Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 5

[smcder]

@ufology

Let me make a pre-emptive move here ... as I anticipate you will want to say my last several posts have been ad hominem - and I won't say they 100% aren't! But where they are it's intended in a good natured but fed-up kind of way ;-)

I am clearly critiquing your arguments AND your style of arguing and I am downright calling for an explanation of your tagging @Constance - because that looks exactly like what you asked me not to do ... so I do want to know the difference.

What I am NOT doing is saying you are a bad person so you shouldn't be listened to - that's my understanding of ad hominem.

I've made several posts now that challenge your position on the interpretation of the scientific evidence of free will ... of a "it's not that simple" kind and calling for a broader and more nuanced discussion on free will - my basic principle is preference for "what will open up the discussion" over "what shuts it down. So I would like to see a response to that. On the Searle article, I am calling for more than a "quick glance" - if you don't have time for more than that, it's unlikely your comments will be relevant.

You've also continued to maintain there is no evidence for other views - for example non-locality of consciousness or some kind of dualism in the "psi" sense - despite being offered an opportunity (over a long period of time) to engage the evidence that is there. And I don't maintain that that evidence confirms any particular view, but I do maintain it's evidence of a quality sufficient to receive a thorough look. I'm not particularly interested in it myself but I could be - one thing we have spent curiously little time on in a thread entitled "Consciousness and the Paranormal" is the exceptional cases ... that's one of the first places a curious mind should look ... but not doing so is a feature of our current attitude, not the original spirit of science. That said, I would love the opportunity (with you or anyone else) to sit down and truly engage the research that has been conducted, in detail. I did so by myself for some time a while back, long enough to convince me it's worth the effort and intelligence required. So ... in Arkansas parlance, it's a "put up or shut up" situation ... which goes for me to and is why I don't say much about it most of the time on the thread.

Finally I would note that you tend to rely mostly on a kind of logical analysis and your current store of information rather than other approaches, such as researching a subject to see how it's already been investigated - a method that is beginning to show its limits ... ;-)

 

[Constance]

Finally I would note that you tend to rely mostly on a kind of logical analysis and your current store of information rather than other approaches, such as researching a subject to see how it's already been investigated - a method that is beginning to show its limits ... ;-)

I'd just like to add to that that our 'logic' is built on our achieved understanding of what-is at a temporal/historical point in our ongoing progress in understanding what-is. Ufology's assumption is that our current system of logic is fully informed about the nature of reality. This is a good place to quote @Pharoah's post earlier today:

"I have a problem with the concept of determinism:
As a microphysical component of the solar system I have no influence on its evolution and behaviour.
As microphysical components of me, my atoms have no influence on my evolution and behaviour.
So in what way is the concept of determinism powerful. To all intents and purposes, I am equally free of and yet succumb to these causal mechanisms. To understand how I might not be free, would be to have a fuller understanding of the nature of reality... Until then, Or until a compelling argument to the contrary, I have free will."

 

[smcder]

OK ... @Constance @Michael Allen @Pharoah @Soupie @ufology @ donner and blitzen ...

I have been trying for a while to come up with an example of a process, function, etc that occurs only in p-consciousness, to estabish a reason or function for p-conciousness, something only it can do (although there can still be a reason without this) ... I want to say deliberate, intentional work on a complex problem, composition of an art work, or engaging in learning, step by step but those aren't clear cut ... and it could be the case that something as highly conscious as intentional engaging in a complex discussion with another person in real time or writing a piece of poetry or struggling to express yourself, that this can all happen without it ... I certainly can't on introspection isolate what it is that only consciousness can do ... and then there are cases of sleepwalking etc, where there might not be any p-consciousness or where it might not match up with the complex behavior of the person at the time ... a person could, conceivably, get up and walk out of a burning house in deep, dreamless sleep or while dreaming of walking out of a burning house or while dreaming of escaping the fiery breath of a dragon or while dreaming of sleeping in a bed of ice or while dreaming of blue velveeta ... nicht wahr?

 

[Randall]

Do you ever look to see if your ideas have been explored in the literature?
(there's humor in there someplace ;-)

No. I just make it up based on pure nonsense as I go along. What do you think? ( When you're looking for a smartass answer you don't have to look too hard . )

 

[smcder]

No. I just make it up based on pure nonsense as I go along. What do you think? ( When you're looking for a smartass answer you don't have to look too hard . )

Nope ... I know right where to look! ;-)

 

[Randall]

OK ... @Constance @Michael Allen @Pharoah @Soupie @ufology @ donner and blitzen ...

