Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

[Constance]

Life emerged, and does a whole hell of a lot. And life isn't a fundamental property of anything, but matter is a fundamental property of life. At least how we know it.

But I think you see, don't you, that matter is not the only fundamental property of life, and that to the extent that we know matter, we know it through consciousness and mind..

 

[Constance]

First off, I'm still committed to moving on to other topics. But ...

Yes, Panpsychism asserts that consciousness is a fundamental property of matter. (take a deep breath and keep reading)

I'll give you two things:

1. you acknowledged "scientific hand waving" - hand waving is hand waving, be it philosophical or scientific
2. you were careful to note: "At least how we know it."

I'm not selling anything. I've been through this several times and it's all posted here on the thread, have a look (with an open mind) or don't. And to anticipate every possible cause for limbic response, as far as I know, there are no necessary religious implications of Panpsychism.

I'm not the spokesperson for Panpsychism (the idea that "there is something it is like" to be an electron is deeply weird to my sensibilities, but it has some theoretical advantages) - I just wanted a succinct account of Panpsychism on the thread for reference.

Why can't it do anything if it emerges? ... that is the part you are still missing. I can't explain it any better than I have ... I've never been very successful at getting it across, that's why I am writing Nagel. All I can do is say do the readings on emergentism and epiphenomenalism. It is hard to have an emergent theory of mind which does not entail epiphenomenalism and causal impotency.

I agree, we've been over all this terrain in earlier parts of this thread.

I'd add that I don't think Panpsychism is the only alternative to emergentism to account for consciousness and mind in the world, although those seem to have been the only two alternatives for Soupie. I've posted today about cognitive phenomenology, which has recently developed on the consciousness studies scene to challenge blank spots in philosophy of mind and to add more bows to phenomenology's quiver.

 

[Constance]

Constance had said that the emotions were "presentations" rather than representations. I thought that was interesting.

What I remember saying is that in phenomenological experience/lived reality we come into contact -- not with computationally derived informational 'representations' -- but with presentations of actual reality in phenomena, which we subsequently reflect upon in the mind.

 

[marduk]

That depends on what information 'feels' like. If Tononi's theory traffics in 'experienced reality' to any extent he would have to be able to identify kinds of 'information' we receive through phenomenal experiences had through consciousness (at levels from protoconsciousness upward). I've asked since we first began discussing Tononi for someone who supports his theory to flesh it out with some tangible, concrete experiential details. It's fallen to you to do so if you wanted to, since you've been the longstanding advocate for IIT. You haven't provided it yet despite my asking you to do so. Maybe @marduk can make this attempt if he's persuaded enough by Tononi's theory to undertake the effort.



Have you read the Panksepp papers, Varela and Thompson, Gallagher and Zahavi, Merleau-Ponty? Any introduction to phenomenology, such as the one I posted from Sartre's Being and Nothingness in Part I of this thread? What I mean would be clear if you had, since my posts apparently haven't helped.


ps: do you actually anticipate sitting at the knees of an AI that can explain to you the nature of your own experienced being? Or even your unexperienced being, whatever that might consist of?

I've finished re-reading Being and Nothingness as well as Nausea, which is actually one of my favourite books.

And while I dearly love his writing, I'm left with more than a little feeling like I just listened to the Cure's Disintegration album one too many times; it's clearly coloured by his feeling of angst about the whole matter.

And on existentialism, Heidegger actually criticized him, as did other existentialists along the following lines:

"Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of Being."
​

And, at any rate, I utterly and completely fail to see what this has to do with consciousness itself, or how to recreate it, or how it's generated by the brain. How he deals with authenticity and concepts of free will, however, I have always found to be fascinating:
Bad faith (existentialism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His struggle with "two modes of consciousness" I have always found to be far, far more simply explained by thinking about consciousness as a parallel, multithreaded activity. One thread only becomes aware of the other when signalled.

This also, of course, gives far less rise to angst, and far fewer Morrisey albums, so isn't as cool to talk about while wearing black turtlenecks and smoking clove cigarettes over glasses of absinthe.

I actually anticipate working with AIs hopefully within my lifetime that contemplate existence at a far higher plane of understanding that we humans currently possess.

 

[marduk]

But I think you see, don't you, that matter is not the only fundamental property of life, and that to the extent that we know matter, we know it through consciousness and mind..

I assert that matter, information, and energy (in the formal sense of ability to do work!) are the only fundamental properties of life.

Counting entropy and information as roughly equivalent.

Actually, energy is a property of matter, so that leaves matter and information.

And now that I think about it, information is roughly equivalent to energy, which is a property of matter.

