Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 12

[Constance]

Interesting, but at the same time, the basic assumption seems to be a non-dualistic perspective on the part of MP. However, that isn't quite the way MP appears to approach the problem of duality. Rather it seems to me that he recognizes that material and mental phenomena both exist, and then attempts to understand how that situation arises. To do that one of the things he focused on was the "Chiasm" of the subjective & objective. This is IMO the nexus of the entire problem of how to classify consciousness. I think you'll really like this paper if you haven't yet read it:

The Logic of the Chiasm in Merleau-Ponty's Early Philosophy

Thanks for the link. I will read the paper, which looks, from your first two sentences above, to be confusing. Perhaps the author isn't read up in phenomenology in general or MP in particular. Will get back to you about this after I read the paper. MP does affirm the value of Descartes' Meditations as first opening up the question of consciousness in Western philosophy, btw.

 

[Constance]

@Randle, I've begun reading the paper (beginning with the notes, which is my wont) and it's clear to me already that this author knows phenomenological philosophy in general and MP in particular very well indeed. She also cites three articles by Renaud Barbaras, a major scholar of MP's ontological thought, but does not cite his daunting book The Being of the Phenomenon (which is highly relevant to her paper, and which I've yet read only in parts). You can read a sample of this book at the Google Books page linked below, but for a clear orientation to MP's ontology of the flesh and the Chiasm begin with the eloquently written Translators' Introduction, Barbaras's Preface to the English Translation, and Barbaras's Introduction to the French Edition. Having just read these three sections again I think I'm perhaps better oriented now to tackle The Being of the Phenomenon at one fell swoop.

The Being of the Phenomenon

ps, I think that @Michael Allen might find The Being of the Phenomenon to be interesting and clarifying re phenomenology, so I'm flagging him here.

Also, the author of the paper you've linked seems to spend as much time discussing Gestalt theory as she does MP, which might be because the paper is part of her dissertation or a larger study. I'll read her paper first and then look for my copy of the elusive Barbaras book. I'm very glad you linked her paper and opened this subject up for me again.

 

[Randall]

@Randle, I've begun reading the paper (beginning with the notes, which is my wont) and it's clear to me already that this author knows phenomenological philosophy in general and MP in particular very well indeed. She also cites two books and an article by Renaud Barbaras, a penetrating scholar of MP's thought, but does not cite his daunting work The Being of the Phenomenon (which I've yet read only in parts). You can read a sample of this book at the Google Books page linked below, but for a clearly and eloquently expressed introduction to MP's ontology of the flesh and the Chiasm begin with the eloquently written Translators' Introduction, Barbaras's Preface to the English Translation, and Barbaras's Introduction to the French Edition. Having just read these three sections again I think I'm perhaps better oriented now to tackle The Being of the Phenomenon at one fell swoop.

The Being of the Phenomenon

ps, I think that @Michael Allen might find The Being of the Phenomenon to be interesting and clarifying re phenomenology, so I'm flagging him here.

Also, the author of the paper you've linked seems to spend as much time discussing Gestalt theory as she does MP, which might be because the paper is part of her dissertation or a larger study. I'll read her paper first and then look for my copy of the elusive Barbaras book. I'm very glad you linked her paper and opened this subject up for me again.

Thanks for your comments Constance. It's nice to see new resources ( at least for me ) like Ergo pop up. There's probably other interesting stuff there, but I haven't had a chance to delve into it yet.

 

[Farlig Gulstein]

Although a neuroscientist would likely disagree, metaphysics must be discussed when exploring the nature of consciousness.

The following is an excellent talk given by theoretical physicist David Tong via the Royal Institute series. He prefaced the talk by asking “what are we made of?”

Seems to me that Tong and his colleagues have subtly changed the playing ground as to what physicists consider the “fundamental” essence of reality. According to Tong’s talk, contrary to deeply ingrained popular belief even among scientists, particles of the Standard Model are not the fundamental essence of reality, but instead, infinitely vast, three dimensional “fields” out from which the particles arise.

In other words, many three dimensional, interpenetrating fields are actually what support all the tiny, localized vibrations that we know as the various “particles” that make up the universe. Thus, all the expansive three-dimensional fields for particles must exist prior to the existence of any particle. That means that all the physical structures of the universe, from quarks to galactic superclusters, are all suspended in and produced out of these ubiquitous “fields” from which Standard Model particles arise.

