Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 4

[smcder]

Recently I had a stomach bug and had severe "indigestion," ehem, for several hours. As a result I became very dehydrated.

I just happen to out to eat later that evening. Typically I get a water with my meal but when the waitress was taking drink orders an image of a tall glass of root beer soda and a craving for it entered my consciousness. I drink soda only occasionally. I might have a ginger ale if I have an upset stomach or something.

In any case, I thought, wow, that's odd. I considered it for a moment and then thought, hm, a sprite or 7 up would be good for my upset stomach. I thought nothing more of it.

Also I do not snack very often, and if I do it's a granola bar, yogurt, or cheese or something. We do have lots of gummy type candies around the house and I had a strong craving for some, so I ended up eating a handful of juju candies.

Later yet as I was reclining in the living room I was thinking how unusual it was for me to have craved root beer and relatedly the candy. The. Of course it occurred to me that it was likely related to the "indigestion" and apparent dehydration.

Sure enough, sugar craving has been noted with dehydration:

6 Unusual Signs of Dehydration | Everyday Health

"When you’re dehydrated, it can be difficult for some nutrients and organs like the liver which use water to release some glycogens and other components of your energy stores, so you can actually get cravings for food,” Higgins says. While you can crave anything from chocolate to a salty snack, cravings for sweets are more common because your body may be experiencing difficulty with glycogen production, he says."

Obviously I'm not revealing any major insight here. However, I remain amazed at how my body/subconscious was able to guide my apparently clueless conscious self in two instance of food choice. How did my body/subconscious know that root beer would give it what it needed? Obviously my body remember that root beer contained chemicals that it needed and was able to communicate this to my executive system, even though I had the option of choosing water anyhow, which I almost did. Same with the gummy candy. My body/subconscious mind knew they were in the house and knew how to get it in my belly.

It was a very cool experience.

It seems to me that a related question is the reverse, namely:

when we do visualization exercises to make changes in the body ... for example visualizing the immune system "fighting" an illness, a disease process ... or other forms of biofeedback, yogic practices, etc ... how is this translated into the desired changes in the body?

 

[Constance]

I just read it; very good. I think it's increasingly recognized that the subconscious can't be separated from consciousness and mind. It's appropriate to speak of the subconscious mind, still vastly unexplored territory which appears to contain not just individual learning and memory but collective memory, things things learned by species in their evolution.

 

[smcder]

I just read it; very good. I think it's increasingly recognized that the subconscious can't be separated from consciousness and mind. It's appropriate to speak of the subconscious mind, still vastly unexplored territory which appears to contain not just individual learning and memory but collective memory, things things learned by species in their evolution.

I think so too ... it seems that some of the subconscious content could be available consciously at any time (the metaphor of the flashlight in the room) but that some of it may not be directly accessible to conscious experience. Bridges can be built with dreams, meditation, biofeedback ... but the deepest levels, even if inaccessible are nonetheless part of our intelligence ... and both go along with Heidegger's ideas and with Dreyfus use of Heidegger's ideas to critique GOFAI AI. Any artificial intelligence would have to be similarly equipped in order to deal with the world. In fact, it goes further than that in the shape and form and function of our bodies. That's what "to hand" means and what Dasein is at its deepest level.

 

[Constance]

It seems to me that a related question is the reverse, namely:

when we do visualization exercises to make changes in the body ... for example visualizing the immune system "fighting" an illness, a disease process ... or other forms of biofeedback, yogic practices, etc ... how is this translated into the desired changes in the body?

We might never understand 'how' this occurs. The important thing (the enormously significant thing) to understand is that it does happen. Consciousness and mind affect the body, whether intentionally (as in the practices you cite here and elsewhere) or unintentionally. General ideas dominant in our culture can poison us, literally, as we see in the cultural effects of mechanistic, reductively materialistic, concepts of life and nature, of our ethical obligations toward others.

 

[smcder]

@smcder Read this and thought of you... not sure why but probably because of your desire for proof or call for certainty.
p.41 http://www.hist-analytic.com/Ayer1956.pdf

Not sure why either ... but I'm more and more curioser why you do associate this with me?

 

[smcder]

We might never understand 'how' this occurs. The important thing (the enormously significant thing) to understand is that it does happen. Consciousness and mind affect the body, whether intentionally (as in the practices you cite here and elsewhere) or unintentionally. General ideas dominant in our culture can poison us, literally, as we see in the cultural effects of mechanistic, reductively materialistic, concepts of life and nature, of our ethical obligations toward others.