So I'm actually asserting that matter is indeed the only fundamental property of life.

 

[smcder]

I've finished re-reading Being and Nothingness as well as Nausea, which is actually one of my favourite books.

And while I dearly love his writing, I'm left with more than a little feeling like I just listened to the Cure's Disintegration album one too many times; it's clearly coloured by his feeling of angst about the whole matter.

And on existentialism, Heidegger actually criticized him, as did other existentialists along the following lines:

"Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of Being."
​

And, at any rate, I utterly and completely fail to see what this has to do with consciousness itself, or how to recreate it, or how it's generated by the brain. How he deals with authenticity and concepts of free will, however, I have always found to be fascinating:
Bad faith (existentialism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His struggle with "two modes of consciousness" I have always found to be far, far more simply explained by thinking about consciousness as a parallel, multithreaded activity. One thread only becomes aware of the other when signalled.

This also, of course, gives far less rise to angst, and far fewer Morrisey albums, so isn't as cool to talk about while wearing black turtlenecks and smoking clove cigarettes over glasses of absinthe.

I actually anticipate working with AIs hopefully within my lifetime that contemplate existence at a far higher plane of understanding that we humans currently possess.

I like clove cigarettes and those little Turkish biddhis? I think they are called ... I've had home made absinthe and got very sick ... the Absinthe products on the shelf are not the same, I think - but you can buy kits now with all the herbal ingredients, wormwood etc.

 

[smcder]

I assert that matter, information, and energy (in the formal sense of ability to do work!) are the only fundamental properties of life.

Counting entropy and information as roughly equivalent.

How about them Hogs?

 

[smcder]

I've finished re-reading Being and Nothingness as well as Nausea, which is actually one of my favourite books.

And while I dearly love his writing, I'm left with more than a little feeling like I just listened to the Cure's Disintegration album one too many times; it's clearly coloured by his feeling of angst about the whole matter.

And on existentialism, Heidegger actually criticized him, as did other existentialists along the following lines:

"Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of Being."
​

And, at any rate, I utterly and completely fail to see what this has to do with consciousness itself, or how to recreate it, or how it's generated by the brain. How he deals with authenticity and concepts of free will, however, I have always found to be fascinating:
Bad faith (existentialism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His struggle with "two modes of consciousness" I have always found to be far, far more simply explained by thinking about consciousness as a parallel, multithreaded activity. One thread only becomes aware of the other when signalled.

This also, of course, gives far less rise to angst, and far fewer Morrisey albums, so isn't as cool to talk about while wearing black turtlenecks and smoking clove cigarettes over glasses of absinthe.

I actually anticipate working with AIs hopefully within my lifetime that contemplate existence at a far higher plane of understanding that we humans currently possess.

I actually anticipate working with AIs hopefully within my lifetime that contemplate existence at a far higher plane of understanding that we humans currently possess.

I will wager a modest sum that you will not.

So you assume that contemplating existence at a far higher plane of understanding would lead to benevolent action? In Buddhism, the analogy is to the realm of "the gods" and Devas which I think you could take as a similar concept - i.e. superior beings ... and the Buddha indicates this superiority actually hampers them in terms of seeking enlightenment ... the Buddha in a few instances actually has to go and line out Brahma!

A more practical question is what does a far higher plane of understanding mean and how would we measure that? How would we avoid the "guru problem"? By that I mean the AI simply assuring us it is on a far higher plane of understanding and we should trust anything it does as being in our best interests?

 

[smcder]

@Constance
Here is the original post from part 1, Chalmers on the Singularity

The comment on AI or AI+ being smart enough not to go to the next level comes at the end in the comments section, Chalmers idea is to evolve the AI in a box with no red pills, there is also a question about how that will be kept out of the hands of the military/industrial complex ...

Oh and this also resurrects my idea of the "Artificial Holocaust" about which I gave a Sunday sermon a few weeks back, although I saw many in the congregation nodding off ...

Consciousness and the Singularity David Chalmers on the Singularity (42 minutes)


at the Singularity Institute 2009
Singularity Summit | Machine Intelligence Research Institute

This talk gives a sense of Chalmers' personality and ties problems of consciousness to the singularity.

