Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 11

[Randall]

Another way to look at it is as the claim that if a brain is currently functioning, it has always been functioning. That claim doesn't seem to allow the possibility of an example of a person without a functioning brain telling a story.

To clarify: I was pointing out that because stories about OOBEs are always told after the fact by a person with a functioning brain, that the memories that form the basis of those stories could also have formed after the fact. Also, as you rightly point out, it may be the case in some instances that the brain was indeed functioning at an undetectable level, and that together with other cues obtained at others times, it extrapolated a scene that closely resembles the actual situation.

Consider: A patient wakes up and finds himself in a hospital where he learns he was picked up without vital signs and resuscitated in an OR. Discovering his dentures are no longer in his mouth, how much of a stretch in logic is it from there to figure out that they were probably removed in the OR? Not much. How much of a stretch is it to visualize that happening? Not much. How likely is it that such a visualization is going to reasonably match the situation? Seems very probable to me. How did he get some of curious details right? We don't know for sure, but invoking mystical concepts of life after death are the least substantiated of the available options.

 

[smcder]

On the converse, I can't currently think of an experiment

To clarify: I was pointing out that because stories about OOBEs are always told after the fact by a person with a functioning brain, that the memories that form the basis of those stories could also have formed after the fact. Also, as you rightly point out, it may be the case in some instances that the brain was indeed functioning at an undetectable level, and that together with other cues obtained at others times, it extrapolated a scene that closely resembles the actual situation.

Consider: A patient wakes up and finds himself in a hospital where he learns he was picked up without vital signs and resuscitated in an OR. Discovering his dentures are no longer in his mouth, how much of a stretch in logic is it from there to figure out that they were probably removed in the OR? Not much. How much of a stretch is it to visualize that happening? Not much. How likely is it that such a visualization is going to reasonably match the situation? Seems very probable to me. How did he get some of curious details right? We don't know for sure, but invoking mystical concepts of life after death are the least substantiated of the available options.

"To clarify: I was pointing out that because stories about OOBEs are always told after the fact by a person with a functioning brain, that the memories that form the basis of those stories could also have formed after the fact."

lol - who else would tell them ... and when would they be told? Even if you dug the person up a month later, you could argue that the brain somehow functioned all that time. So you are not allowing for the possibility that the brain could actually stop functioning - you can always claim undetectable activity until the utter physical deterioration of the person. And then ...

... let's say the person is telling their story after they are clearly physically dead - let's say they are cremated - so the way they "tell" their story is .... ? well, they can either inhabit another body or they can send some kind of mental communication and then you can simply deny that either is physically possible - clearly, the actual person who claims to channel the information is getting it from their own mind - even if you begin hearing the voice of a deceased person and feel certain it is legitimate, this is not "proof" you can simply go complain to a psychiatrist...

... so my point stands that for you, no one would be able to provide the example you require:

Show me an example of a single person ( any person ) without a functioning brain who is telling a story ( any story ).

Is that correct? If not, can you provide a set of facts that you would consider evidentiary?

"...but invoking mystical concepts of life after death are the least substantiated of the available options." why equate life after death with "mystical"? or assume that anyone with a concept of life after death is holding a mystical concept?

If consciousness is a field, we could allow for the possibility of that field remaining organized after the death of the brain - in fact, we would need to look at the relationship of the brain to the field, and not assume the brain generates the field. I believe this possibility has been explored, here and there, in speculative fiction. I am also struck by how many Christians are physicalists, they believe in the literal resurrection of the body and in a God who is composed of prima materia -

 

[Randall]

lol - who else would tell them ... and when would they be told?

That's exactly the point. It can't be anyone else and even it it was, as in some sort of reincarnation claim, then the person claiming reincarnation also has a functioning brain. So every case ( literally billions ) comes from people with functioning brains, and zero cases come from people without one. The irresistible inference is that a functioning brain is required. Otherwise we should have all sorts of examples of people without brains going about their daily business and having perfectly normal experiences. We don't.