Tong goes on to assert, without evidence, that these fields are “fundamental” as if he knows all about these fields. Personally, I doubt that he or his colleagues know much about the fields, nor if they are actually the fundamental essence of reality. It seems quite possible that these fields themselves are composed of their own essential particles so tremendously far below (i.e. smaller than) those of our Standard Model. If so, then I don’t really see any way for humans to use any of our Standard Model-sized measuring apparatus to ever discover much about the nature of these fields.

On the other hand, as Soupie seems to suggest, if these so-called “fields” are the actual basis from which arises all that we see around us as Standard Model physics, then there very well may be extremely fine structures (at unmeasurably small scales) within these fields that make crucial contributions to the differentiation of particles of the Standard Model. Even more, such unmeasurable fine structures may also very well be crucial to the nature of consciousness. In other words, perhaps very deeply below the Standard Model particles that make up our bodies and brains, our sensations of consciousness may actually reside in infinitesimally small fine structures at the level of the essence of these fields.

Various guests on the Paracast present challenging evidence of what we might call “sapiens class intelligent entities” but that are not human beings, and these entities are often reported as virtually undetectable until they choose to make themselves known to us. Some of the paranormal evidence presented also challenges conventional understandings of physics, such as the recent Nimitz anomalous objects.

So, perhaps non-human sapiens class intelligent entities made up of fine structures at the essential levels of the fields actually do exist alongside of us humans. Since we are so overwhelmed by the Standard Model size of things, we cannot easily detect them. It would not be inconceivable that such non-humans could manipulate the fields that support Standard Model physics in ways that seem impossible to us. Perhaps at the "field" level they are not bound to the same “physics” that we are. So, they could operate from below our Standard Model and manipulate our reality as they please. Perhaps.

Such non-human beings would thus not actually be "interdimensional" but they would conceivably be able to manifest however they like at the Standard Model level of physics, and also demanifest at will. Maybe.

 

[Randall]

Seems to me that Tong and his colleagues have subtly changed the playing ground as to what physicists consider the “fundamental” essence of reality. According to Tong’s talk, contrary to deeply ingrained popular belief even among scientists, particles of the Standard Model are not the fundamental essence of reality, but instead, infinitely vast, three dimensional “fields” out from which the particles arise ...

Excellent post. You're clearly a deep thinker.

It seems to me that fields, particles, strings and vertices, whatever the case may be, are all abstract representations, or models, that we use to plot relationships between the phenomena that makes up our physical world. However the fundamental nature of all such phenomena is still a mystery. Many tend to disagree, stating examples such as light being photons or electricity being electrons, but those labels don't actually explain anything.

Such labels only utilize a particle model as a way of thinking about the phenomena of light and electricity. But a particle model ( or any model ) does nothing to tell us what actually imparts the properties onto the units used within the model. At some point we simply accept that the properties are present, and use them as the starting point.

As we attempt to peer ever closer at the structure of the physical world, what we once theorized as particles, like little round bits of stuff, seem more and more like regions of space with particular properties relative to other regions of space. Hence the idea that particles are more like small fields rather than mini billiard balls of a particular color and number.

Yes we might suppose that such fields are in-turn composed of even smaller billiard ball like particles. But we can do that in an infinite regression, and be no further ahead. We might invoke some arbitrarily small unit of measurement like the Planck length to put an end to the regressive iteration, but that still doesn't provide a solution. It only provides a demarcation point between the larger and smaller.

So the fundamental nature of existence is a more complex problem than we seem to be equipped to deal with. That however doesn't mean that all competing theories or ideas carry equal weight with respect to what our realm of existence is made of, or how it may or may not interact with other realms of existence ( assuming there are any ). By sheer virtue of what we do know, certain rules must logically follow.

 

[Farlig Gulstein]

Yes we might suppose that such fields are in-turn composed of even smaller billiard ball like particles. But we can do that in an infinite regression, and be no further ahead. We might invoke some arbitrarily small unit of measurement like the Planck length to put an end to the regressive iteration, but that still doesn't provide a solution. It only provides a demarcation point between the larger and smaller.

So the fundamental nature of existence is a more complex problem than we seem to be equipped to deal with. That however doesn't mean that all competing theories or ideas carry equal weight with respect to what our realm of existence is made of, or how it may or may not interact with other realms of existence ( assuming there are any ). By sheer virtue of what we do know, certain rules must logically follow.

