• 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

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pharoah said:
"I took you to be saying that human intuition, as exemplified by some artists, discloses the same unified system of information that is discovered in conceptual thinking about nature. Perhaps that's still not accurate? If not, would you clarify" No I wasn't saying that... it was me not being clear.

Artistic sensibilities do not arise from concepts in my view.
All diversity is explainable with unified principles, which are concepts, in my view.
Click to expand...

With you on the first statement. Still questioning the second.

I was looking for a critique of the Dowell paper you cite but have not found one. Can you cite one (or two or more)?
 
The diversity from unity is like the "God doesn't play dice" thing.

I don't know a critique of the Dowell paper.
Actually, not sure which one I posted on this forum.
Dowell's 'A Priori Entailment and Conceptual Analysis ' is one of my favourite pieces of writing.
 
Pharoah said:
Well... not really.
Click to expand...

Since you do claim it to be 'your view', though, it seems clear that you do not claim it to be an established fact. I too hold the view that nature, at some point when/if we comprehend it more fully, will turn out to be 'unified' and thus fully accountable as a 'unity'. But I'm less sure about this than you are. Can/would you identify the grounds on the basis of which you appear to hold this view as a firm conviction?

Are you familiar with recent developments toward so-called 'realism' in Continental Philosophy, most of which are represented in a collection entitled The Speculative Turn? I ordered a copy of this book about a year ago and am just now beginning to read it. Fortunately, I find that the entirety of it is published open-source on the internet, so the remaining three of us active in this thread might pursue some of what it includes if there is mutual interest. Here's the link:

http://www.re-press.org/book-files/OA_Version_Speculative_Turn_9780980668346.pdf
 
In that text^ I'm currently reading ch. 16, "The Generic as Predicate and Constant:
Non-Philosophy and Materialism" by Francois Laruelle and find it fascinating and relevant to our discussion. It begins on pg. 237.
 
Pharoah said:
The diversity from unity is like the "God doesn't play dice" thing.

I don't know a critique of the Dowell paper.
Actually, not sure which one I posted on this forum.
Dowell's 'A Priori Entailment and Conceptual Analysis ' is one of my favourite pieces of writing.
Click to expand...

I came across a critique of Dowell's critique of Chalmers, should have saved it ... just skimmed it so won't comment until I can post.
 
Constance said:
So it's an act of faith at this point?
Click to expand...

Have you read Chalmers on Scrutability ... ? Give us a framework to compare views maybe.

Partially Examined Life Ep. 68 David Chalmers Interview | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

"How are all the various truths about the world related to each other? David Chalmers, famous for advocating a scientifically respectable form of brain-consciousness dualism, advocates a framework of scrutability: if one knew some set of base truths, then the rest would be knowable from them.

What sort of base? Well, there may be many principles bases, and what’s important for Chalmers is not the details of which is picked but of the scrutability framework as a whole. The base he discusses the most in the book is PQTI, for Physical, Qualia (mental), “That’s all,” and Indexical (like “I’m here now). Being able to derive the rest of reality from PQTI has implications, Chalmers thinks, for the philosophy of language, mind, and metaphysics. "
 
Now we get to the good stuff:

"A category 3 system state seeks a stable concept of reality. When a concept does not conform to the reality of its learning and experiential evaluations, the stability of that system concept is in jeopardy. And yet, an individual is compelled to reevaluate its concepts of reality whenever its concepts of reality are challenged."

Unless you define "challenged" as being that which compels an individual to reevaluate his/her (do some individuals identify as "it"? - I'm not being fascetious) ... then I'd say many most of the time respond to challenges in any of a number of ways so as to maintain their concept of reality including tremendous feats of denial and amnesia as needed ... trauma in childhood that challenges beliefs about reality such as my parents don't abuse me may result in formation of an additional personality that holds the new belief that my parents are dangerous so that the first personality doesn't have to ... I haven't researched how consciousness studies evaluate multiple personalities - has anyone else? I suspect there are some interesting puzzles.

"Contemplation and discussion always challenge the stability of concepts about reality. Importantly, every individual’s concept of reality includes the individual’s stable interpretation of self."

Interesting ... although I suppose a sense of not-self or a sense of oneself as process or even, if anyone has achieved it, a deep ideation of the self as illusory (a set of unconscious processes) could be called a stable interpretation of self ... but:

"Consequently, there is the tendency for contemplation and discussion to feel like a challenge the self-concept. Individuals are prone to be extremely protective of their perspective of reality and to be eager to maintain stable concepts however absurd they may be shown to be. Introducing new concepts are challenging because they require the 'gentle' dismantling of existing and well guarded concepts of reality."

