• 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 3

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Constance said:
Physicalism is reductive and cannot account for consciousness and mind. At least no one has shown yet how it could and, more importantly, that it does. Thus, as I see it, to understand the nature of lived reality as we know it we have to begin by recognizing that at some point life makes a difference in 'what-is' so far as human (and other animals') situations and perspectives are involved. It appears to be the case that, as someone expressed it in a paper I recently read, we need to understand how nature bifurcates to produce points of view on nature, enabling experience in and of the world and eventually thinking about the world based on that experience.
Click to expand...
If I follow, this implies that "nature," i.e., what-is, is fundamentally, for lack of better terms, objective and subjective.

However, you suggest that consciousness (which, if you will, might be considered an entity formed from subjectivity) comes along later in the evolution of what-is. That is, in the primitive stages of what-is, objectivity and subjectivity existed. And from these two poles, organisms and consciousness/minds evolved together.

If one does not believe that primitive objective structures (atoms, molecules, rocks) possess consciousness, nor that complex objective structures (organisms) generate consciousness, then it seems that one must believe that the building blocks of consciousness are intrinsic to nature and that complex objective structures "combine" these subjective building blocks in a way that allows consciousness/mind to form.

If consciousness is not something that is generated, or emerges, from objective processess, then it has always existed.

But if primitive objective structures do not possess consciousness, but complex objective structures do, then these complex objective structures must arrange/combine/channel/facilitate "subjectivity" in a way that allows consciousness/minds to form.

Constance said:
It might clarify things further to point out that phenomenological philosophy is not a dualistic philosophy.
Click to expand...
Thats what ive also understood, but your stance that physicalism is reductive and your rejection of it thereof, has befuddled me.

The only solution, then, is to suppose that the objective and subjective poles of reality are primal, but that only complex objective entities possess complex subjective minds, no?

(This view is akin to Chalmers' substance monism, property dualism and Velman's dual-aspect, reflexive monism. These are views that I have an affinity for as well. [For what its worth, I identified my affinity for these views many moons ago, and reached the conclusion that our views/approaches to consciousness are closer rather than further from one another.])

Constance said:
Panpsychism has its attractions, but the rational mind balks at attributing consciousness or
protoconsciousness to rocks and minerals and seawater. Your suggestion of a model in which "primative, physical organisms don't generate consciousness but instead "channel" it in some way" is interesting and perhaps possible.* I highlighted the verb 'generate' in red because, as you know, I've always objected to the term's implication that consciousness can be assumed to be produced by physical matter or processes when consciousness seems indeed to be something relatively new in the merely physical world, something based in life, which somehow engenders the nonphysicality of consciousness and mind on the basis of the subjective positions and points of view that living organisms bring into the world of things.
Click to expand...
And this is where your view confuses me.

If primitive objective structures dont possess consciousness, but complex objective structures do, then we have a case where consciousness appears at some point in the evolution of what-is.

In other words, a situation in which at one point in time it didnt exist, and then a point in time where it does.

So if consciousness didnt always exist in nature, but at some point in the evolution of nature it does, the question is where did it come from?

Im suggesting there are at least two, non-dualistic options:

(1) Consciousness emerges from objective processess. That is, objective processess generate subjectivity. (You reject this view.)

(2) Objective processes combine/organize fundamental, primitive subjectivity into consciousness/minds. (Which gives us the combination problem. And we're still left with the question of mental causation.)

@smcder has called for some creativity in this endeavor. I would love to discuss some other options.
 
Last edited:
Soupie said:
And this is where your view confuses me.

If primitive objective structures dont possess consciousness, but complex objective structures do, then we have a case where consciousness appears at some point in the evolution of what-is.

In other words, a situation in which at one point in time it didnt exist, and then a point in time where it does.

So if consciousness didnt always exist in nature, but at some point in the evolution of nature it does, the question is where did it come from?

Im suggesting there are at least two, non-dualistic options:

(1) Consciousness emerges from objective processess. That is, objective processess generate subjectivity. (You reject this view.)
Click to expand...

"So if consciousness didnt always exist in nature, but at some point in the evolution of nature it does, the question is where did it come from?