The Well of Galabes: The Course the Nations Run

It’s one of the more common modern form of doublethink, as I commented in a previous post, to allow that of course the universe we experience is a mental construct rather than an objective reality, and then to turn right around and insist that some currently popular features of that mental construct—the deadness, mindlessness, and meaninglessness of the cosmos, for example—are objectively real truths, while features of mental constructs that our culture doesn’t encourage—the presence of life, mind, and meaning in the nonhuman cosmos, for instance—are just plain wrong. We’ll be contending with that sort of doublethink over and over again as this discussion continues.

For now, I’ll simply point out that experiencing the world as a community of living and thinking beings leads to one set of behaviors and attitudes toward the rest of the universe, while quite a different set of behaviors and attitudes follows from experiencing the world as a dead and mindless mass of raw material that has only whatever meaning and value certain human beings choose to give it. Which of those behaviors is more useful in the present predicament of industrial society is another point worth considering, and we’ll be discussing it, too, as these posts proceed.

 

[Constance]

Any artificial intelligence would have to be similarly equipped in order to deal with the world.

Yes. AI constructs could not become 'beings in the world' without knowing and experiencing the world intimately, sensually, and from the basis of Care {Sorge} as Heidegger expresses it.

 

[Constance]

The Well of Galabes: The Course the Nations Run

It’s one of the more common modern form of doublethink, as I commented in a previous post, to allow that of course the universe we experience is a mental construct rather than an objective reality, and then to turn right around and insist that some currently popular features of that mental construct—the deadness, mindlessness, and meaninglessness of the cosmos, for example—are objectively real truths, while features of mental constructs that our culture doesn’t encourage—the presence of life, mind, and meaning in the nonhuman cosmos, for instance—are just plain wrong. We’ll be contending with that sort of doublethink over and over again as this discussion continues.

For now, I’ll simply point out that experiencing the world as a community of living and thinking beings leads to one set of behaviors and attitudes toward the rest of the universe, while quite a different set of behaviors and attitudes follows from experiencing the world as a dead and mindless mass of raw material that has only whatever meaning and value certain human beings choose to give it. Which of those behaviors is more useful in the present predicament of industrial society is another point worth considering, and we’ll be discussing it, too, as these posts proceed.

Superbly well expressed.

 

[smcder]

Superbly well expressed.

John Michael Greer is an excellent writer. I started following this blog and I've been following his other blog, The Arch Druid Report for several years now.

Just finishing part one of this:

I think you would really enjoy it.

 

[smcder]

Hello all. I've been out of town the past three weekends and been otherwise occupied throughout the weeks despite my best efforts to combat such evilness.

I've been casually following along to the current discussion of philosophy in general. I've also been reading Mind in Life as I get brief opportunities.

I have been listening to the Expanding Mind podcast. The last several episodes have been awesome. I came to share one in particular that I can all here would love. The topic involves the nexus of religion, philosophy, and physics. What not to love?

Syntheism Now! - 04.30.15 at Expanding Mind

But in a remarkable instance of synchronicity, as I went to gather the above link, I see the latest episode's topic is none other than speculative realism. Wow.

The Mind of Rocks - 05.07.15 at Expanding Mind

listening to the mind of rocks now ...

next up:

2015 May at Expanding Mind

A talk with ethnobotanist Kathleen McKenna about plant spirits, discernment, and the conflict between western and indigenous worldviews.

 

[smcder]

2014 will be breakout year for Continental Philosophy's return to metaphysics - New APPS: Art, Politics, Philosophy, Science

As an outsider I've been fascinated by watching continental philosophers shake off many of the neo-Kantian aspects of phenomenology in the same way that analytic philosophers earlier shook off many of the (sometimes identical!) neo-Kantian aspects of logical positivism.
What's fascinated me most these past few years is the way in which lessons, themes, and issues from the glory period of German Idealism have been so much better recovered in the continental metaphysics renaissance. That is, one can easily trace the canonical set of issues that move Maimon all the way through Schopenhauer and Hegel* (that were thought to have been dissolved by logical positivists and phenomenologists) as all rising up again in various ways by once renegade Deleuzians such as Protevi and Delanda** and the Speculative Realist writers of the same recent era: Meillassoux, Harman, Hamilton-Grant, and Brassier.***

 

[smcder]

Fear that drives the analytic? No.
I think fear prevents someone from seeing contrasting concepts... if one is content with one's conceptual view of the world why risk upsetting that view with new ideas that might undermine it? To do so is scary.
Analytic approach is driven by the notion that underlying principles of explanation are possible; that unity underlies complexity.
furthermore, if you don't appreciate this principle of unity in art and literature, then you can't understand its greatness. Complxity without unity is chaos

Sorry, I know I keep coming back to this - things keep reminding me of it, so it must be important in a way I don't yet understand ... think of this as more of my thinking allowed.