Well, the idea I expanded on comes from the physicist's talk mentioned in Soupie’s post, which I take to imply that current neuroscientific thought about consciousness is very probably hamstrung by a by-now archaic idea of Standard Model “particles” being the fundamental reality, from out of which emerges consciousness. But if fields do precede particles, then fields are more deeply fundamental to reality than the so-called “particles” that make up atoms, molecules and biological materials. From there, I propose what seems to me to be a possible view of that more fundamental reality, including how consciousness may be affected, as well as taking account of many reports of paranormal encounters with intelligent beings.

I do not subscribe to a so-called “infinite regression” but I do subscribe to a very real infinite and infinitesimal aspect of reality, that, in general, physics and other sciences find impossible to deal with, or simply refuse to deal with. In my experience and understanding of things, the long-contemplated monotheistic Deity is indeed the ultimate fundamental reality that controls what we conceive of as both infinitesimal and infinite. So, the reality we humans find ourselves in is, in my view, a construct upheld by this Deity’s will, and influenced by this Deity’s will.

 

[Soupie]

@smcder et al

This is not the flavor of panpsychism that I subscribe to, but it is something interesting. Some would say absurd, of course. I’ve heard this argument before but this is the best articulation of it I’ve seen. See attached images.

If nothing else, it certainly makes cases of apparent reincarnation more interesting.

 

[Randall]

This is not the flavor of panpsychism that I subscribe to, but it is something interesting. Some would say absurd, of course. I’ve heard this argument before but this is the best articulation of it I’ve seen. See attached images. If nothing else, it certainly makes cases of apparent reincarnation more interesting.

Whenever I see someone claim they're going to "solve the hard problem of consciousness", the first thing I think is that by thinking it's solvable, they've missed the whole point. Reading on, we see that the author actually does seem to get it, but attempts to circumvent it with panpsychism. We've already been through that theory with a fine tooth comb, so rather than go through it all again, I'll just point out the most obvious problem in the segment of the paper you posted.

Setting aside the notion that particle theory is on its way out, and therefore the idea of "conscious particles" has to go out the door with it, we can simply return to the same analogy you and other readers here have long tired of hearing, and that is the idea that simply because consciousness is associated with some things doesn't mean everything is conscious.

For some phenomena ( including consciousness ) to manifest, all evidence so far, suggests that the right combination of materials and energy have to come together in exactly the right way, or it simply doesn't happen. Other phenomena require their own sets of conditions, but you and other readers here don't want to hear analogies to other phenomena ( like electromagnets ) again.

Chalmers himself also has more than a few comments on panpsychism, which I'm sure you're probably already familiar with, the main idea being that perhaps smaller units of whatever consciousness might be, might be better described as proto-consciousness. BTW he's also working on a new book and has been invited to appear on the show. He responded, but no date has been set yet. I'm sure you guys would love to hear him as a guest.

On the issue of how panpsychism can make the idea of reincarnation more interesting, I'm sure we could get into some rather interesting discussion. Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Soupie]

Whenever I see someone claim they're going to "solve the hard problem of consciousness", the first thing I think is that by thinking it's solvable, they've missed the whole point. Reading on, we see that the author actually does seem to get it, but attempts to circumvent it with panpsychism. We've already been through that theory with a fine tooth comb, so rather than go through it all again, I'll just point out the most obvious problem in the segment of the paper you posted.

Setting aside the notion that particle theory is on its way out, and therefore the idea of "conscious particles" has to go out the door with it, we can simply return to the same analogy you and other readers here have long tired of hearing, and that is the idea that simply because consciousness is associated with some things doesn't mean everything is conscious.

Agreed re particle theory on way out.

I don’t fault people for trying to “solve” the hard problem. These individuals attempt to describe how consciousness could derive from purely physical, non-conscious processes. However I agree that the hard problem as articulated is to imply that such a solution is not possible.

I personally think it’s time to move on from such attempts.

For some phenomena ( including consciousness ) to manifest, all evidence so far, suggests that the right combination of materials and energy have to come together in exactly the right way, or it simply doesn't happen. Other phenomena require their own sets of conditions, but you and other readers here don't want to hear analogies to other phenomena ( like electromagnets ) again.

You’re correct that I don’t want to discuss this again haha. As we’ve discussed, the analogy between brain-mind and magnets-electromagnetism is not helpful, not least because the electromagnetic force is fundamental. There are no known physical processes that it derives from.

So not a good example to argue that consciousness is not equally fundamental.

Chalmers himself also has more than a few comments on panpsychism, which I'm sure you're probably already familiar with, the main idea being that perhaps smaller units of whatever consciousness might be, might be better described as proto-consciousness. BTW he's also working on a new book and has been invited to appear on the show. He responded, but no date has been set yet. I'm sure you guys would love to hear him as a guest.