I have been trying for a while to come up with an example of a process, function, etc that occurs only in p-consciousness, to estabish a reason or function for p-conciousness, something only it can do (although there can still be a reason without this) ... I want to say deliberate, intentional work on a complex problem, composition of an art work, or engaging in learning, step by step but those aren't clear cut ... and it could be the case that something as highly conscious as intentional engaging in a complex discussion with another person in real time or writing a piece of poetry or struggling to express yourself, that this can all happen without it ... I certainly can't on introspection isolate what it is that only consciousness can do ... and then there are cases of sleepwalking etc, where there might not be any p-consciousness or where it might not match up with the complex behavior of the person at the time ... a person could, conceivably, get up and walk out of a burning house in deep, dreamless sleep or while dreaming of walking out of a burning house or while dreaming of escaping the fiery breath of a dragon or while dreaming of sleeping in a bed of ice or while dreaming of blue velveeta ... nicht wahr?

Not really sure how to answer because of the formulation of the question, but allow me to give an example using one of your choices, the composition of a work of art: Having taken Fine Arts courses, I would often use visualization to imagine in my mind the work in progress, along with how it should appear when complete. This involves an evaluation of line, shape, color, texture, aesthetic pleasantness, and so on, all of which are part of the conscious experience, but which is missing when we're completely unconscious. I do the same thing when I'm composing a song. I don't write sheet music. I imagine the music. I literally hear the instruments in my imagination. I once thought all musicians did this, but was really surprised by a piano player one time who told me she had never done that. She was taught to read and play and she envied my ability to simply play what I thought, while I very much admired her ability to read and play.

The above examples do not suggest to me that consciousness can visualize without a brain, so the "only it can do" part in my interpretation of your question is not the same kind of "only it can do" in the example of belief in life after death where when someone's brain is literally gone, one's consciousness goes floating around on its own with all it's faculties still intact.

Also, once again I can see how having the ability to visualize problems could be beneficial for survival. A hunter or warrior for example might be more successful if he or she were to visualize the hunt or the battle, rehearsing it in their mind so as to prepare. In modern times the hunt and the battle are more cerebral, but it can still apply to someone preparing to give a lecture or navigate a set of roads from point A to point B.

 

[smcder]

Not really sure how to answer because of the formulation of the question, but allow me to give an example using one of your choices, the composition of a work of art: Having taken Fine Arts courses, I would often use visualization to imagine in my mind the work in progress, along with how it should appear when complete. This involves an evaluation of line, shape, color, texture, aesthetic pleasantness, and so on, all of which are part of the conscious experience, but which is missing when we're completely unconscious. I do the same thing when I'm composing a song. I don't write sheet music. I imagine the music. I literally hear the instruments in my imagination. I once thought all musicians did this, but was really surprised by a piano player one time who told me she had never done that. She was taught to read and play and she envied my ability to simply play what I thought, while I very much admired her ability to read and play.

The above examples do not suggest to me that consciousness can visualize without a brain, so the "only it can do" part in my interpretation of your question is not the same kind of "only it can do" in the example of belief in life after death where when someone's brain is literally gone, one's consciousness goes floating around on its own with all it's faculties still intact.

Also, once again I can see how having the ability to visualize problems could be beneficial for survival. A hunter or warrior for example might be more successful if he or she were to visualize the hunt or the battle, rehearsing it in their mind so as to prepare.

*SIGH* what's wrong with the formulation of the question ... ?

 

[smcder]

Not really sure how to answer because of the formulation of the question, but allow me to give an example using one of your choices, the composition of a work of art: Having taken Fine Arts courses, I would often use visualization to imagine in my mind the work in progress, along with how it should appear when complete. This involves an evaluation of line, shape, color, texture, aesthetic pleasantness, and so on, all of which are part of the conscious experience, but which is missing when we're completely unconscious. I do the same thing when I'm composing a song. I don't write sheet music. I imagine the music. I literally hear the instruments in my imagination. I once thought all musicians did this, but was really surprised by a piano player one time who told me she had never done that. She was taught to read and play and she envied my ability to simply play what I thought, while I very much admired her ability to read and play.

The above examples do not suggest to me that consciousness can visualize without a brain, so the "only it can do" part in my interpretation of your question is not the same kind of "only it can do" in the example of belief in life after death where when someone's brain is literally gone, one's consciousness goes floating around on its own with all it's faculties still intact.