I guess the simplest response is that the fear that drives the analytic is right there in the response:

I think fear prevents someone from seeing contrasting concepts... if one is content with one's conceptual view of the world why risk upsetting that view with new ideas that might undermine it? To do so is scary.

1. fear of not seeing contrasting concepts, fear of being content with one's conceptual view (and not continually undermining that view in an unending search for (T)ruth)

and (and I've probably discussed this already)

Analytic approach is driven by the notion that underlying principles of explanation are possible; that unity underlies complexity.
furthermore, if you don't appreciate this principle of unity in art and literature, then you can't understand its greatness. Complxity without unity is chaos

so

2. fear that underlying principles aren't possible, that there is no underlying unity ... fear of the blind weaver god that drove Pip insane ... fear of chaos

 

[Soupie]

And as far as consciousness [feeling] being fundamental, if something like IIT were to be the case, I think it would be unprecedented for something "fundamental" to correlate with a macro process/structure such as integrated neurons in a state, right? That is, if feeling/consciousness is fundamental, why would it correlate with only a macro structure like an integrated cluster of neurons?

I think there is an assumption here ... can you see it too?

I imagine there are several assumptions. You'll have to identify any that you notice.

 

[smcder]

Sorry, I know I keep coming back to this - things keep reminding me of it, so it must be important in a way I don't yet understand ... think of this as more of my thinking allowed.

I guess the simplest response is that the fear that drives the analytic is right there in the response:

I think fear prevents someone from seeing contrasting concepts... if one is content with one's conceptual view of the world why risk upsetting that view with new ideas that might undermine it? To do so is scary.

1. fear of not seeing contrasting concepts, fear of being content with one's conceptual view (and not continually undermining that view in an unending search for (T)ruth)

and (and I've probably discussed this already)

Analytic approach is driven by the notion that underlying principles of explanation are possible; that unity underlies complexity.
furthermore, if you don't appreciate this principle of unity in art and literature, then you can't understand its greatness. Complxity without unity is chaos

so

2. fear that underlying principles aren't possible, that there is no underlying unity ... fear of the blind weaver god that drove Pip insane ... fear of chaos

Maybe it's this ... maybe why I've been coming back to this is emotion, fear is an emotion ... so is the idea that we need to suppress or deny fear, cast ourselves in heroic or tragic or courageous terms in order to pursue Truth at any cost? But doesn't the mode in which we seek determine in part what we find?

If we were fearless, not brave, but simply without fear, what kind of philosophy would we have?

But what if we deal with our emotions head on - what if we see emotion as part of our philosophical capabilities? Why not let the two inform one another?

As to the specific fear of chaos ... if chaos isn't randomness or the chaos of the mathematician, both of which have predictable (in the aggregate) features - but is instead true unpredictability, fundamentally, not just in principle ... then it is scary but it seems to me that kind of fundamental unpredictability is necessary for a creative potential in the world, for there to be something rather than nothing. (nothing would not be chaos)

@Constance - this is something like what I meant when I said that free will would have to be free of any kind of rules, any kind of determination, so chaos in the sense of fundamental unpredictability is necessary for true free will? In theological terms, it's like Kilgore Trout's relationship to God in Breakfast of Champions - God is always waking up each morning excited because He cannot wait to see what Kilgore will do.

 

[smcder]

I imagine there are several assumptions. You'll have to identify any that you notice.

You can assume there are always assumptions! OK, so let's start here:

And as far as consciousness [feeling] being fundamental, if something like IIT were to be the case, I think it would be unprecedented for something "fundamental" to correlate with a macro process/structure such as integrated neurons in a state, right? That is, if feeling/consciousness is fundamental, why would it correlate with only a macro structure like an integrated cluster of neurons?

You say unprecedented, but that's exactly the point - so why then immediately assign physical like properties/characteristics to this fundamental? Why assume consciousness is particulate? That there is an atomic theory of consciousness - little bitty particles have to be assembled into bigger units?

why would it correlate with only a macro structure like an integrated cluster of neurons?

You point up the weakness here ... "correlate" that it correlates doesn't tell us anything about causality. Is that above statement even true? If brains are filters ... but even here, filters, "shaping" those are physical metaphors. I'm not sure our language or even our intuitions (based on a physical embodiment) are adequate here ... apophatic language or some of the experiences in meditation or maybe other languages from cultures and eras that take consciousness as fundamental may offer some tools, I don't really know.