On the issue of how panpsychism can make the idea of reincarnation more interesting, I'm sure we could get into some rather interesting discussion. Would you care to elaborate?

Re reincarnation:

If conscious experience were grounded in a single particle within in each individual, then one could speculate that one of these single particles making its way from developing individual to developing individual could account for the recall of past memories. (Yes, such an idea is rife with all kids of problems.)

 

[Randall]

... You’re correct that I don’t want to discuss this again haha. As we’ve discussed, the analogy between brain-mind and magnets-electromagnetism is not helpful, not least because the electromagnetic force is fundamental. There are no known physical processes that it derives from. So not a good example to argue that consciousness is not equally fundamental ...

I think I just noticed where our misccomunication on the magnetism analogy is! It's where you say, "So not a good example to argue that consciousness is not equally fundamental"; that isn't what I'm doing. Exactly the opposite:

The electromagnetic force is considered a fundamental force of nature, and Chalmers alludes to the idea that perhaps consciousness is similar. I tend to agree. I just take it a step further by suggesting that manifesting the EM force on a macro level, e.g. in an electromagnet, requires specific materials and conditions ( metal, wires, electricity ) all put together in the right order.

Similarly, consciousness as we experience it, also seems to require specific materials and conditions ( neurons, chemicals, electricity ) all put together in the right order. That's why I always say that an AI might be intelligent, but that doesn't automatically mean it's conscious. It's made of completely different materials that are put together in a very different way.

I really hope this clears that longstanding misunderstanding up. Nice to see you posting again too!

 

[Pharoah]

Have there been any reactions to your paper/presentation? I’d love to read them.

@Soupie I have been away from the forum for some time and have now gone back to where I left off to find out where you are all at.
The Biosemiotics gathering was a wonderful experience for me. Some very interesting people with diverse approaches in Biosemiotics. Immediately after the talk two professors from the Higher School of Economics (social sciences) came up to me and asked if they could translate my paper into Russian for METOD journal. Additionally, they invited me to return to Moscow to talk at their conference. I am currently in Moscow having just delivered my presentation on the subject of the conference 'From Knowledge to Power'. I'm going to read more on the forum thread now.

 

[Randall]

I have been away from the forum for some time and have now gone back to where I left off to find out where you are all at ...

I can answer that: We're still no further ahead than we were before. Same concepts. Different labels. Same objections. Different day. Although I may have cleared-up a longstanding miscommunication with @Soupie on the analogy between the manifestation of consciousness and electromagnetism. Also it may be the case that if certain assumptions are true about QM, then we now have the ability to create a consciousness detector: Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained. I am of course skeptical, but at least it's a twist on an existing experiment that I hadn't encountered before.

Glad you're having fun with your philosophical pursuits . Ultimately that may be the most important aspect of the whole question! After all, what point is consciousness if one never gets any satisfaction from the experience?

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

The Pope opens up the Vatican archives to mainstream, its been reported by the mainstream media. Questionably will the Pope be the one to announce we are not alone ?

 

[Constance]

I can answer that: We're still no further ahead than we were before. Same concepts. Different labels. Same objections. Different day.

I doubt that any other regular participants in this forum would agree with that statement. I certainly don't.

 

[Randall]

I doubt that any other regular participants in this forum would agree with that statement. I certainly don't.

Participants who would disagree would be doing so just for sake of being disagreeable. That is, unless someone can fill me in on where I missed their nomination for Berggruen Prize.

Moving along: Here's some interesting podcasts: The AI Element
A related article: The ‘Black Box’ Problem of AI

 

[Soupie]

I think I just noticed where our misccomunication on the magnetism analogy is! It's where you say, "So not a good example to argue that consciousness is not equally fundamental"; that isn't what I'm doing. Exactly the opposite:

The electromagnetic force is considered a fundamental force of nature, and Chalmers alludes to the idea that perhaps consciousness is similar. I tend to agree. I just take it a step further by suggesting that manifesting the EM force on a macro level, e.g. in an electromagnet, requires specific materials and conditions ( metal, wires, electricity ) all put together in the right order.

Similarly, consciousness as we experience it, also seems to require specific materials and conditions ( neurons, chemicals, electricity ) all put together in the right order. That's why I always say that an AI might be intelligent, but that doesn't automatically mean it's conscious. It's made of completely different materials that are put together in a very different way.

I really hope this clears that longstanding misunderstanding up. Nice to see you posting again too!