Also, once again I can see how having the ability to visualize problems could be beneficial for survival. A hunter or warrior for example might be more successful if he or she were to visualize the hunt or the battle, rehearsing it in their mind so as to prepare. In modern times the hunt and the battle are more cerebral, but it can still apply to someone preparing to give a lecture or navigate a set of roads from point A to point B.

The above examples do not suggest to me that consciousness can visualize without a brain, so the "only it can do" part in my interpretation of your question is not the same kind of "only it can do" in the example of belief in life after death where when someone's brain is literally gone, one's consciousness goes floating around on its own with all it's faculties still intact.

Where did that come from??

 

[smcder]

Not really sure how to answer because of the formulation of the question, but allow me to give an example using one of your choices, the composition of a work of art: Having taken Fine Arts courses, I would often use visualization to imagine in my mind the work in progress, along with how it should appear when complete. This involves an evaluation of line, shape, color, texture, aesthetic pleasantness, and so on, all of which are part of the conscious experience, but which is missing when we're completely unconscious. I do the same thing when I'm composing a song. I don't write sheet music. I imagine the music. I literally hear the instruments in my imagination. I once thought all musicians did this, but was really surprised by a piano player one time who told me she had never done that. She was taught to read and play and she envied my ability to simply play what I thought, while I very much admired her ability to read and play.

The above examples do not suggest to me that consciousness can visualize without a brain, so the "only it can do" part in my interpretation of your question is not the same kind of "only it can do" in the example of belief in life after death where when someone's brain is literally gone, one's consciousness goes floating around on its own with all it's faculties still intact.

Also, once again I can see how having the ability to visualize problems could be beneficial for survival. A hunter or warrior for example might be more successful if he or she were to visualize the hunt or the battle, rehearsing it in their mind so as to prepare. In modern times the hunt and the battle are more cerebral, but it can still apply to someone preparing to give a lecture or navigate a set of roads from point A to point B.

But is that visualization necessary? You mentioned hearing a piece of music in your head, novel and fully composed - I forget the artist now, but it's one of my favorites - anyway, there wasn't any conscious effort on your part - it just played out - a case of automatic composition if you could have awoken and written it down, so p-consciousness, phenomenal consciousness had nothing to do with it ... combine this with the idea, if true, that these things are all composed before hand - that it's a VR simulation that you sit back and watch, then why not conserve the neurons and not run the movie? A zombie would run leaner and possibly faster, at least according to some interpretations of Libet's experiments, skip the time to assemble the experience and you respond <finger snap> that much faster ... and maybe that will be the case for whatever it is that succeeds us ...

 

[Randall]

*SIGH* what's wrong with the formulation of the question ... ?

It's not a matter of right or wrongness. I'm not prone to making assumptions and I don't follow every nuance of what other people are saying in the discussion, so it's possible I miss context from time to time, and that means when there's more than one way to look at a question, I can't be sure I'm answering it in a meaningful way. I sort of explained the two contexts at the end. I may have added that part after the initial post. I often do that. I probably should privately preview before posting, but I tend to live review and edit instead. It should be fairly obvious from that, but if you still need me to clarify, or think that I don't get the question you are trying to ask, I'm listening.

 

[Randall]

But is that visualization necessary? You mentioned hearing a piece of music in your head, novel and fully composed - I forget the artist now, but it's one of my favorites - anyway, there wasn't any conscious effort on your part - it just played out - a case of automatic composition if you could have awoken and written it down, so p-consciousness, phenomenal consciousness had nothing to do with it ... combine this with the idea, if true, that these things are all composed before hand - that it's a VR simulation that you sit back and watch, then why not conserve the neurons and not run the movie? A zombie would run leaner and possibly faster, at least according to some interpretations of Libet's experiments, skip the time to assemble the experience and you respond <finger snap> that much faster ... and maybe that will be the case for whatever it is that succeeds us ...

Interesting response. I think you are correct in one sense. However at the same time we cannot dismiss that the experience also happens and that without that experience in place we have no subjective object upon which to gaze and feel for one reason or another is aesthetically pleasing or not ( that the color red is preferable to yellow ). So there is the aspect that only conscious experience can serve the purpose of giving the "OK signal" back to the physical brain for this process. This is again analogous to the way we use some magnetic fields as filters. So this implies that the structure of consciousness correlates directly to specific parts of the brain, some responsible for the decisions it will make in the future ( that again, at that moment, we're still not aware of ).

