Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 12

[Michael Allen]

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..

Good point. I wanted to be sure to avoid that confusion by using "word replacement" as a kind of mind experiment rather than treating it as a synonym. Loosely speaking (because I am actually kind of rusty with my Heidegerrian internal translator) the term "being" is something that arises from something like the relationship between Dasein and it's way of emergence from the articulation of the structures that underlie the same. Being is not a genre of existing or existence...but something more primordial. And certainly not something scoped so narrowly as "human being." Good clarification

"Being-in-the-world is Heidegger's replacement for terms such as subject, object, consciousness, and world. For him, the split of things into subject/object, as we find in the Western tradition and even in our language, must be overcome, as is indicated by the root structure of Husserl and Brentano's concept of intentionality, i.e., that all consciousness is consciousness of something, that there is no consciousness, as such, cut off from an object (be it the matter of a thought or of a perception). Nor are there objects without some consciousness beholding or being involved with them. "

Heideggerian terminology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Constance]

.

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..

I would guess that what @Michael Allen might have meant is that the sense of be-ing -- at first prereflective and subsequently reflective -- grounds/enables consciousness precisely as Dasein.

These few paragraphs from wikipedia might be helpful:

"Heidegger sought to use the concept of Dasein to uncover the primal nature of "Being" (Sein), agreeing with Nietzsche and Dilthey[5] that Dasein is always a being engaged in the world: neither a subject, nor the objective world alone, but the coherence of Being-in-the-world. This ontological basis of Heidegger's work thus opposes the Cartesian "abstract agent" in favour of practical engagement with one's environment.[6] Dasein is revealed by projection into, and engagement with, a personal world[7]—a never-ending process of involvement with the world as mediated through the projects of the self.[1]

Heidegger considered that language, everyday curiosity, logical systems, and common beliefs obscure Dasein's nature from itself.[8] Authentic choice means turning away from the collective world of Them, to face Dasein, one's individuality, one's own limited life-span, one's own being.[9] Heidegger thus intended the concept of Dasein to provide a stepping stone in the questioning of what it means to be—to have one's own being, one's own death, one's own truth.[10]

Heidegger also saw the question of Dasein as extending beyond the realms disclosed by positive science or in the history of metaphysics. “Scientific research is not the only manner of Being which this entity can have, nor is it the one which lies closest. Moreover, Dasein itself has a special distinctiveness as compared with other entities; [...] it is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it.”[11] Being and Time stressed the ontological difference between entities and the being of entities: “Being is always the Being of an entity.”[12] Establishing this difference is the general motif running through Being and Time."

Dasein - Wikipedia

 

[Randall]

Good point. I wanted to be sure to avoid that confusion by using "word replacement" as a kind of mind experiment rather than treating it as a synonym. Loosely speaking (because I am actually kind of rusty with my Heidegerrian internal translator) the term "being" is something that arises from something like the relationship between Dasein and it's way of emergence from the articulation of the structures that underlie the same. Being is not a genre of existing or existence...but something more primordial. And certainly not something scoped so narrowly as "human being." Good clarification

"Being-in-the-world is Heidegger's replacement for terms such as subject, object, consciousness, and world. For him, the split of things into subject/object, as we find in the Western tradition and even in our language, must be overcome, as is indicated by the root structure of Husserl and Brentano's concept of intentionality, i.e., that all consciousness is consciousness of something, that there is no consciousness, as such, cut off from an object (be it the matter of a thought or of a perception). Nor are there objects without some consciousness beholding or being involved with them. "

Heideggerian terminology - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Whenever we get into Heidegger, I wonder if it is fully comprehensible by anyone ( including Heidegger were he alive ). Personally I reject the idea that there is no such thing as objective and subjective states of existence, because both appear to be extant in the world, unless that is, one subscribes to subjective idealism, which in my view, is so unlikely as to constitute sheer nonsense. That does not however make the journey to this juncture a waste of time.

 

[Soupie]

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.

I think I follow you.
You seem to be suggesting that consciousness may be a fundamental force not unlike electromagnetism. And not just “like” in the metaphorical sense but like in the literal sense.

In other words, consciousness would be fundamental force #5, right along em, weak, etc.

This “force” can grow in strength given arrangements of particles it’s associated with, like the em force.

Maybe we could call consciousness the electroneuronic field. In other words, consciousness is a field associated with neurons interacting in such and such a way.

Such a field would be strongly emergent rather than fundamental however.

I prefer non-dualist or non-pluralist approaches to consciousness.

@Michael Allen

I feel like Michael Allen has something important to contribute but I fear the idea that he has patiently been trying to share is either coming across unclearly or the idea itself is fuzzy.

Kind of like big foot. Are all Bigfoot pictures blurry or is Bigfoot herself blurry? (Thanks Mitch.)

what I take from Allen is that involved in the mbp is the phenomenon of self reference. Being trying to understand the origin and nature of being.