Telling ... because this presupposes a privileged position for the dismantler who is as subject to being dismantled as the dismantlee ... William James on conversion experiences, the very short Buddhist sutra on the ability of the mind to turn and something like a Stockholm syndrome where the convincer becomes convincee are relevant ...

"The concepts of individuals, encapsulate family, tribal, and social beliefs and ideals. In these situations, concepts are not so much derived from the interpretation of experience, but from the unquestioning incorporation of culture, beliefs and ideals."

Heidegger has much to say here, in fact this point is a received one from Heidegger ... and I would say not just unquestioning but unconscious to the extent that in many cases others would have to point these out to us or perhaps through meditation or psychedelic de conditioning.

@Individuals will feel compelled to protect the ideals and the beliefs of their affiliated groups. Concepts derived from group affiliation are particularly potent because they are not experience based. The reevaluation of an individual’s concept of reality, can generate both positive and negative conclusions that fuel individual and societal creativity and bias.

Prejudice and creativity are symptomatic of the reinterpretation of realisations, and evoke the experiences and behaviours that are unique to human societies. Interestingly, under certain specific conditions, there may develop different classes of conceptual distortions and divergence strategies to maintain conceptual stability. One could classify these classes and their ensuing behaviours in terms of the relationship with and evolution of category 1, 2 and 3 anomalies. This classification is a new science that requires significant study. This science will lead to advances in psychological profiling and treatments, and to group conflict and resolution principles."

Do you have some examples? This seems to me more descriptive than explanatory ... so examples will help. Can you give me an example (and definition first ) of advances in psychological profiling coming from the theory?

Something on "ethereal" love coming up ....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A review (1944) of Thompsons Growth abd Form ...

Wilson : Review: D'Arcy W. Thompson, On growth and form

Held to be of slight influence in biology up to that time but it is worth reading ... and leaves the possibility that Thompson's work might be influential in the future as well as pointing out how Thompson's Platonism might again be helpful with new turns in biology. @Pharoah - how has D'Arcys work influenced biology?

There has always been a sub-tone in science that we are getting close to wrapping it up with nothing left for future generations but to extend results a few more decimal places. This was the state of physics prior to Einstein for example and is a period of "normal" science per Kuhn ... paradigm changes then come along and the whole system has to reorganize.

"Today, some thinkers seek to ground science in axiomatic assumptions such as the uniformity of nature. The majority of philosophers of science, however, take a coherentist approach to science in which a theory is validated if it makes sense of observations as part of a coherent whole."

Philosophy of science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Can/would you identify the grounds on the basis of which you appear to hold this view as a firm conviction?
if complexity existed without unifying conditions and processes, physical reality would be random - that is, any given interaction or process would lead to random consequences - and in being so, would not exist as a coherence.

Are you familiar with recent developments toward so-called 'realism' in Continental Philosophy, most of which are represented in a collection entitled The Speculative Turn?
no

Now we get to the good stuff:

"A category 3 system state seeks a stable concept of reality. When a concept does not conform to the reality of its learning and experiential evaluations, the stability of that system concept is in jeopardy. And yet, an individual is compelled to reevaluate its concepts of reality whenever its concepts of reality are challenged."

Unless you define "challenged" as being that which compels an individual to reevaluate his/her (do some individuals identify as "it"? - I'm not being fascetious) ... then I'd say many most of the time respond to challenges in any of a number of ways so as to maintain their concept of reality including tremendous feats of denial and amnesia as needed ... trauma in childhood that challenges beliefs about reality such as my parents don't abuse me may result in formation of an additional personality that holds the new belief that my parents are dangerous so that the first personality doesn't have to ... I haven't researched how consciousness studies evaluate multiple personalities - has anyone else? I suspect there are some interesting puzzles.

"Contemplation and discussion always challenge the stability of concepts about reality. Importantly, every individual’s concept of reality includes the individual’s stable interpretation of self."

Interesting ... although I suppose a sense of not-self or a sense of oneself as process or even, if anyone has achieved it, a deep ideation of the self as illusory (a set of unconscious processes) could be called a stable interpretation of self ... but:
yes

"Consequently, there is the tendency for contemplation and discussion to feel like a challenge the self-concept. Individuals are prone to be extremely protective of their perspective of reality and to be eager to maintain stable concepts however absurd they may be shown to be. Introducing new concepts are challenging because they require the 'gentle' dismantling of existing and well guarded concepts of reality."

Telling ... because this presupposes a privileged position for the dismantler who is as subject to being dismantled as the dismantlee ... William James on conversion experiences, the very short Buddhist sutra on the ability of the mind to turn and something like a Stockholm syndrome where the convincer becomes convincee are relevant ...