Here's a link to a Powerpoint of his presentation:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...pIGQDw&usg=AFQjCNEJ6yijrXcpG7GGE7XTAVjAGZcF-w

At 26:40, he talks about consciousness:

Two problems:
1. will an uploaded system be conscious (or a Zombie)?
2. will it be me?
27:15
I don't think we have a clue how a computational system could be conscious . . . we also don't have a clue how a brain could be conscious. That's the hard problem of consciousness. If someone tells you they've figured that out, they're kidding themselves. A very serious problem here. Still, I don't think computers and brains are in different situations. There's no reason I can see for a lack of parity between wetware and dryware. No difference in principal between neurons and sillicone.
. . .
Will I stay conscious during upload? Three possibilities:
1. gradually fade
2. wink out
3. stay constant
Chalmers believes number three most likely.
"So far, so good . . . "
Consciousness as an organizational invariant: systems with the same pattern of causal organization have the same sort of consciousness . . . systems in a simulation can be conscious. (quantum computation goes through just fine too, he says)

. . . if anything, the talk gets more interesting from here, touching on the Matrix, life in the simulation and whether it preserves what is important to us, and the question of personal identity . . . will I be me after upload?

 

[smcder]

@Constance

(I may post this on the Death! thread too ...)

The Skeptiko podcast has a number of good episodes recently ... including one with PMH Atwater. There should be transcripts for all the interviews, I used to post good episodes, I just haven't checked in lately with them.

http://www.skeptiko.com/skeptico/

Atwater episode:
http://www.skeptiko.com/near-death-experience-after-effects-atwater/

Long-time NDE researchers and author P.M.H. Atwater reveals what she’s learned from the nearly 4,000 near-death experieners she’s studied.

Join Skeptiko host Alex Tsakiris for an interview with NDE researcher and author, P.M.H. Atwater. During the interview Atwater discusses the after-effects associated with NDEs:

Alex Tsakiris: Once we accept that near-death experience science overwhelmingly suggests that consciousness, in some way that we don’t understand, survives bodily death, I think you make a very good point about looking beyond NDEs at the broad range of spiritual experiences and trying to somehow understanding how they all fit together.

PMH Atwater: What I always look for is the pattern of after-effects, how that affects the individual’s life, how long-lasting is that, how that affects the lives of others. It’s always the after-effects.

I spend a lot of time in the book on after-effects, both with adults and children. On the physiological end, there are definitive changes to the brain/mind assembly, to the nervous system, to the digestive system, and skin sensitivity.

 

[smcder]

I've finished re-reading Being and Nothingness as well as Nausea, which is actually one of my favourite books.

And while I dearly love his writing, I'm left with more than a little feeling like I just listened to the Cure's Disintegration album one too many times; it's clearly coloured by his feeling of angst about the whole matter.

And on existentialism, Heidegger actually criticized him, as did other existentialists along the following lines:

"Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of Being."
​

And, at any rate, I utterly and completely fail to see what this has to do with consciousness itself, or how to recreate it, or how it's generated by the brain. How he deals with authenticity and concepts of free will, however, I have always found to be fascinating:
Bad faith (existentialism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

His struggle with "two modes of consciousness" I have always found to be far, far more simply explained by thinking about consciousness as a parallel, multithreaded activity. One thread only becomes aware of the other when signalled.

This also, of course, gives far less rise to angst, and far fewer Morrisey albums, so isn't as cool to talk about while wearing black turtlenecks and smoking clove cigarettes over glasses of absinthe.

I actually anticipate working with AIs hopefully within my lifetime that contemplate existence at a far higher plane of understanding that we humans currently possess.

We (well, I) have threatened to talk morality on here several times and I think @Constance posted on Bad faith, authenticity and Sartre and existentialism and we have touched on free will but not in the ethical sense. Although I think most of what we have discussed here has ethical implications (what does not?) it's not something we've discussed in depth. Discussing AI raises lots of these topics for me.

 

[Constance]

I've finished re-reading Being and Nothingness as well as Nausea, which is actually one of my favourite books.

And while I dearly love his writing, I'm left with more than a little feeling like I just listened to the Cure's Disintegration album one too many times; it's clearly coloured by his feeling of angst about the whole matter.

Only reading more and later Sartre will disabuse you of your current notions about him and his philosophy. I suggest Existentialism is a Humanism, The Age of Reason (and the subsequent two novels in that trilogy), the Critique of Dialectical Reason supporting the development of "We-subjects" who work together to create a more just world, and Anti-Semite and Jew along with Sartre's introduction to Franz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, as well as Fanon's work itself, inspired by Sartre.

And on existentialism, Heidegger actually criticized him, as did other existentialists along the following lines . . . .

Yes, Merleau-Ponty's critique of Sartre was especially far-reaching concerning his early obsession with nothingness. But so what? The major philosophers in phenomenology and existentialism critiqued one another in various aspects of their work, like all the top thinkers in any field do. Many phenomenologists have criticized Heidegger as well. No tin gods there but an intricately reasoned and ultimately coherent effort to think through to the conditions of human existence and the social and personal choices required to redeem it.

