our current discussions here:

 

[Constance]

I meant to add this link yesterday to the whole set of video presentations and discussions presented at the Perimeter Institute's 2016 conference on "Fundamental vs Emergent Time.

Time in Cosmology | Perimeter Institute

NOTE: To follow the chronological development of the sessions, begin at the bottom of page 2 of these links and follow the links upward from there to the concluding session at the top of page 1. It's all fascinating.

 

[Constance]

Here's some more stuff: Time | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

BTW: I don't find the concept of time confusing and have answered most of the questions posed in the link above to my own satisfaction. The link is largely for those who find the topic interesting and want a half-decent reference to common notions about time.

Might be a good idea to listen to the videos from the Perimeter conference in order to weigh the perspectives of other great minds on the possible nature(s) of time.

 

[Randall]

Might be a good idea to listen to the videos from the Perimeter conference in order to weigh the perspectives of other great minds on the possible nature(s) of time.

Yes. I do enjoy keeping-up on these subjects, if only to make sure that my present understanding is still coherent with respect to any new information. So thanks for posting the video. I'll be sure to check it out.

 

[Constance]

Considering that consciousness is the stage on which everything plays, what does it have to reveal about its relationship with the body? What is our first-hand experience void of all thoughts and beliefs about it?

As @smcder and @Usual Suspect have pointed out, this approach to the mind-body problem has a long history in the body of work known as phenomenology. And while phenomenology has many strengths, it alone cannot be used to resolve the MBP.

At the same time, however, the MBP could not have been posed, could not have arisen, in the absence of the biological history of embodied consciousness arising in the evolution of species of life - and eventually enabling the development of 'mind' as we know and use it. Thus I think it's obvious that we cannot understand what 'mind' is without first understanding what consciousness is in its emergence from bodily pre-reflective/pre-thetic lived experience in the world. The video discussions I've linked to yesterday and today reveal that even physicists no longer believe that physics can explain life, consciousness, or mind. Another shorter talk by Stuart Kauffman at this link is helpful:

A perceptual/observational process such as consciousness can only gain so much insight by turning its gaze back on itself.

Consciousness is far more than "a perceptual/observational process." Consciousness enables the sense of being, both personal and collective, from which all the major questions of philosophy arise.

Other methods must be used as well to determine—as far as it is possible—the processes underlying prereflective consciousness.

Certainly, and the range of methods required is suggested by the interdisciplinary discussions I've linked from the Perimeter Institute, to which Kauffman and other theoretical biologists were invited to participate. Still more disciplines need to be involved in the search for answers to the questions considered in that exemplary conference.

For example, the notion that consciousness is an observational process implies a process of memory. Memory invokes the concept of time. Etc.

Memory demonstrates the reality of time, of physical arrows of time and of the lived temporality of all protoconscious and conscious beings. We should read Rupert Sheldrake on memory in nature. The idea of time would not occur in a world without experienced temporality. Human concept(s) of time could not have developed without the lived "sense of time" experienced by all species of life and reflected on by our species (and possibly others).

 

[Randall]

Here's another link to some good introductory interviews: What Is Time? - Video Interview Series - Closer To Truth

• They will auto-play, but I'd suggest starting with the Huw Price interview.