A discussion entails one individual's conceptual interpretation interacting with another's. One has confidence in the stability of one's own coneptual realisations (they are stable conceptual representations that define the self-identity), thus one tries to address another individual's (assumed) unstable conceptual realisations by convincing them that one's stance is correct...

"The concepts of individuals, encapsulate family, tribal, and social beliefs and ideals. In these situations, concepts are not so much derived from the interpretation of experience, but from the unquestioning incorporation of culture, beliefs and ideals."

Heidegger has much to say here, in fact this point is a received one from Heidegger ... and I would say not just unquestioning but unconscious to the extent that in many cases others would have to point these out to us or perhaps through meditation or psychedelic de conditioning.

What does "this point is a received one from Heidegger" mean

@Individuals will feel compelled to protect the ideals and the beliefs of their affiliated groups. Concepts derived from group affiliation are particularly potent because they are not experience based. The reevaluation of an individual’s concept of reality, can generate both positive and negative conclusions that fuel individual and societal creativity and bias.

Prejudice and creativity are symptomatic of the reinterpretation of realisations, and evoke the experiences and behaviours that are unique to human societies. Interestingly, under certain specific conditions, there may develop different classes of conceptual distortions and divergence strategies to maintain conceptual stability. One could classify these classes and their ensuing behaviours in terms of the relationship with and evolution of category 1, 2 and 3 anomalies. This classification is a new science that requires significant study. This science will lead to advances in psychological profiling and treatments, and to group conflict and resolution principles."

Do you have some examples? This seems to me more descriptive than explanatory ... so examples will help. Can you give me an example (and definition first ) of advances in psychological profiling coming from the theory?

It is descriptive yes. You could have a book on this one area.
There is a hierarchy.
Stabilising physiological mechanisms (biochemical and neural biomechanical mechanisms) These can be manipulated through targetted drug treatments (biochemical) and DBS (biomechanical neural mechanisms) as Panksepp is doing for example.
Stabilsing phenomenal feelings where they are distrupting health and function (these are not conceptually derived problems and are commonly addressed through psychotherapies). Such treatements entail identifying the nature of instability and adjusting the associative/ feeling potency... etc....
Stabilisng concepts. This is the area that fascinates me most. Everyone has a network conceptual construct about reality. e.g. A terroist's construct validates killing innocents. e.g. Individuals subscribe to social norms or ideals about what is right and wrong in action. These are all conceptualised constructs - beliefs, logic, rationality. They define the individual's concept of self. Changing those concepts destabilises self and meets resistance. Rationality is not the key to changing concepts. Rather conceptual stability is the key. Individuals and societies need a stable alternative before they will dispense with a conceptual status quo.... this is a book. It is a 'new' science.
 
@Pharoah

"Changing those concepts destabilises self and meets resistance. Rationality is not the key to changing concepts. Rather conceptual stability is the key. Individuals and societies need a stable alternative before they will dispense with a conceptual status quo.... this is a book. It is a 'new' science."

I don't follow this:

"this is a book. It is a 'new' science ."

Do you mean the book, the 'new' science is a "stable alternative" ... or is that a separate thought after the. "..."?
 
Pharoah said:
Can/would you identify the grounds on the basis of which you appear to hold this view as a firm conviction?
if complexity existed without unifying conditions and processes, physical reality would be random - that is, any given interaction or process would lead to random consequences - and in being so, would not exist as a coherence.

Are you familiar with recent developments toward so-called 'realism' in Continental Philosophy, most of which are represented in a collection entitled The Speculative Turn?
no

Now we get to the good stuff:

"A category 3 system state seeks a stable concept of reality. When a concept does not conform to the reality of its learning and experiential evaluations, the stability of that system concept is in jeopardy. And yet, an individual is compelled to reevaluate its concepts of reality whenever its concepts of reality are challenged."

Unless you define "challenged" as being that which compels an individual to reevaluate his/her (do some individuals identify as "it"? - I'm not being fascetious) ... then I'd say many most of the time respond to challenges in any of a number of ways so as to maintain their concept of reality including tremendous feats of denial and amnesia as needed ... trauma in childhood that challenges beliefs about reality such as my parents don't abuse me may result in formation of an additional personality that holds the new belief that my parents are dangerous so that the first personality doesn't have to ... I haven't researched how consciousness studies evaluate multiple personalities - has anyone else? I suspect there are some interesting puzzles.

"Contemplation and discussion always challenge the stability of concepts about reality. Importantly, every individual’s concept of reality includes the individual’s stable interpretation of self."