... let's say the person is telling their story after they are clearly physically dead - let's say they are cremated - so the way they "tell" their story is .... ? well, they can either inhabit another body or they can send some kind of mental communication and then you can simply deny that either is physically possible - clearly, the actual person who claims to channel the information is getting it from their own mind - even if you begin hearing the voice of a deceased person and feel certain it is legitimate, this is not "proof" you can simply go complain to a psychiatrist ... so my point stands that for you, no one would be able to provide the example you require:

Not quite. Hypothetically if a brain isn't required, then again, why don't people without a functioning brain relay their experiences in real-time rather than after-the-fact when their brain is working? The inference is that experiences require a functioning brain and that the memory of experiences that allegedly happened when their brain was non-functioning were constructed after-the-fact when their brain was working again.

Show me an example of a single person ( any person ) without a functioning brain who is telling a story ( any story ). Is that correct? If not, can you provide a set of facts that you would consider evidentiary?

The AWARE study I mentioned would be one way. Other similar studies have also been done. These involve the placement of specific messages up and out of view of the patient in ORs who would be able to see them and report back after regaining consciousness. Now with thousands of examples, not a single case has given positive results.

"...but invoking mystical concepts of life after death are the least substantiated of the available options." why equate life after death with "mystical"? or assume that anyone with a concept of life after death is holding a mystical concept?

It's simply an observation that people do that. Why they do it is another subject.

If consciousness is a field, we could allow for the possibility of that field remaining organized after the death of the brain - in fact, we would need to look at the relationship of the brain to the field, and not assume the brain generates the field. I believe this possibility has been explored, here and there, in speculative fiction. I am also struck by how many Christians are physicalists, they believe in the literal resurrection of the body and in a God who is composed of prima materia -

Why shouldn't we assume that the brain generates the field when it seems obvious that it does? That's not to deny that there are other associated natural EM fields, including those from Earth and other people around us, but those are tangential to the point. A functioning brain has EM fields that are partially measurable, and the best scientific evidence links them directly to electrical activity in the brain. A non-functioning brain has no such fields, and those people appear to be devoid of any experiences. When revived and their brain is working, they suddenly have EM fields and experiences. Just sheer coincidence?

 

[smcder]

That's exactly the point. It can't be anyone else and even it it was, as in some sort of reincarnation claim, then the person claiming reincarnation also has a functioning brain. So every case ( literally billions ) comes from people with functioning brains, and zero cases come from people without one. The irresistible inference is that a functioning brain is required. Otherwise we should have all sorts of examples of people without brains going about their daily business and having perfectly normal experiences. We don't.

Not quite. Hypothetically if a brain isn't required, then again, why don't people without a functioning brain relay their experiences in real-time rather than after-the-fact when their brain is working? The inference is that experiences require a functioning brain and that the memory of experiences that allegedly happened when their brain was non-functioning were constructed after the fact when the brain is working again.

The AWARE study I mentioned would be one way. Other similar studies have also been done. These involve the placement of specific messages up and out of view of the patient in ORs who would be able to see them and report back after regaining consciousness. Now with thousands of examples, not a single case has given positive results.

It's simply an observation that people do that. Why they do it is another subject.

Why shouldn't we assume that the brain generates the field when it seems obvious that it does? That's not to deny that there are other associated natural EM fields, including those from Earth and other people around us, but those are tangential to the point. A functioning brain has EM fields that are partially measurable, and the best scientific evidence links them directly to electrical activity in the brain. A non-functioning brain has no such fields, and those people appear to be devoid of any experiences. When revived their brain is working and suddenly they have EM fields and experiences. Just sheer coincidence?

The inference is that to convey an experience, a functioning brain is required, not to have an experience. The claim is that my brain was not functioning at the time I had an experience, the brain and body was not functioning at the time I had an experience, so I was unable to convey the experience in real time - but I had the experience at that time. Perhaps there will be a way to measure changes in the brain to determine when the experiences happened, but again if the brain truly is not functioning and if consciousness is not strictly the results of the functioning of the brain, one could argue that the experiences that happened at the time were then later recorded in the brain. It would seem to be difficult then to sort out when the experience actually occurred.