Im suggesting there are at least two, non-dualistic options:

(1) Consciousness emerges from objective processess. That is, objective processess generate subjectivity. (You reject this view.)"

Actually I don't reject that view; what I reject is the assumption that consciousness is reducible to objective processes once it functions as consciousness. We might be able to account for the earliest stages of the evolution of protoconsciousness in objectivist terms (as Pharoah seems to attempt to do), but at some point during the evolution of consciousness from protoconsciousness something new is taking place in nature -- and it does not wait upon the development of recent human history evincing the formation of fully fledged concepts.

(2) Objective processes combine/organize fundamental, primitive subjectivity into consciousness/minds. (Which gives us the combination problem. And we're still left with the question of mental causation.)
Click to expand...

I've had a problem all along in our discussions of substance or process forms of monism as explanations for the evolution of consciousness in living organisms. I think we simply lack the kind of evidence that would support such theories.


@smcder has called for some creativity in this endeavor. I would love to discuss some other options.
Click to expand...

I'm agreeable to any directions anyone wishes to pursue here, but I do think we should more fully understand both of the major approaches to consciousness in philosophy and science represented by analytical philosophy of mind (heavily subservient to objectivist presuppositions in science) and by phenomenological philosophy as expressed in neurophenomenology and psychical research and parapsychology. I understand that several of you are reluctant to immerse yourselves in reading phenomenological philosophy, either in major book-length works or in articles working in that discipline and defining it for analytical philosophers and materialists in general, but without making the effort to comprehend phenomenology one is left with only half of what's been accomplished in investigations to date of consciousness and mind. But this is a free world for free people, in my view, and this forum should be equally free to unfold discussion in whatever directions individual posters desire.
 
Soupie said:
When/where did @smcder post this? I must have missed and I cant view his profile to browse his posts.

Anyhow, very interesting! Ill be taking a closer look at this idea.
Click to expand...

That's curious: my reply doesn't link back to his post of the link. Anyway, he posted it about two hours ago, maybe a little longer.
 
smcder said:
Not sure you are Venning correctly:

"Concept of green" encompasses "I exist"
Click to expand...
What do you mean by "encompasses?" Do you mean it's redundant? Or do you mean they shouldn't be in same section of diagram? Or something else?

I'll try to clarify when I complete the writing portion, but in my conception, the concept of green and the concept of self do fall into the same domain.

In other words, being and/or being green, is (perhaps significantly) different from awareness of being and/or awareness of green.

The idea, in my mind (haha), is not unlike @Pharoah idea of pre-conceptual meaning and conceptual meaning. But my view is a little more radical perhaps.
 
Soupie said:
What do you mean by "encompasses?" Do you mean it's redundant? Or do you mean they shouldn't be in same section of diagram? Or something else?

I'll try to clarify when I complete the writing portion, but in my conception, the concept of green and the concept of self do fall into the same domain.

In other words, being and/or being green, is (perhaps significantly) different from awareness of being and/or awareness of green.

The idea, in my mind (haha), is not unlike @Pharoah idea of pre-conceptual meaning and conceptual meaning. But my view is a little more radical perhaps.
Click to expand...

You have a little bitty circle of "I exist" inside a great big circle of the concept of green ... it fair portends to swallow it whole
 
A diagram usually follows conventions to stand alone or clarifies a written exposition, so if you have to explain the diagram ... then may be you are too radical ;-)
 
smcder said:
A diagram usually follows conventions to stand alone or clarifies a written exposition, so if you have to explain the diagram ... then may be you are too radical ;-)
Click to expand...
The purpose of the diagram was to organize my thoughts, not necessarily to present them to others. A written piece will def be needed.

I see your confusion. The "main" headings of each of the domains are off to the left: subjective, liminal, and objective. Everything else are "elements" that fall within those three domains.

If you noticed, I tried to color/style code the text so similar colors/styles in each domain correspond.
 
Soupie said:
The purpose of the diagram was to organize my thoughts, not necessarily to present them to others. A written piece will def be needed.

I see your confusion. The "main" headings of each of the domains are off to the left: subjective, liminal, and objective. Everything else are "elements" that fall within those three domains.

If you noticed, I tried to color/style code the text so similar colors/styles in each domain correspond.
Click to expand...

I thought you knew I was color blind?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top