 

[Constance]

and then there are cases of sleepwalking etc, where there might not be any p-consciousness or where it might not match up with the complex behavior of the person at the time ...

Hmm, it seems to me you bring up a very interesting question with sleepwalking. I don't know much about it (except that my ex was a sleep-walker in his childhood), but if it's true that sleepwalkers are actually asleep and move about with their eyes closed, how is that they don't walk into walls or fall down staircases? They might have no phenomenal consciousness while asleep, but they certainly have memories of the environment/structure they live in when awake. {And remembered phenomenal experience in the world certainly plays a part in dreamiing.} But can memory of the structure of the building where one sleeps actually guide the sleepwalker who moves about with no visual input concerning his or her location? I think I'll look into sleepwalking research.

I think that, in general, phenomenal experience is 'that without which nothing significant can happen'. We don't know what would be possible in terms of experience, reflection, and thought for a human being we placed in an isolated vat at birth and left sealed away from all phenomenal or emotional contact with the world thereafter. My guess is very little except misery if it is indeed the case that we and other animals come into the world with in built tendencies to establish contact with the world and significant others in it.

 

[Constance]

[to Ufology] But is that visualization necessary? You mentioned hearing a piece of music in your head, novel and fully composed - I forget the artist now, but it's one of my favorites - anyway, there wasn't any conscious effort on your part - it just played out - a case of automatic composition if you could have awoken and written it down, so p-consciousness, phenomenal consciousness had nothing to do with it ...

New music comes from older music, farther and farther back in our species heritage, and the earliest human music was born out of -- and a response to -- the natural songs and rhythms encountered in the environment. Birds taught us how to sing.

 

[Randall]

@ufology
Let me make a pre-emptive move here ... as I anticipate you will want to say my last several posts have been ad hominem - and I won't say they 100% aren't! But where they are it's intended in a good natured but fed-up kind of way ;-)

I would never have guessed.

I am clearly critiquing your arguments AND your style of arguing and I am downright calling for an explanation of your tagging @Constance - because that looks exactly like what you asked me not to do ... so I do want to know the difference.

Sorry but I don't recall making any specific requests not to tag Constance. I may have made a comment after @Constance put me on ignore, that it might have been a good idea for a while, not because I was trying to be discourteous, but because she was exhibiting frustration with my participation that she was finding distracting. I think she called it "suffocating". But that doesn't mean that I'm ignoring her. I still think she is great to have here, even if her viewpoint is different, or even more aptly, because her viewpoint is different.

I like differences, and I also believe in common courtesy, which is when someone's discussion includes a mention of someone else, it's polite to let them know. So my use is analogous to a CC: because I think she should be aware when I comment about her or make a reference to her so that out of fairness, she has the opportunity to respond if she so desires.

I also seem to be back off her ignore list, and I really hope this doesn't land me back there because we seem to be doing good now. I used the expression "in Constance's camp" recently not as any slight, but as recognition of her stake in the discussion. I think you explained your usage similarly, which ended up being fine with me, but there's a time when it's cool and a time when it's not. I'm confident that you understand the difference, and I'm glad you take the time to hash these tricky tricksterish situations out before they get too confounding.

What I am NOT doing is saying you are a bad person so you shouldn't be listened to - that's my understanding of ad hominem.

I'm thankful that because I do have a great deal of respect for you here.

I've made several posts now that challenge your position on the interpretation of the scientific evidence of free will ... of a "it's not that simple" kind and calling for a broader and more nuanced discussion on free will - my basic principle is preference for "what will open up the discussion" over "what shuts it down. So I would like to see a response to that. On the Searle article, I am calling for more than a "quick glance" - if you don't have time for more than that, it's unlikely your comments will be relevant.

That's OK with me. If my "quick glance" didn't detect an issue that is core to the problem, or interpret it accurately, then consider my comment as not being relevant. I do however find it a bit ironic that we touched on these issues back in 2013 and that it's only now you guys are finding them really relevant to the discussion. Maybe a little panning for the nuggets rather than examining every grain of sand might actually open up the discussion for you faster. In the meantime I have a lot of other things to do besides read paper after paper word for word, and then post up my comments about it all on top of that too.