The AWARE study, if it did produce positive results, would be subject to claims of anything from super-psi, to fraud ... and is based on a literal take that the mind is "outside" the body but in the same physical space.

So I am still looking for a set of facts that you would consider as compelling evidence. My overall point is that commitment to a physicalist paradigm doesn't allow for any such set of facts.

"Why shouldn't we assume that the brain generates the field when it seems obvious that it does? That's not to deny that there are other associated natural EM fields, including those from Earth and other people around us, but those are tangential to the point. A functioning brain has EM fields that are partially measurable, and the best scientific evidence links them directly to electrical activity in the brain. A non-functioning brain has no such fields, and those people appear to be devoid of any experiences. When revived their brain is working and suddenly they have EM fields and experiences. Just sheer coincidence?"

For the same reason we don't assume anything else. We can operate in normal science and make progress until a paradigm change occurs, if it does, but we don't have to assume anything - we can quite logically proceed in what seems to be the best direction at the time while keeping open to other possibilities and we can encourage others to look where we are not looking.

Suppose there is a psycho-physical nexus as Chalmers' suggests and consciousness is something fundamental - some parts of what we call brains organize in response to this fundamental something and the result is consciousness - much as bones and muscle could be thought of as evolving in respect to the force of gravity to "produce" movement and support.

 

[Randall]

The inference is that to convey an experience, a functioning brain is required, not to have an experience. The claim is that my brain was not functioning at the time I had an experience, the brain and body was not functioning at the time I had an experience, so I was unable to convey the experience in real time - but I had the experience at that time. Perhaps there will be a way to measure changes in the brain to determine when the experiences happened, but again if the brain truly is not functioning and if consciousness is not strictly the results of the functioning of the brain, one could argue that the experiences that happened at the time were then later recorded in the brain. It would seem to be difficult then to sort out when the experience actually occurred.

That's fair comment, and I had considered that, but it still boils down to the same set of circumstances. If we cannot convey an experience as it's happening, and there's no other indication, e.g. a real-time brain scan, that an experience is happening, then that's evidence that there is a non-functioning brain in conjunction with no evidence of experience. However in every instance where it can be conveyed that an experience is happening, there is also evidence of a functioning brain, so there's no better explanation ( so far anyway ) than that a functioning brain is responsible for experiences.

The AWARE study, if it did produce positive results, would be subject to claims of anything from super-psi, to fraud ... and is based on a literal take that the mind is "outside" the body but in the same physical space. So I am still looking for a set of facts that you would consider as compelling evidence. My overall point is that commitment to a physicalist paradigm doesn't allow for any such set of facts.

I strongly suspect that you're right about what would happen if the AWARE study had positive results. But I also think that the approach of the AWARE study is the best we've got. I'm not sure which physicalist model you are referring to, but as mentioned earlier, all explanations have limitations because existence itself remains a mystery, and that's what we end up finding ourselves up against when we get into fundamental phenomena. In other words, just because we know how to make an electric motor doesn't explain EM phenomena. It just means we know how to utilize what knowledge we have about it in a practical manner. I would submit that if we could get to that level of understanding with consciousness, then that would be sufficient for the foreseeable future.

"Why shouldn't we assume that the brain generates the field when it seems obvious that it does? That's not to deny that there are other associated natural EM fields, including those from Earth and other people around us, but those are tangential to the point. A functioning brain has EM fields that are partially measurable, and the best scientific evidence links them directly to electrical activity in the brain. A non-functioning brain has no such fields, and those people appear to be devoid of any experiences. When revived their brain is working and suddenly they have EM fields and experiences. Just sheer coincidence?"

For the same reason we don't assume anything else. We can operate in normal science and make progress until a paradigm change occurs, if it does, but we don't have to assume anything - we can quite logically proceed in what seems to be the best direction at the time while keeping open to other possibilities and we can encourage others to look where we are not looking.