The paradoxes of self reference are well documented.

Self-Reference (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

The way I think of it is that there is no dualism between mind and body, the dualism rather is between what-is and our perceptions of what-is.

 

[Michael Allen]

.

I would guess that what @Michael Allen might have meant is that the sense of be-ing -- at first prereflective and subsequently reflective -- grounds/enables consciousness precisely as Dasein.
[Michael zeroing in on the point]
Heidegger also saw the question of Dasein as extending beyond the realms disclosed by positive science or in the history of metaphysics.

Dasein - Wikipedia

The source of "Dasein's" as a label for the same's experience in the embedded temporality and spatiality created by the very relations that evolve into the matrix of being is in itself an extension ... positive science and history are collaborative and persistent concentrated objects by the "being-in-the-world" that persists in the same. These categories and labels must result in dasein's trace into the very background of it's own ability to experience and question existence. Consciousness cannot exist as pure relflection. Pre-reflectivity is a truism...because without the background there would be no basis for "questioning"

The entire source of all being lies in every notion related to the human term "questioning." Questioning is not just something that happens when we ask...our entire mode of being is an extended question embodied in the very matrix of physical reality.

 

[Michael Allen]

Whenever we get into Heidegger, I wonder if it is fully comprehensible by anyone ( including Heidegger were he alive ). Personally I reject the idea that there is no such thing as objective and subjective states of existence, because both appear to be extant in the world, unless that is, one subscribes to subjective idealism, which in my view, is so unlikely as to constitute sheer nonsense. That does not however make the journey to this juncture a waste of time.

They "exist" as constructs of the relations that extend beyond the very categories (i.e. fictions) created by what you would call your own mind. You cannot reject what your mind must accept as an agent to pursue the reality of existence.

Let me help with something that you will not like...

Axiom: In order to comfort yourself with the "glitch" of understanding within your own consciousness, you must by definition reject the full nature and background that makes your consciousness (as a phenomenon to your "self") as non-existent.

Heidegger needed to be more blunt.

 

[Michael Allen]

Whenever we get into Heidegger, I wonder if it is fully comprehensible by anyone ( including Heidegger were he alive ). Personally I reject the idea that there is no such thing as objective and subjective states of existence, because both appear to be extant in the world, unless that is, one subscribes to subjective idealism, which in my view, is so unlikely as to constitute sheer nonsense. That does not however make the journey to this juncture a waste of time.

It is not pure subjective idealism because you aren't (and cannot) exist in such a world without others who share the same world. What you need to realize is that the destruction of the classical "objective" and "subjective" are not actually a destruction of the basis and background the allows such entities to exist. What you think "appears" in the world is not the full background categories of what makes existence or experience...that is only what you "witness" and then try to construct a reality within something that is already a simulation. This "simulation" is not something that is necessarily cosmic, but is something that allows a finite (albeit very complicated) response to something very much more complicated than your 5 senses and brain can completely "grok."

 

[Soupie]

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.

I think I follow you.
You seem to be suggesting that consciousness may be a fundamental force not unlike electromagnetism. And not just “like” in the metaphorical sense but like in the literal sense.

In other words, consciousness would be fundamental force #5, right along em, weak, etc.

This “force” can grow in strength given arrangements of particles it’s associated with, like the em force.

Maybe we could call consciousness the electroneuronic field. In other words, consciousness is a field associated with neurons interacting in such and such a way.

Such a field would be strongly emergent rather than fundamental however.

I prefer non-dualist or non-pluralist approaches to consciousness.

@Michael Allen

I feel like Michael Allen has something important to contribute but I fear the idea that he has patiently been trying to share is either coming across unclearly or the idea itself is fuzzy.

Kind of like big foot. Are all Bigfoot pictures blurry or is Bigfoot herself blurry? (Thanks Mitch.)

what I take from Allen is that involved in the mbp is the phenomenon of self reference. Being trying to understand the origin and nature of being.

The paradoxes of self reference are well documented.

Self-Reference (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

plato.stanford.edu

The way I think of it is that there is no dualism between mind and body, the dualism rather is between what-is and our perceptions of what-is.

 

[Michael Allen]

"what I take from Allen is that involved in the mbp is the phenomenon of self reference. Being trying to understand the origin and nature of being. "

I would be interested in seeing the mind-body-problem dissolved by self-reference. Any takers?

 

[Randall]

It is not pure subjective idealism because you aren't (and cannot) exist in such a world without others who share the same world.