You quote this passage:

"Existentialism says existence precedes essence. In this statement he is taking existentia and essentia according to their metaphysical meaning, which, from Plato's time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia. Sartre reverses this statement. But the reversal of a metaphysical statement remains a metaphysical statement. With it, he stays with metaphysics, in oblivion of the truth of Being."

What's the source of that quote? The later H was trying to overcome all metaphysics and provoke 'the end of philosophy'. If you want to follow him there, Steve can give you a reading list concerning the late Heidegger.

​

And, at any rate, I utterly and completely fail to see what this has to do with consciousness itself, or how to recreate it, or how it's generated by the brain. How he deals with authenticity and concepts of free will, however, I have always found to be fascinating:
Bad faith (existentialism) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your current assumptions about Sartre won't enable you to see what he contributed to phenomenology. I mentioned above only the introduction to the first section of B&N (which I cited months ago to Soupie). You can learn much from reading it concerning the meaning of authenticity and the grounds on which it is required of us. It was linked, and a good deal of it copied, here:

Link

His struggle with "two modes of consciousness" I have always found to be far, far more simply explained by thinking about consciousness as a parallel, multithreaded activity. One thread only becomes aware of the other when signalled.

? By "two modes of consciousness" are you referring to Sartre's descriptions of authenticity and inauthenticity as representing two reasonable 'threads' operating in some brain system? Sartre speaks of authenticity and inauthenticity as 'original choices' of how one relates to, regards, and treats one fellow humans, and how one takes upon oneself his or her "radical freedom" and the responsibility it lays upon us. Authenticity and inauthenticity are not 'modes of consciousness'. One doesn't change from one to the other as easily as one changes one's shoes. All of that is explicated in Being and Nothingness.

This also, of course, gives far less rise to angst, and far fewer Morrisey albums, so isn't as cool to talk about while wearing black turtlenecks and smoking clove cigarettes over glasses of absinthe.

What gives "far less rise to angst"? Living authentically some days and taking it easier on others?

Btw, Existentialism was not a post-war life style or 'meme' requiring black turtlenecks, cigarettes, absinthe, and 'being cool', though that was the trivial impression of it carried to popular culture in America.

I actually anticipate working with AIs hopefully within my lifetime that contemplate existence at a far higher plane of understanding that we humans currently possess.

That would be nice. Where will they get their values, and why will they adhere to them?

 

[Constance]

I like clove cigarettes and those little Turkish biddhis? I think they are called ... I've had home made absinthe and got very sick ... the Absinthe products on the shelf are not the same, I think - but you can buy kits now with all the herbal ingredients, wormwood etc.

Do they still make clove cigarettes? Where can I buy some?

 

[smcder]

Do they still make clove cigarettes? Where can I buy some?

I hope so! I may visit the smoke shop tomorrow. I have an illness that actually benefits from nicotine but I usually just pick up an e-cigarette PRN, I used to smoke but if I get the real stuff now I cough and hack for days on end. The e-cigarettes work well for me although I get a bit of a cough off of them too.

I would like to try the clove cigarettes again and the Turkish beedi or bidi cigarettes. I haven't seen the bidis in years, but I'm pretty sure clove cigarettes are kept in stock around here.

 

[smcder]

Only reading more and later Sartre will disabuse you of your current notions about him and his philosophy. I suggest Existentialism is a Humanism, The Age of Reason (and the subsequent two novels in that trilogy), the Critique of Dialectical Reason supporting the development of "We-subjects" who work together to create a more just world, and Anti-Semite and Jew along with Sartre's introduction to Franz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, as well as Fanon's work itself, inspired by Sartre.




Yes, Merleau-Ponty's critique of Sartre was especially far-reaching concerning his early obsession with nothingness. But so what? The major philosophers in phenomenology and existentialism critiqued one another in various aspects of their work, like all the top thinkers in any field do. Many phenomenologists have criticized Heidegger as well. No tin gods there but an intricately reasoned and ultimately coherent effort to think through to the conditions of human existence and the social and personal choices required to redeem it.

You quote this passage:



What's the source of that quote? The later H was trying to overcome all metaphysics and provoke 'the end of philosophy'. If you want to follow him there, Steve can give you a reading list concerning the late Heidegger.