That's certainly fair enough on the surface, but before we set a direction to explore, don't you think it's wise to determine which direction is most promising? Or would you say that simply spinning the compass wheel and heading the ship wherever it points is a wiser choice? Personally I think that evidence and reasoning gives weight to the assumptions we make. I'm not one who believes that all opinions carry equal weight simply by virtue of them being opinions. Some really are better than others, even if they don't provide all the answers.

Suppose there is a psycho-physical nexus as Chalmers' suggests and consciousness is something fundamental - some parts of what we call brains organize in response to this fundamental something and the result is consciousness - much as bones and muscle could be thought of as evolving in respect to the force of gravity to "produce" movement and support.

I think Chalmers is onto something and that there's no conflict with his view of fundamentalness and the idea that consciousness is an EM manifestation on the physical level with the property of consciousness on the subjective level. That's about as "psycho-physical" as it can get. In the past I've given the analogy to various audio transducers. If an EM field has all the properties needed to reproduce the sound of the Berlin Symphony on our home audio circuitry, why shouldn't it have the ability to produce it via our neurocircuitry? The commonalities are IMO too much to ignore and there is at least some lab experiments with EM fields that lend credence to the idea ( Persinger ).

So ultimately I think the evidence suggests that consciousness is a product of our individual existence. Whether by evolution or design makes no difference. We are each consciousness generators, and that makes each of our experiences unique unto us, and when the generator breaks down, out go the lights. It seems grossly unfair that such should be the case with something so amazing. That's probably why people invent all sorts of beliefs that it isn't the case. We want a fair and just creator who will make things right in the end.

 

[Constance]

I don't remember whether I've linked this paper here before so I'll post the link again:

Cybernetics and Human Knowing. Vol. 16, nos. 1-2, pp. xx-xx

Biosemiotics: To Know, What Life Knows
Kalevi Kull1

Abstract: The field of semiotics is described as a general study of knowing. Knowing in a broad sense as a process that assumes (and includes) at least memory (together with heredity), anticipation, communication, meaningful information, and needs, is a distinctive feature of living systems. Sciences are distinguished accordingly into phi-sciences (that use physicalist methodology) and sigma-sciences (that use semiotic methodology). Jesper Hoffmeyer’s book Biosemiotics is viewed as an inquiry into the sigma-scientific approach to living systems.
Keywords: Biosemiotics, knowing, adaptation, Φ-sciences, Σ-sciences, Hoffmeyer

(PDF) Biosemiotics: To Know, What Life Knows. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233671346/download [accessed Sep 07 2018].

 

[Randall]

I don't remember whether I've linked this paper here before so I'll post the link again:

Cybernetics and Human Knowing. Vol. 16, nos. 1-2, pp. xx-xx

Biosemiotics: To Know, What Life Knows
Kalevi Kull1

Abstract: The field of semiotics is described as a general study of knowing. Knowing in a broad sense as a process that assumes (and includes) at least memory (together with heredity), anticipation, communication, meaningful information, and needs, is a distinctive feature of living systems. Sciences are distinguished accordingly into phi-sciences (that use physicalist methodology) and sigma-sciences (that use semiotic methodology). Jesper Hoffmeyer’s book Biosemiotics is viewed as an inquiry into the sigma-scientific approach to living systems.
Keywords: Biosemiotics, knowing, adaptation, Φ-sciences, Σ-sciences, Hoffmeyer

(PDF) Biosemiotics: To Know, What Life Knows. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233671346/download [accessed Sep 07 2018].

Interesting ideas. Perhaps there should be yet another kind of science, the Ψ sciences? One thing I can't help but notice about the article is the lack of distinction between detection and knowledge. It's as if the reader is left to make that leap for themselves, which I personally feel is a much wider gap than is safe. For example a Geiger counter indicates either the presence or absence of radiation via the process of detection and display. But it doesn't "know" anything. Therefore semiotic modeling doesn't equate to a model having knowledge. It's just an example of pattern recognition. Semiotics tries to differentiate itself from linguistics, but linguistics includes text, which is a set of symbols or "signs" that are in principle no different. Knowledge I would submit is on another level. It's not simply information, but an awareness of information. This level is where I'd put the Ψ.