Unless that is, the others who you believe share the same world you're in are simply another manifestation of your subjective experience. Heidegger was ( if I'm not mistaken ) an existentialist, which by definition starts with the experience of the human subject. That being the case, it is only an assumption that there are other objectively real human subjects with their own experiences. On the other hand, if we assume that there was lot going on before humans ever came into the picture, then we are no longer making human experience the starting point, and the problem of the objective and subjective disappears because it is accepted as a given.

What you need to realize is that the destruction of the classical "objective" and "subjective" are not actually a destruction of the basis and background the allows such entities to exist. What you think "appears" in the world is not the full background categories of what makes existence or experience...that is only what you "witness" and then try to construct a reality within something that is already a simulation. This "simulation" is not something that is necessarily cosmic, but is something that allows a finite (albeit very complicated) response to something very much more complicated than your 5 senses and brain can completely "grok."

Sure I get all that. I just don't think any of it is necessary.

 

[Michael Allen]

Unless that is, the others who you believe share the same world you're in are simply another manifestation of your subjective experience. Heidegger was ( if I'm not mistaken ) an existentialist, which by definition starts with the experience of the human subject. That being the case, it is only an assumption that there are other objectively real human subjects with their own experiences. On the other hand, if we assume that there was lot going on before humans ever came into the picture, then we are no longer making human experience the starting point, and the problem of the objective and subjective disappears because it is accepted as a given.

Sure I get all that. I just don't think any of it is necessary.

I literally laughed for 5 minutes...at your last sentence.

[that's not a bad thing...]
Thanks

 

[Randall]

I think I follow you.
You seem to be suggesting that consciousness may be a fundamental force not unlike electromagnetism. And not just “like” in the metaphorical sense but like in the literal sense.

In other words, consciousness would be fundamental force #5, right along em, weak, etc. This “force” can grow in strength given arrangements of particles it’s associated with, like the em force.

Maybe we could call consciousness the electroneuronic field. In other words, consciousness is a field associated with neurons interacting in such and such a way. Such a field would be strongly emergent rather than fundamental however.

There is an issue with context here. I see no reason why something cannot be both fundamental and emergent at the same time when we take into account the proper contexts.

There is the physics context of fundamental, and the philosophical context of fundamental. They aren't quite identical but are complimentary. So just like the magnetic field from an electromagnet is still a "fundamental" force, emerging on the macro level, there is no reason to think that consciousness manifesting on the macro level is not equally as fundamental and emergent.

We might compare this to the idea of a building as opposed to a stack of bricks. In physics, each brick represents a unit ( quanta ) of a fundamental thing. At some point a stack of bricks becomes a building. Physically the bricks are as fundamental as they were before, but philosophically, a new situation has arisen that gives it meaning. In this sense the building is both fundamental and emergent.

This building would however lose it's fundamentalness if at some point the bricks became some other substance that requires bricks in order to come into existence, e.g. some sort of magical concrete, that would eventually decay back into bricks if left unattended. So there seems to be three states of existence, fundamental, fundamental & emergent, and lastly, emergent ( Hmm - interesting ).

 

[Randall]

I literally laughed for 5 minutes...at your last sentence.

[that's not a bad thing...]
Thanks

Now you see why I said before that nothing in this discussion has really changed

 

[Soupie]

"what I take from Allen is that involved in the mbp is the phenomenon of self reference. Being trying to understand the origin and nature of being. "

I would be interested in seeing the mind-body-problem dissolved by self-reference. Any takers?

Self-reference doesn’t resolve the MBP but rather gives rise to it.

What you think "appears" in the world is not the full background categories of what makes existence or experience...that is only what you "witness" and then try to construct a reality within something that is already a simulation. This "simulation" is not something that is necessarily cosmic, but is something that allows a finite (albeit very complicated) response to something very much more complicated than your 5 senses and brain can completely "grok."

What we call consciousness appears to be categorically different from what we call body. But this apparent difference is the result of self-knowing (the universe knowing itself, self-reference).

Re your comments above: the brain is part of the simulation. This is often overlooked I find.

This is not unlike the failure to take into account that humans and our measurement tools are quantum mechanical systems when we measure quantum mechanical systems. We often think of ourselves and our tools as classical systems measuring quantum mechanical systems.

We say the brain creates a simulation of what-is but fail to recognize that the brain as it appears to us is part of the simulation. This is not to say that brains aren’t actual. They are. However we must remember that our perceptions of brains are limited just as all our perceptions of what-is are limited.

 

[Soupie]

There is an issue with context here. I see no reason why something cannot be both fundamental and emergent at the same time when we take into account the proper contexts.

There is the physics context of fundamental, and the philosophical context of fundamental. They aren't quite identical but are complimentary. So just like the magnetic field from an electromagnet is still a "fundamental" force, emerging on the macro level, there is no reason to think that consciousness manifesting on the macro level is not equally as fundamental and emergent.

