• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re reading the series on Heidegger from that blog:

"Any attempt to speak, or say what it is we are doing, or any failure in the performance of the task will draw us out of the state wherein we find ourselves already meaningfully engaged and place us before present-at-hand items and contexts which we seem to no longer understand."

... We take this for granted ... I think that's why it's been hard for me to understand Heidegger's influence ... We receive it now through psychology for example and think it came out of experimental science - the concept of "flow" and embodied consciousness - that was how it was taught to me - never a nod to Heidegger. Nietzsche was similarly seminal.
 
It is the conceptual, autobiographical, creative, narrative-making mind that allows humans to spiritually transcend objective, physical reality.

When our phenomenal experience transcends the capacity of our conceptual mind, one can be said to have a spiritual experience.

This happens to me all the time with physical beauty.

This sounds like "imagination" ... What do you mean by "transcend"? This is all within the bounds of psychology, right? It's confusing if you are co opting religious or spiritual language for psychological concepts.
 
There are many schools of thought and reports by various people that reality as we know it is a facade.

The "I" is primary, while everything else is secondary. But what is this "I?"

From the Nicholas Smith blog im reading now:

"Therefore, hidden within the “I” proclamation of Dasein, there necessarily lurks “world.” Thus, while Dasein is necessarily my specificity; it is also my being-in-the-world; as being-in-the-world, my Dasein is necessarily being-with the Dasein of others. As such it becomes apparent that the subject object distinction breaks down; “man,” as subject, is made manifest as a metaphysical presupposition."
 
This sounds like "imagination" ... What do you mean by "transcend"? This is all within the bounds of psychology, right? It's confusing if you are co opting religious or spiritual language for psychological concepts.
I mean to go above or beyond.
 

So ... The unconscious? If you're not talking about beyond the physical/material mind/brain then it seems to me you are using "transcendental" and "spiritual" incorrectly - as these are grounded in dualism. You also refer to information as immaterial but it's either emergent or on the CRpP theory it's ultimately an inseparable aspect of the material ... correct? You can't pull the immaterial out of nowhere on us! ;-)
 
"Russellian monism consists of the following two claims: i) that science describes physical entities structurally but does not capture their intrinsic nature, and ii) that the intrinsic nature of physical entities is integral to the explanation of phenomenal consciousness. This view is 'monist' in that both the physical properties described by science and phenomenal properties are ultimately grounded in a single class of property - the intrinsic properties of physical entities."

Russellian Monism - Bibliography - PhilPapers

...

"Spiritual" and "transcendent" take their unorthodox definitions from the 18th century Romantics in reaction to the perceived meaninglessness of physicalism ... From there to the Transcendentalists (Emerson) to various forms of esotericism and New Thought movements (Steiner, Blavatsky, Norman Vincent Peale) back to the mainstream with New Age movements and Eastern philosophy in the 1960s ... And are now pressed back into service by pop psychology so that people often now describe themselves as "spiritual but not religious".

Psychology has adequate terms for what you seem to be describing @Soupie - but if you do mean that these states go beyond the physical/material limits of the brain/mind then "spiritual" or "transcendental" is appropriate. Otherwise these terms are meaningless and should be translated into psychological terms.
 
This seems to be the paper to get hold of:

Torin Alter & Yujin Nagasawa, What is Russellian Monism? - PhilPapers

... It's not archived by Philpapers unfortunately.

"But its strengths and shortcomings are often misunderstood. In this paper we try to eliminate confusions about the view and defend it from criticisms. We present its core and distinguish different versions of it. We then compare these versions with traditional theories, such as physicalism, dualism, and idealism. We also argue that the knowledge argument and the conceivability argument are consistent with Russellian monism and that existing arguments against the view, such as the argument from weirdness, are not decisive. We conclude that Russellian monism is an attractive view that deserves serious consideration."
 
Did I post this series on Being and Time?

Being and Time, part 1: Why Heidegger matters Simon Critchley | Comment is free | theguardian.com

8 blog posts

- Simon Critchley

"That said, the basic idea of Being and Time is extremely simple: being is time. That is, what it means for a human being to be is to exist temporally in the stretch between birth and death. Being is time and time is finite, it comes to an end with our death. Therefore, if we want to understand what it means to be an authentic human being, then it is essential that we constantly project our lives onto the horizon of our death, what Heidegger calls "being-towards-death". "
 
Crudely stated, for thinkers like St Paul, St Augustine, Luther and Kierkegaard, it is through the relation to God that the self finds itself. For Heidegger, the question of God's existence or non-existence has no philosophical relevance. The self can only become what it truly is through the confrontation with death, by making a meaning out of our finitude. If our being is finite, then what it means to be human consists in grasping this finitude, in "becoming who one is" in words of Nietzsche's that Heidegger liked to cite. We will show how this insight into finitude is deepened in later entries in relation to Heidegger's concepts of conscience and what he calls "ecstatic temporality".
 