 

[Constance]

Knowledge I would submit is on another level. It's not simply information, but an awareness of information. This level is where I'd put the Ψ.

Good sentence. Awareness of the qualia of experience is the mark of the living, of life. How deep does the awareness of qualitative experience -- and the knowledge it conveys -- go in the evolution of life? How can we find out? See Maturana and Varela, Autopoiesis.

 

[Constance]

The following two videos are relevant and ramifying for our discussions of awareness and consciousness.

video, the sound of space - Bing video

Reminds me of these lines from Stevens's poem "Walking Across the Fields and Watching the Birds Fly" ~~
"...The eye so played upon by clouds,
The ear so magnified by thunder...."

 

[Randall]

Good sentence. Awareness of the qualia of experience is the mark of the living, of life. How deep does the awareness of qualitative experience -- and the knowledge it conveys -- go in the evolution of life? How can we find out? See Maturana and Varela, Autopoiesis.

To add, I would suggest that knowledge also goes beyond mere awareness of information to include comprehension. The idea of comprehension is in this regard a little more complex than we might first imagine, because I don't see how comprehension is possible without awareness. A person can be aware of information e.g. mathematics, but not comprehend or perform mathematical calculations. Therefore we can't really say that such a person has knowledge of mathematics even if they're aware of it. On the other hand, a calculator may get the math right every time, but I don't think it comprehends anything. Knowledge is therefore something you might class as reflective. Can it even be prereflective? What about reflexes? Does your knee "know" it's supposed to flex when hit with a mallet?

 

[smcder]

That's fair comment, and I had considered that, but it still boils down to the same set of circumstances. If we cannot convey an experience as it's happening, and there's no other indication, e.g. a real-time brain scan, that an experience is happening, then that's evidence that there is a non-functioning brain in conjunction with no evidence of experience. However in every instance where it can be conveyed that an experience is happening, there is also evidence of a functioning brain, so there's no better explanation ( so far anyway ) than that a functioning brain is responsible for experiences.

I strongly suspect that you're right about what would happen if the AWARE study had positive results. But I also think that the approach of the AWARE study is the best we've got. I'm not sure which physicalist model you are referring to, but as mentioned earlier, all explanations have limitations because existence itself remains a mystery, and that's what we end up finding ourselves up against when we get into fundamental phenomena. In other words, just because we know how to make an electric motor doesn't explain EM phenomena. It just means we know how to utilize what knowledge we have about it in a practical manner. I would submit that if we could get to that level of understanding with consciousness, then that would be sufficient for the foreseeable future.

That's certainly fair enough on the surface, but before we set a direction to explore, don't you think it's wise to determine which direction is most promising? Or would you say that simply spinning the compass wheel and heading the ship wherever it points is a wiser choice? Personally I think that evidence and reasoning gives weight to the assumptions we make. I'm not one who believes that all opinions carry equal weight simply by virtue of them being opinions. Some really are better than others, even if they don't provide all the answers.

I think Chalmers is onto something and that there's no conflict with his view of fundamentalness and the idea that consciousness is an EM manifestation on the physical level with the property of consciousness on the subjective level. That's about as "psycho-physical" as it can get. In the past I've given the analogy to various audio transducers. If an EM field has all the properties needed to reproduce the sound of the Berlin Symphony on our home audio circuitry, why shouldn't it have the ability to produce it via our neurocircuitry? The commonalities are IMO too much to ignore and there is at least some lab experiments with EM fields that lend credence to the idea ( Persinger ).

So ultimately I think the evidence suggests that consciousness is a product of our individual existence. Whether by evolution or design makes no difference. We are each consciousness generators, and that makes each of our experiences unique unto us, and when the generator breaks down, out go the lights. It seems grossly unfair that such should be the case with something so amazing. That's probably why people invent all sorts of beliefs that it isn't the case. We want a fair and just creator who will make things right in the end.