We might compare this to the idea of a building as opposed to a stack of bricks. In physics, each brick represents a unit ( quanta ) of a fundamental thing. At some point a stack of bricks becomes a building. Physically the bricks are as fundamental as they were before, but philosophically, a new situation has arisen that gives it meaning. In this sense the building is both fundamental and emergent.

This building would however lose it's fundamentalness if at some point the bricks became some other substance that requires bricks in order to come into existence, e.g. some sort of magical concrete, that would eventually decay back into bricks if left unattended. So there seems to be three states of existence, fundamental, fundamental & emergent, and lastly, emergent.

No, I don’t think consciousness can be fundamental and emergent in any context. I think it’s one or the other.

If something is fundamental it can’t be reduced to any other relationships.

If something is weakly emergent is arises with certain relationships, a la waves in a classical medium. If something is strongly emergent it pops into existence ex nihilo when certain relationships obtain.

 

[Soupie]

There is an issue with context here. I see no reason why something cannot be both fundamental and emergent at the same time when we take into account the proper contexts.

There is the physics context of fundamental, and the philosophical context of fundamental. They aren't quite identical but are complimentary. So just like the magnetic field from an electromagnet is still a "fundamental" force, emerging on the macro level, there is no reason to think that consciousness manifesting on the macro level is not equally as fundamental and emergent.

We might compare this to the idea of a building as opposed to a stack of bricks. In physics, each brick represents a unit ( quanta ) of a fundamental thing. At some point a stack of bricks becomes a building. Physically the bricks are as fundamental as they were before, but philosophically, a new situation has arisen that gives it meaning. In this sense the building is both fundamental and emergent.

This building would however lose it's fundamentalness if at some point the bricks became some other substance that requires bricks in order to come into existence, e.g. some sort of magical concrete, that would eventually decay back into bricks if left unattended. So there seems to be three states of existence, fundamental, fundamental & emergent, and lastly, emergent ( Hmm - interesting ).

No, I don’t think consciousness can be fundamental and emergent in any context. I think it’s one or the other.

If something is fundamental it can’t be reduced to any other relationships.

If something is weakly emergent is arises with certain relationships, a la waves in a classical medium. If something is strongly emergent it pops into existence ex nihilo when certain relationships obtain.

 

[Randall]

No, I don’t think consciousness can be fundamental and emergent in any context. I think it’s one or the other. If something is fundamental it can’t be reduced to any other relationships.

If something is weakly emergent is arises with certain relationships, a la waves in a classical medium. If something is strongly emergent it pops into existence ex nihilo when certain relationships obtain.

May I ask you explain why in example I gave ( above ), something cannot be both fundamental and emergent within their respective contexts? Where does the brick building analogy fail? Simply stating belief and declaring it to be so, doesn't really get us anywhere.

 

[Soupie]

May I ask you explain why in example I gave ( above ), something cannot be both fundamental and emergent within their respective contexts? Where does the brick building analogy fail? Simply stating belief and declaring it to be so, doesn't really get us anywhere.

In the example you give, the quanta would be fundamental. The building would consist of quanta and would not be fundamental.

The building also would not really be emergent, I.e., it wouldn’t have properties that the quanta themselves don’t have. (Unlike waves in a classical medium.)

 

[Randall]

In the example you give, the quanta would be fundamental. The building would consist of quanta and would not be fundamental. The building also would not really be emergent, I.e., it wouldn’t have properties that the quanta themselves don’t have. (Unlike waves in a classical medium.)

Okay we're just looking at the same thing from two different sides of a mirror. Let's carry on and not get bogged down with it. How does this relate to consciousness? If brain cells aren't the quanta of consciousness in and of themselves, then they must be mediators. This would imply an all pervasive consciousness field, that becomes our experience of the world when funneled through our neural pathways. We might look at this analogously to the rubber sheet illustration of gravitation, where the sheet represents consciousness, and the ball rolling around on it represents a brain instead of a planet. The more massive the brain, the deeper the dent in the field.

 

[Pharoah]

No, I don’t think consciousness can be fundamental and emergent in any context. I think it’s one or the other.

If something is fundamental it can’t be reduced to any other relationships.

If something is weakly emergent is arises with certain relationships, a la waves in a classical medium. If something is strongly emergent it pops into existence ex nihilo when certain relationships obtain.

Fundamental?
If we say that magnetism is fundamental we are saying what?... It cannot be reduced... it did not emerge...? I am not convinced that physicists would say either to be the case.
I find it improbable that at t=0 magnetism existed along with the other 'fundamental forces'. More likely that fundamental forces emerged from the primordial soup (a physicist might correct me). The point is, 'fundamental' as a concept is not helpful to philosophical discourse. And so arguing that consciousness is fundamental requires further qualification if it is to mean anything.
History also suggests that there is no such thing as a non-reductive thing. There are merely limits to our understanding.