Interesting ... although I suppose a sense of not-self or a sense of oneself as process or even, if anyone has achieved it, a deep ideation of the self as illusory (a set of unconscious processes) could be called a stable interpretation of self ... but:
yes

"Consequently, there is the tendency for contemplation and discussion to feel like a challenge the self-concept. Individuals are prone to be extremely protective of their perspective of reality and to be eager to maintain stable concepts however absurd they may be shown to be. Introducing new concepts are challenging because they require the 'gentle' dismantling of existing and well guarded concepts of reality."

Telling ... because this presupposes a privileged position for the dismantler who is as subject to being dismantled as the dismantlee ... William James on conversion experiences, the very short Buddhist sutra on the ability of the mind to turn and something like a Stockholm syndrome where the convincer becomes convincee are relevant ...

A discussion entails one individual's conceptual interpretation interacting with another's. One has confidence in the stability of one's own coneptual realisations (they are stable conceptual representations that define the self-identity), thus one tries to address another individual's (assumed) unstable conceptual realisations by convincing them that one's stance is correct...

"The concepts of individuals, encapsulate family, tribal, and social beliefs and ideals. In these situations, concepts are not so much derived from the interpretation of experience, but from the unquestioning incorporation of culture, beliefs and ideals."

Heidegger has much to say here, in fact this point is a received one from Heidegger ... and I would say not just unquestioning but unconscious to the extent that in many cases others would have to point these out to us or perhaps through meditation or psychedelic de conditioning.

What does "this point is a received one from Heidegger" mean

@Individuals will feel compelled to protect the ideals and the beliefs of their affiliated groups. Concepts derived from group affiliation are particularly potent because they are not experience based. The reevaluation of an individual’s concept of reality, can generate both positive and negative conclusions that fuel individual and societal creativity and bias.

Prejudice and creativity are symptomatic of the reinterpretation of realisations, and evoke the experiences and behaviours that are unique to human societies. Interestingly, under certain specific conditions, there may develop different classes of conceptual distortions and divergence strategies to maintain conceptual stability. One could classify these classes and their ensuing behaviours in terms of the relationship with and evolution of category 1, 2 and 3 anomalies. This classification is a new science that requires significant study. This science will lead to advances in psychological profiling and treatments, and to group conflict and resolution principles."

Do you have some examples? This seems to me more descriptive than explanatory ... so examples will help. Can you give me an example (and definition first ) of advances in psychological profiling coming from the theory?

It is descriptive yes. You could have a book on this one area.
There is a hierarchy.
Stabilising physiological mechanisms (biochemical and neural biomechanical mechanisms) These can be manipulated through targetted drug treatments (biochemical) and DBS (biomechanical neural mechanisms) as Panksepp is doing for example.
Stabilsing phenomenal feelings where they are distrupting health and function (these are not conceptually derived problems and are commonly addressed through psychotherapies). Such treatements entail identifying the nature of instability and adjusting the associative/ feeling potency... etc....
Stabilisng concepts. This is the area that fascinates me most. Everyone has a network conceptual construct about reality. e.g. A terroist's construct validates killing innocents. e.g. Individuals subscribe to social norms or ideals about what is right and wrong in action. These are all conceptualised constructs - beliefs, logic, rationality. They define the individual's concept of self. Changing those concepts destabilises self and meets resistance. Rationality is not the key to changing concepts. Rather conceptual stability is the key. Individuals and societies need a stable alternative before they will dispense with a conceptual status quo.... this is a book. It is a 'new' science.
Click to expand...

Have you read Consillience by EO Wilson?

Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge by Edward O. Wilson
 
smcder said:
@Pharoah

"Changing those concepts destabilises self and meets resistance. Rationality is not the key to changing concepts. Rather conceptual stability is the key. Individuals and societies need a stable alternative before they will dispense with a conceptual status quo.... this is a book. It is a 'new' science."

I don't follow this:

"this is a book. It is a 'new' science ."

Do you mean the book, the 'new' science is a "stable alternative" ... or is that a separate thought after the. "..."?
Click to expand...
No sorry. I am very unclear.
HCT predicts a new "science" concerned with the dynamics of conceptual stability. That is, conceptual stability in the individual, and in groups ranging from family, tribe, society, nation - as encasposulated by idealogies and beliefs. btw This relates to the #5th construct.
One could write a book on this.
One can think of rational thought, as a by-product of the seeking of immutable conceptual stabilities. Rational thinking is conceived by many as the most coherent means of obtaining reliable, accurate conceptual foundations. HCT explains that it should not be regarded as a means to an end - one cannot change someone's or a group's ideas by pleading to rationality - but as a by-product of the processes of formulating stable conceptual realisations about reality.

Have not heard of Wilson - HCT seems to embody the notion of Consilience just looking at your link
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top