​

Your current assumptions about Sartre won't enable you to see what he contributed to phenomenology. I mentioned above only the introduction to the first section of B&N (which I cited months ago to Soupie). You can learn much from reading it concerning the meaning of authenticity and the grounds on which it is required of us. It was linked, and a good deal of it copied, here:

Link



? By "two modes of consciousness" are you referring to Sartre's descriptions of authenticity and inauthenticity as representing two reasonable 'threads' operating in some brain system? Sartre speaks of authenticity and inauthenticity as 'original choices' of how one relates to, regards, and treats one fellow humans, and how one takes upon oneself his or her "radical freedom" and the responsibility it lays upon us. Authenticity and inauthenticity are not 'modes of consciousness'. One doesn't change from one to the other as easily as one changes one's shoes. All of that is explicated in Being and Nothingness.



What gives "far less rise to angst"? Living authentically some days and taking it easier on others?

Btw, Existentialism was not a post-war life style or 'meme' requiring black turtlenecks, cigarettes, absinthe, and 'being cool', though that was the trivial impression of it carried to popular culture in America.



That would be nice. Where will they get their values, and why will they adhere to them?

Steve can give you a reading list concerning the late Heidegger.

I'm reading Being and Time on another online forum and they have a great list of resources. I think we need to start an Existentialism and the Paranormal thread ... we could justify it by claiming that recent documents reveal that Heidegger was abducted by aliens who wanted to know what the heck he meant by Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän.

 

[Constance]

I hope so! I may visit the smoke shop tomorrow. I have an illness that actually benefits from nicotine but I usually just pick up an e-cigarette PRN, I used to smoke but if I get the real stuff now I cough and hack for days on end. The e-cigarettes work well for me although I get a bit of a cough off of them too.

I would like to try the clove cigarettes again and the Turkish beedi or bidi cigarettes. I haven't seen the bidis in years, but I'm pretty sure clove cigarettes are kept in stock around here.

I'll call a tobacco shop here and see what gives. Thanks. I'd love to stop smoking my Capri menthols. I've tried the e-cigarettes too and also find them rather harsh on the throat.

 

[Constance]

Steve can give you a reading list concerning the late Heidegger.

I'm reading Being and Time on another online forum and they have a great list of resources. I think we need to start an Existentialism and the Paranormal thread ... we could justify it by claiming that recent documents reveal that Heidegger was abducted by aliens who wanted to know what the heck he meant by Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän.

I'm betting even he didn't know what that meant.

 

[smcder]

I went back and had a look at the first post in this thread (Part 1) - as started by @Tyger

Consciousness and the Paranormal | The Paracast Community Forums
(I hope that link takes you to the beginning.)

This was one of the first links she posted up, on the evolution of consciousness:

http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/Vol2010.no4/archive.vol2010.no4/lockley.pdf

I highlighted some key names below that we touched on before we too soon moved away from this topic. @Constance has kept it on our radar, however.
As individual ontogeny broadly recapitulates evolutionary phylogeny, the ontogeny of consciousness from birth to death may hold clues to the evolution of consciousness. Did humanity, like the individual, ‘fall‘ into self consciousness, thereby discovering a physical, material, secular world that compromises and ‘crowds out‘ spiritual sensibility?
This view, explored by Rudolf Steiner, Owen Barfield, Jean Gebser, Jung (CG), Long, Welburn, Wilber and others, has intriguing implications, widely manifest in our human obsession with origins and destiny (physical and spiritual). Does Barfield‘s ‘hero‘s journey‘ paradigm (original participation –separation- final participation) represent a natural ‗life cycle‘ of spiritualization, de-spiritualization and respiritualization associated with the dynamic evolution (ontogeny and phylogeny) of consciousness? Does history in fact reveal that most early cultures took humanity‘s spiritual origins for granted due to a deep sense of participation in cosmic events? Is the weakening of this worldview merely a passing symptom of modernity‘s self-conscious separation from cosmos, and the resultant dethroning of religious institutions/paradigms in favor of scientific materialistic secularism?
What next? Is Thompson‘s identification of a ―post-religious spirituality a meaningful metaphor for re-spiritualization processes that are evolutionarily predictable—even inevitable. Can humans sustain a sense of separation from the cosmos and still regard it a viable, philosophic/scientific perspective on reality?

 

[Constance]

Steve, did you just have a post here concerning Heidegger's views on the German language maintaining more contact with the ancient Greek language than other European languages? It seems to have blinked out. Anyway, I'm curious about what H said about the distortions of Greek thought in Latin translations. I'd love to read a book or even an article on this if you or anyone else knows of one.

 

[smcder]

Steve, did you just have a post here concerning Heidegger's views on the German language maintaining more contact with the ancient Greek language than other European languages? It seems to have blinked out. Anyway, I'm curious about what H said about the distortions of Greek thought in Latin translations. I'd love to read a book or even an article on this if you or anyone else knows of one.

It's in the Der Spiegel interview, I just sent it to you PM -