But I do know if we start from the get go by saying consciousness is fundamental but then talk about it as a particle or field, then we may not be radical enough ... and if we can capture it this way is it fundamental in a non-trivial way or are we back to talking about dual aspects and saying that since consciousness arises from matter, it must be implicit as a potential, if matter is arranged in certain ways? That would just be physicalism all over again and we wouldn't really need to talk about consciousness as fundamental.

If consciousness is truly fundamental we might even be able to talk about matter coming out of thought, coalescing or condensing (see there are no mentalistic words that I can think of!) about the universe coming about from a thought or feeling or notion,but even if we don't mean that in a specifically religious way ... it's going to immediately triggers those reactions from some people.

We are caught up on our physica metaphors but also on basic thinkgs like thinking of things as seperate, thinking of relationships, but if consciousness is fundamental, it isn't a thing at all, it certainly wouldn't have physical properties, so it might not even make sense to ask what is the relationship between mind and matter, might not make sense to look for a psycho-physical nexus because a nexus is a kind of relationship and that evokes for us physicalist kinds of causality.

Consciousness as fundamental, truly fundamental ... wouldn't be subject to physical laws ... that would be just to invite the problem of mental causation back in.

 

[smcder]

And I do realize that doesn't make "sense" - I'm very purposefully using my lack of intuitions about this, my lack of "sense" (sense, senses --> physicality) as a guide, so that if I am say anything at all, it may either be:

1, non-sense, an artifact of misusing language
2. pure abstraction
3 ?
4?
...
n?

 

[smcder]

I went ahead and looked at the plot of Ex Machina and I seem to be mostly right ... for more interesting plots, like the ones you mention, look to other film eras, countries and independent films ... mainstream movies are going to be very conservative and predictable plot wise.

One you might enjoy is "Impostor" based on Phillip K Dick writing.

I may be wrong ... I just read the plot for "Her" - the Spike Jonze film.

 

[Soupie]

Later yet as I was reclining in the living room I was thinking how unusual it was for me to have craved root beer and relatedly the candy. The. Of course it occurred to me that it was likely related to the "indigestion" and apparent dehydration.

If it occured to you (consciously) later, why are you surprised that it occured to you (unconsciously) earlier? You seem to draw a distinction between "you" and "your" "subconscious"?

I'm not sure I know what you're asking here. What occurred to me consciously was that my body was craving root beer and gummy candy due to being dehydrated because of the diarrhea. I then read online that it was likely due to lack of sugar in my body. I wouldn't say any of that "occurred" to me subconsciously. (But maybe one would argue that all conscious thoughts first occur fully formed subconsciously before reaching/emerging in conscious awareness.)

And I'm not necessarily surprised either. Actually since reading the dissertation of robin fraichney (that I've wanted to comment on in detail here) I've had a growing "realization" of just how small is the conscious portion of the mindberg.

And not trying to draw a hard, ontological distinction between "me" and my subconscious per se. I would however make a distinction between whatever is currently in my conscious awareness versus what's subconscious. However both comprise my mind.

[And I also make a distinction between the body and the mind (the intentional information "in" the body).]

Obviously I'm not revealing any major insight here. However, I remain amazed at how my body/subconscious was able to guide my apparently clueless conscious self in two instance of food choice. How did my body/subconscious know that root beer would give it what it needed? Obviously my body remember that root beer contained chemicals that it needed and was able to communicate this to my executive system, even though I had the option of choosing water anyhow, which I almost did. Same with the gummy candy. My body/subconscious mind knew they were in the house and knew how to get it in my belly.

The image I get is that you think of the subconscious as a kind of alien or other, maybe primitive thing "inside" of "you" - you seem to ask how could this unconscious "system" know something before "you" consciously figured it out ... ? Is that right?

No, see above.

Also ... wouldn't it be the case that there would be a lot of intelligence behind the process of eating? More than what "we" could "consciously" bring? There is at least sight, smell, taste, texture and chemical processing going on ... I suppose someone could sit down and think through all of the above and decide what I need is sugar and salt and etc ... but it seems more likely to me to occur exactly the way it did - that you, not thinking, got what you needed and then later realized that you got what you needed.

Honestly, I'd hate to leave bodily functions to the conscious mind ... I don't think "I" would survive for long.

I agree completely.

 

[Soupie]

listening to the mind of rocks now ...

next up:

2015 May at Expanding Mind

A talk with ethnobotanist Kathleen McKenna about plant spirits, discernment, and the conflict between western and indigenous worldviews.

I wasn't impressed with the "mind of rocks" episode.

 

[smcder]

I wasn't impressed with the "mind of rocks" episode.

I thought it was good - I'm planning to listen to it again and will try to post some notes on what I thought was good.

The Pinocchio Theory