That's fair comment, and I had considered that, but it still boils down to the same set of circumstances. If we cannot convey an experience as it's happening, and there's no other indication, e.g. a real-time brain scan, that an experience is happening, then that's evidence that there is a non-functioning brain in conjunction with no evidence of experience. However in every instance where it can be conveyed that an experience is happening, there is also evidence of a functioning brain, so there's no better explanation ( so far anyway ) than that a functioning brain is responsible for experiences.

If we cannot convey an experience as it's happening, and there's no other indication, e.g. a real-time brain scan, that an experience is happening, then that's evidence that there is a non-functioning brain in conjunction with no evidence of experience.

No, it's two sets of circumstances with one set of evidence. That's my point and the reason I asked you for a set of facts that would be evidentiary for you.

Circumstance 1. there is experience at time t, but it cannot be physically conveyed (as the brain is not functioning) and there is no physical evidence of the experience happening at time t, because the memories, changes in brain state, would happen later - note: this is the case if consciousness is not physical or is not physically detectable ... (3rd circumstance)

2. there is no experience at time t

But 1. is indistinguishable from 2. because they share a common set of acceptable evidence. The person may insist that the experience occurred at time t, but there is no "evidence". However, we also cannot prove the experience didn't happen at time t, because of the possible explanation that the physical changes (i.e. the evidence) occurred after the experience or the possibility that the brain was functioning in a physically undetectable way.

 

[smcder]

That's fair comment, and I had considered that, but it still boils down to the same set of circumstances. If we cannot convey an experience as it's happening, and there's no other indication, e.g. a real-time brain scan, that an experience is happening, then that's evidence that there is a non-functioning brain in conjunction with no evidence of experience. However in every instance where it can be conveyed that an experience is happening, there is also evidence of a functioning brain, so there's no better explanation ( so far anyway ) than that a functioning brain is responsible for experiences.

I strongly suspect that you're right about what would happen if the AWARE study had positive results. But I also think that the approach of the AWARE study is the best we've got. I'm not sure which physicalist model you are referring to, but as mentioned earlier, all explanations have limitations because existence itself remains a mystery, and that's what we end up finding ourselves up against when we get into fundamental phenomena. In other words, just because we know how to make an electric motor doesn't explain EM phenomena. It just means we know how to utilize what knowledge we have about it in a practical manner. I would submit that if we could get to that level of understanding with consciousness, then that would be sufficient for the foreseeable future.

That's certainly fair enough on the surface, but before we set a direction to explore, don't you think it's wise to determine which direction is most promising? Or would you say that simply spinning the compass wheel and heading the ship wherever it points is a wiser choice? Personally I think that evidence and reasoning gives weight to the assumptions we make. I'm not one who believes that all opinions carry equal weight simply by virtue of them being opinions. Some really are better than others, even if they don't provide all the answers.

I think Chalmers is onto something and that there's no conflict with his view of fundamentalness and the idea that consciousness is an EM manifestation on the physical level with the property of consciousness on the subjective level. That's about as "psycho-physical" as it can get. In the past I've given the analogy to various audio transducers. If an EM field has all the properties needed to reproduce the sound of the Berlin Symphony on our home audio circuitry, why shouldn't it have the ability to produce it via our neurocircuitry? The commonalities are IMO too much to ignore and there is at least some lab experiments with EM fields that lend credence to the idea ( Persinger ).

So ultimately I think the evidence suggests that consciousness is a product of our individual existence. Whether by evolution or design makes no difference. We are each consciousness generators, and that makes each of our experiences unique unto us, and when the generator breaks down, out go the lights. It seems grossly unfair that such should be the case with something so amazing. That's probably why people invent all sorts of beliefs that it isn't the case. We want a fair and just creator who will make things right in the end.