You've also continued to maintain there is no evidence for other views - for example non-locality of consciousness or some kind of dualism in the "psi" sense - despite being offered an opportunity (over a long period of time) to engage the evidence that is there. And I don't maintain that that evidence confirms any particular view, but I do maintain it's evidence of a quality sufficient to receive a thorough look. I'm not particularly interested in it myself but I could be - one thing we have spent curiously little time on in a thread entitled "Consciousness and the Paranormal" is the exceptional cases ... that's one of the first places a curious mind should look ... but not doing so is a feature of our current attitude, not the original spirit of science. That said, I would love the opportunity (with you or anyone else) to sit down and truly engage the research that has been conducted, in detail. I did so by myself for some time a while back, long enough to convince me it's worth the effort and intelligence required. So ... in Arkansas parlance, it's a "put up or shut up" situation ... which goes for me to and is why I don't say much about it most of the time on the thread.

Please allow me to clarify. I rarely say "there is no evidence" unless it's in a very casual social context, or in some other specific context that supports that claim. What I typically say is something like, "There's no substantial evidence to support that claim" or "I've seen no substantial evidence to support that claim." And when I say that, it's because I've looked at the evidence a poster offers, and from that, and my usual process of cross referencing and analysis, have drawn that conclusion. I don't offhandedly dismiss claims, so the reasons are probably there someplace in the discussion, if not the wider forum. If you would like a specific answer to a specific issue, by all means bring it up and I'll respond to it as my time permits.

Finally I would note that you tend to rely mostly on a kind of logical analysis and your current store of information rather than other approaches, such as researching a subject to see how it's already been investigated - a method that is beginning to show its limits ... ;-)

I rely on existing information in memory, personal experience, information that is presented here ( which isn't always new to me ), cross referencing of the claims made in that information, other information that I come across in that process, and the logical analysis of all that in the context of the issues at hand in the discussion. Again, I'm not going to go through and cite every book, paper, video, and lecture in every sentence. However if there is a point of contention with respect to a specific point or view, then I'm open to having a look at the information that would render that point or view false or inapplicable. No problem.

Lastly, if it's just my style of participation that is bothering you, then I would submit for your consideration, that it's not my intent to get on anyone's nerves, and that my content is of a quality that, although admittedly not up to academic standards of excellence ( if you want that you'll have to pay ), is above par for the average Internet forum participant. When I'm not being serious, it's obvious, but I do take the topics under discussion seriously and attempt to provide something relevant, if not for you, then maybe someone else who might stumble upon it. If that's not good enough for you, I'm open to specific suggestions for improvement, but can't make any promises, especially if it means spending even more time on this than I already do.

 

[Randall]

Hmm, it seems to me you bring up a very interesting question with sleepwalking. I don't know much about it (except that my ex was a sleep-walker in his childhood), but if it's true that sleepwalkers are actually asleep and move about with their eyes closed, how is that they don't walk into walls or fall down staircases? They might have no phenomenal consciousness while asleep, but they certainly have memories of the environment/structure they live in when awake. {And remembered phenomenal experience in the world certainly plays a part in dreamiing.} But can memory of the structure of the building where one sleeps actually guide the sleepwalker who moves about with no visual input concerning his or her location? I think I'll look into sleepwalking research.

I think that, in general, phenomenal experience is 'that without which nothing significant can happen'. We don't know what would be possible in terms of experience, reflection, and thought for a human being we placed in an isolated vat at birth and left sealed away from all phenomenal or emotional contact with the world thereafter. My guess is very little except misery if it is indeed the case that we and other animals come into the world with in built tendencies to establish contact with the world and significant others in it.

When you look up somnambulism it seems that it's classed as a sort of quasi-conscious state ( "low-consciousness" ), so some limited consciousness is in play.

 

[smcder]

I would never have guessed.

Sorry but I don't recall making any specific requests not to tag Constance. I may have made a comment after @Constance put me on ignore, that it might have been a good idea for a while, not because I was trying to be discourteous, but because she was exhibiting frustration with my participation that she was finding distracting. I think she called it "suffocating". But that doesn't mean that I'm ignoring her. I still think she is great to have here, even if her viewpoint is different, or even more aptly, because her viewpoint is different.

I like differences, and I also believe in common courtesy, which is when someone's discussion includes a mention of someone else, it's polite to let them know. So my use is analogous to a CC: because I think she should be aware when I comment about her or make a reference to her so that out of fairness, she has the opportunity to respond if she so desires.