It looks like it covers secular and religious definitions - was there a specific definition in there you refer to?
 
"Traditionally spirituality has been defined as a process of personal transformation in accordance with religious ideals. Since the 19th century spirituality is often separated from religion, and has become more oriented on subjective experience and psychological growth. It may refer to almost any kind of meaningful activity or blissful experience, but without a single, widely-agreed definition."
 
I can see why this issue is an important one for you as a supporter of Tononi's integrated information theory. We know from Varela and Thompson that even the most primitive single-celled organisms demonstrate autopoiesis, maintaining themselves in relation to a permeable membrane separating them from their environment (through which they obtain food from the environment and also protect themselves from the intrusion of other substances into their interiors). Varela saw protoconsciousness at this level of life. Somehow 'information' is operating at this level of life. Information is also exchanged in quantum interactions at the base (so far as we know) of the constitution of the universe/multiverse, etc. Where along the many lines of evolution of life on our planet does information become conceptual? It's an enormous question, and one Tononi will need, I think, to deal with in the development of his theory. Another question is: what is a concept? How many protoconcepts will we need to discover in varieties of evolving life before we come to the level of concepts at which we humans operate? How many other animals living on this planet now possess protoconcepts similar to those developed in the evolution of our species? How will we find out? One thing seems certain to me: animals are not unconscious; many are highly intelligent; the ones I've known clearly make choices and decisions on the basis of their phenomenal experiences in the world and on what the animal at some level understands the signification of those experiences to be. I recommend this book in cognitive ethology:


Clever ravens winged masters of deception | Earth Dr Reese Halter's Blog

"In the 1960s, professor Stanley Cobb discovered that birds had developed a forebrain, called the hyperstriatum (which mammals lack), as their chief organ of intelligence. The larger the hyperstriatum, the higher the birds score on intelligence tests.

Ravens are at the top among birds for overall brain size. Their brain-to-body ratio equals that of a dolphin and nearly matches humans. Their large brains are packed with brain cells. They are capable of acquiring complex vocal and non-vocal behaviors, a prerequisite for communication. They appear to make complex decisions and exhibit every sign of enjoying awareness. In many ways, they have similar cognitive capacities to some primates."

"Alpha males eat first, but reserve the right to allow subordinates to test potentially tainted meat, not dissimilar to the knights having court jesters test food prior to banquets. "

"Ravens are masters of deception and exhibit interesting behavior. They hang by their feet, slide in the snow, fly upside down, use rocks in their nests for defense, carry food in their feet as well as their bills, roll on the ground to escape predators and poke holes in the bottom of their nests for ventilation on hot days.

Ravens also like to play. I have seen them drop rocks in front of dogs, drop branches on people and drop from mid-air to catch a coyote’s tail."

"Ravens are fearless and play tag with wolves. In most cases, they win; occasionally, they perish. In keeping with their trickster image, they work marvelously in pairs. While one partner distracts an eagle in her nest, the other will pilfer her young or an egg."
 
Russia: Stray Dogs Master Complex Moscow Subway System - ABC News

Author Eugene Linden, who has been writing about animal intelligence for 40 years, told ABC News that Moscow's resourceful stray dogs are just one of what are now thousands of recorded examples of wild, feral and domesticated animals demonstrating what appears, at least, to be what humans might call flexible open-ended reasoning and conscious thought.

Linden cites a wide variety of creatures ranging from captive orangutans and otters who frequently and slyly "trade" with their keepers, to a British cat famous for regularly taking the bus to a squirrel in Oklahoma who became a local hero when people began to notice that it regularly obeyed traffic signals when crossing a busy street.

"The take-away is that animals are not just passive in this," Linden told ABC News. "They are figuring out what we're about and how they can game the system, and work it to their advantage as well."

Moscow's strays have also been observed obeying traffic lights, says Vereshchagin. He and Poyarkov report the strays have developed a variety of techniques for hunting food in the wild metropolis.

Sometimes a pack will send out a smaller, cuter member apparently realizing it will be more successful at begging than its bigger, less attractive counterparts.

Another trick the researchers report seeing is the bark-and-grab: a dog will suddenly jump up behind a person in the street who is holding some snack, enough of a surprise that the food gets dropped for the grabbing.
 
It looks like it covers secular and religious definitions - was there a specific definition in there you refer to?
This should be a link to Williams James version:

Religious experience - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, the point I was making is that the conceptual mind is involved in as far as the situation transcends/goes beyond the individual's ability to understand or comprehend.

Obviously, as the wiki page illustrates there are other elements involved and views about these types of experiences. But my point was the conceptual mind was involved in "spiritual" experiences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top