That's certainly fair enough on the surface, but before we set a direction to explore, don't you think it's wise to determine which direction is most promising? Or would you say that simply spinning the compass wheel and heading the ship wherever it points is a wiser choice? Personally I think that evidence and reasoning gives weight to the assumptions we make. I'm not one who believes that all opinions carry equal weight simply by virtue of them being opinions. Some really are better than others, even if they don't provide all the answers.

(rolling eyes) ... it was said that the practice of auguries was useful just for this wheel-spinning effect ... let's say you set out to hunt deer, you have lots of empirical knowledge of where to look, but honestly, on this day, you are stumped ... so you go to the wise man and he rolls some bones and says "go west" - to the degree that this is random, it will do better than those strategies that are worse than chance ... to the degree it isn't, you get a new medicine man, or new bones (or both ...) most likely, somewhere along the way, you pick the trail up or are reminded of something, etc etc ...

in science, they are known as eccentrics (or worse) but they do occasionally upset the whole balance of things. Or, as many wise men have put it:

ASSUME = ASS U ME

 

[Constance]

The following two videos are relevant and ramifying for our discussions of awareness and consciousness.

video, the sound of space - Bing video

Reminds me of these lines from Stevens's poem "Walking Across the Fields and Watching the Birds Fly" ~~
"...The eye so played upon by clouds,
The ear so magnified by thunder...."

Who knows how much of these sounds we and other species of life on earth hear subliminally? And that then rise out of the subconscious, prereflective, consciousnesses of living species on earth in expressions of their own senses of being? I hear, for example, many bird songs and calls in these sounds. To understand what consciousness is, I think we must first recognize and then further explore the ways in which consciousness as we tend to think of it -- as waking consciousness -- depends on the grounding of what we have experienced and can express in our activities and reflections on our situated worldly locale as emerging out of the prereflective, pre-thetic sensing and knowing of the nature of what-is that enables reflective consciousness.

 

[Randall]

cliché

That's certainly fair enough on the surface, but before we set a direction to explore, don't you think it's wise to determine which direction is most promising? Or would you say that simply spinning the compass wheel and heading the ship wherever it points is a wiser choice? Personally I think that evidence and reasoning gives weight to the assumptions we make. I'm not one who believes that all opinions carry equal weight simply by virtue of them being opinions. Some really are better than others, even if they don't provide all the answers.

(rolling eyes) ... it was said that the practice of auguries was useful just for this wheel-spinning effect ... let's say you set out to hunt deer, you have lots of empirical knowledge of where to look, but honestly, on this day, you are stumped ... so you go to the wise man and he rolls some bones and says "go west" - to the degree that this is random, it will do better than those strategies that are worse than chance ... to the degree it isn't, you get a new medicine man, or new bones (or both ...) most likely, somewhere along the way, you pick the trail up or are reminded of something, etc etc ...

in science, they are known as eccentrics (or worse) but they do occasionally upset the whole balance of things. Or, as many wise men have put it:

ASSUME = ASS U ME

In this case, clichés like the one above do little other than serve as a hand wave, and the wise man analogy is a straw man argument. Rolling chicken bones is nothing at all like looking at evidence and formulating a corresponding theory. The alternative is to sit around and do nothing but wait for the answers to come to us so that we don't make asses out of ourselves by making reasonably good assumptions. That might be fine for some people, but personally, I think it's those who aren't afraid of a little embarrassment and forge ahead to see if their ideas hold up who contribute most to the advancement of knowledge.

 

[smcder]

cliché


In this case, clichés like the one above do little other than serve as a hand wave, and the wise man analogy is a straw man argument. Rolling chicken bones is nothing at all like looking at evidence and formulating a corresponding theory. The alternative is to sit around and do nothing but wait for the answers to come to us so that we don't make asses out of ourselves by making reasonably good assumptions. That might be fine for some people, but personally, I think it's those who aren't afraid of a little embarrassment and forge ahead to see if their ideas hold up who contribute most to the advancement of knowledge.

sigh ... ok, for the literal minded ...

That's certainly fair enough on the surface, but before we set a direction to explore, don't you think it's wise to determine which direction is most promising?