So is consciousness fundamental or is it emergent from “specific materials and conditions all put together in the right order?”

“In physics, the fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces, are the interactions that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions.”

Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You’re saying that consciousness is fundamental but you’re describing it as being constituted of materials or emergent from materials arranged in such and such a way.

 

[Michael Allen]

The very foundation of reality that underpins, supports and sustains consciousness must be something that cannot be groked by the final experience product (what we feel as "us" or "our" ... why plural? because it is impossible that our own experience of "mineness" occurs without a logical relation to "other" or even "an other mine-ness creating being)

"As a seeking, questioning needs prior guidance from what it seeks. The meaning of being must therefore already be available to us in a certain way [primordial...pre-conscious in misleading classical terms]...From this grows the explicit question [again, wordless and primordial like a hand groping about in the dark for a doorknob] of the meaning of being and the tendency toward its concept ["concept", a classical term which is misleading but is a ladder that is climbed that thrown away].
"We do not know what "being" means"

[this is actually an truism because the entity that can have experience cannot by definition comprehend the basis of its own existence...to do so would actually invalidate dasein!...to illustrate this a person must perform the mind experiment of pretending that nothing is unknown or unexpected...once done you will realize that the source of what we classically denote as consciousness must be derived from a field of unexpected experience...to expect everything is to have no consciousness]

"But already when we ask [misleading...we grope about] 'what is being?' we stand in an understanding [primordial, wordless, unconscious...grok] of the 'is' without being able to determine conceptually what the 'is' means. We do not even know the horizon upon which we are supposed to grasp [grok] and pin down the meaning. This average and vague understanding of being is a fact"

!!!!

All italics are my emphasis with the exception of the last sentence, which is in the Joan Stambaugh translation of Sein und Zeit (Being and Time) page 4, 3rd paragraph.

Note: Do a word replacement of "being" with what this thread has been asserting as "consciousness" and the result is the same.

 

[Randall]

So is consciousness fundamental or is it emergent from “specific materials and conditions all put together in the right order?”

“In physics, the fundamental interactions, also known as fundamental forces, are the interactions that do not appear to be reducible to more basic interactions.”

Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

You’re saying that consciousness is fundamental but you’re describing it as being constituted of materials or emergent from materials arranged in such and such a way.

I'm saying that there seems to be a similar situation going on with consciousness as is the situation with electromagnetism. Electromagnetism is a fundamental force, but it manifests itself in different ways depending on the situation. In the macro world a strong electromagnetic force is directly correlated with functioning electromagnets, which require specific materials that are assembled in a particular manner. This force is no less fundamental simply because it is correlated with an electromagnet. Similarly, in the macro world, consciousness is directly correlated with functioning human brains, and need not be any less fundamental in that situation either.

These parallels bring up a most important realization that still seems to get glossed over in the area of AI. Because the types of materials and construction matter, we cannot assume that even if every neuron in a human brain could be replaced with a silicon equivalent, that consciousness would also be present. It may be the case that consciousness can only manifest the way it does with us when we have a properly functioning human brain. This also brings up some other interesting points that we've already covered, like at what point of complexity does consciousness as we experience it manifest on the macro level? EM fields exist in every atom. Does consciousness?

If we apply the same analogy, we could suggest that it is the way that these fundamental fields are organized on the micro-level that results in them manifesting on the macro level. The rest of the time they remain the same fundamental things, but less coherent. It all fits nicely. The only problem is that just like we don't know what imparts an EM particle or field with it's properties ( and may never know ), we are no further ahead with consciousness. I believe this problem is essentially the same as the one @Michael Allen points out above, but is expressed a little differently here.

In both cases, the best we seem to be able to hope for, is to establish the conditions that make the situations happen, and from there assign our own meaning to them, hopefully for the betterment of the world. We've done a lot with EM through the use of equations and algorithms. What analogy can we use for consciousness? If electromagnets require mechanical engineering, the obvious correlation to consciousness is genetic engineering, and that era is already upon us.

 

[Randall]

Note: Do a word replacement of "being" with what this thread has been asserting as "consciousness" and the result is the same.

I know where you're coming from because of our past exchanges on Heidegger, but I would suggest that when the word "being" is used synonymously with consciousness, we run the risk of making things more fuzzy than they need to be. For example a human being is not simply a human consciousness. There is a separate physical component to our "being" that affects our consciousness ( experience of the world ), and the two cannot be separated without some serious consequences, materially, mentally, and philosophically..

 

[Randall]

An article that puts together a number of the pieces we've discussed: Journal of Cosmology