YES

Or would you say that simply spinning the compass wheel and heading the ship wherever it points is a wiser choice?

NO

Personally I think that evidence and reasoning gives weight to the assumptions we make. I'm not one who believes that all opinions carry equal weight simply by virtue of them being opinions. Some really are better than others, even if they don't provide all the answers.

YES, I AGREE

 

[Randall]

sigh ... ok, for the literal minded ...

Curious. I'm usually pretty good at picking up on context and reading between the lines, so what is it you're getting at there that is causing the big sigh?

 

[Constance]

One thing I can't help but notice about the article is the lack of distinction between detection and knowledge.

cliché
In this case, clichés like the one above do little other than serve as a hand wave, and the wise man analogy is a straw man argument. Rolling chicken bones is nothing at all like looking at evidence and formulating a corresponding theory. The alternative is to sit around and do nothing but wait for the answers to come to us so that we don't make asses out of ourselves by making reasonably good assumptions. That might be fine for some people, but personally, I think it's those who aren't afraid of a little embarrassment and forge ahead to see if their ideas hold up who contribute most to the advancement of knowledge.

Randel, I think you remain bound to presuppositions that prevent your entering into an experiential exploration of consciousness as influenced by subconscious mentation. Many contemporary and recent neuroscientists and other scientists focused on consciousness studies have recognized the necessity of our exploring that which grounds consciousness in prereflective experience carried in the human subconscious, not only the personal subconscious but the 'collective unconscious' as Jung referred to it.

 

[Randall]

Randel, I think you remain bound to presuppositions that prevent your entering into an experiential exploration of consciousness as influenced by subconscious mentation. Many contemporary and recent neuroscientists and other scientists focused on consciousness studies have recognized the necessity of our exploring that which grounds consciousness in prereflective experience carried in the human subconscious, not only the personal subconscious but the 'collective unconscious' as Jung referred to it.

It seems like there are some contradictions there. How is one supposed to experience something that is by definition not consciously perceived? On the other hand if it is consciously perceived, how can it be considered to be part of the unconscious? Freud used the term subconscious, which I think is much better. One might also point out that if the process you're talking about is a normal part of human existence, then by simple virtue of our existence, we all ( including me ) must experience exactly what you describe as a normal part of daily life.

 

[smcder]

Curious. I'm usually pretty good at picking up on context and reading between the lines, so what is it you're getting at there that is causing the big sigh?

Is that self-assessment, or something other people tell you?

 

[Constance]

Who knows how much of these sounds we and other species of life on earth hear subliminally? And that then rise out of the subconscious, prereflective, consciousnesses of living species on earth in expressions of their own senses of being? I hear, for example, many bird songs and calls in these sounds. To understand what consciousness is, I think we must first recognize and then further explore the ways in which consciousness as we tend to think of it -- as waking consciousness -- depends on the grounding of what we have experienced and can express in our activities and reflections on our situated worldly locale as emerging out of the prereflective, pre-thetic sensing and knowing of the nature of what-is that enables reflective consciousness.

This extract from another poem by Wallace Stevens communicates a similar idea of our primordial connections to and repetitions of the original sensed conditions that awaken us to our being as embedded in the natural world from which we emerge:

"...Was the sun concoct for angels or for men?
Sad men made angels of the sun, and of
The moon they made their own attendant ghosts,
Which led them back to angels, after death.

Let this be clear that we are men of sun
And men of day and never of pointed night,
Men that repeat antiquest sounds of air
In an accord of repetitions. Yet,
If we repeat, it is because the wind
Encircling us, speaks always with our speech.
Light, too, encrusts us making visible
The motions of the mind and giving form
To moodiest nothings, as, desire for day
Accomplished in the immensely flashing East,
Desire for rest, in that descending sea
Of dark, which in its very darkening
Is rest and silence spreading into sleep...."

LINK to the whole poem, "Evening without Angels," second Stevens poem at

http://web.archive.org/.../http://poems.com/poem.php...