I also seem to be back off her ignore list, and I really hope this doesn't land me back there because we seem to be doing good now. I used the expression "in Constance's camp" recently not as any slight, but as recognition of her stake in the discussion. I think you explained your usage similarly, which ended up being fine with me, but there's a time when it's cool and a time when it's not. I'm confident that you understand the difference, and I'm glad you take the time to hash these tricky tricksterish situations out before they get too confounding.

I'm thankful that because I do have a great deal of respect for you here.

That's OK with me. If my "quick glance" didn't detect an issue that is core to the problem, or interpret it accurately, then consider my comment as not being relevant. I do however find it a bit ironic that we touched on these issues back in 2013 and that it's only now you guys are finding them really relevant to the discussion. Maybe a little panning for the nuggets rather than examining every grain of sand might actually open up the discussion for you faster. In the meantime I have a lot of other things to do besides read paper after paper word for word, and then post up my comments about it all on top of that too.

Please allow me to clarify. I rarely say "there is no evidence" unless it's in a very casual social context, or in some other specific context that supports that claim. What I typically say is something like, "There's no substantial evidence to support that claim" or "I've seen no substantial evidence to support that claim." And when I say that, it's because I've looked at the evidence a poster offers, and from that, and my usual process of cross referencing and analysis, have drawn that conclusion. I don't offhandedly dismiss claims, so the reasons are probably there someplace in the discussion, if not the wider forum. If you would like a specific answer to a specific issue, by all means bring it up and I'll respond to it as my time permits.

I rely on existing information in memory, personal experience, information that is presented here ( which isn't always new to me ), cross referencing of the claims made in that information, other information that I come across in that process, and the logical analysis of all that in the context of the issues at hand in the discussion. Again, I'm not going to go through and cite every book, paper, video, and lecture in every sentence. However if there is a point of contention with respect to a specific point or view, then I'm open to having a look at the information that would render that point or view false or inapplicable. No problem.

Lastly, if it's just my style of participation that is bothering you, then I would submit for your consideration, that it's not my intent to get on anyone's nerves, and that my content is of a quality that, although admittedly not up to academic standards of excellence, is above par for the average Internet forum participant. When I'm not being serious, it's obvious, but I do take the topics under discussion seriously and attempt to provide something relevant, if not for you, then maybe someone else who might stumble upon it. If that's not good enough for you, I'm open to specific suggestions for improvement, but can't make any promises, especially if it means spending even more time on this than I already do.

No, it was me tagging you that seemed to upset you - it looks to me like you did the same thing in addressing @Constance, so I am trying to figure out the difference in the two situations. A few pages back I had posted:

... I think the thing @ufology didn't understand about causal exclusion (and may have since cleared up - I'm not caught up on the thread yet) is it doesn't mean one cause per effect, it means once you have sufficient cause (in total) then additional cause is a case of over-determination ... so a physicalist says all the causes are physical, one of the effects is the mental, the phenomenal feel ... what it is like ... etc but the mental is not itself a cause because we can explain all the behaviors with physical effects ...

and you replied:

If you have something to say about me, please try addressing me directly rather than putting words in my mouth and assuming I don't comprehend something.

And I pointed out that I did address you by using @ufology ... and I also responded to your other concerns.

So when you posted:

On the other hand, if you're in @Constance's camp where you believe that consciousness and the brain are two independent systems ( both can exist independent of the existence of the other ), then it becomes easier to assume that consciousness controls what the brain does in terms of decision making, and that in-turn makes it easier to believe in the common notion of free will ( and some related paranormal phenomena ).

... and here you are clearly putting words in her mouth (and see posts above where I asked her if this was a correct representation of her beliefs and she said "no") you defend this by saying you used @Constance as a kind of "cc" - so what is the difference in my usage and yours? She had already responded to you by that time in a way that indicated you were no longer on her "ignore" list - but even if you didn't realize that, the rule I would have drawn from your response:

If you have something to say about me, please try addressing me directly rather than putting words in my mouth and assuming I don't comprehend something.

Would be the same whether you had me on "ignore" or not and which I have tried to do since that time ... which is to put my comments in a form that clearly addresses you directly ... so why didn't you do this in addressing @Constance? or simply omit her name and say:

On the other hand, if you are in the camp where you believe ... ?

Help me distinguish the two cases, please.

 

[Randall]

No, it was me tagging you that seemed to upset you - it looks to me like you did the same thing in addressing @Constance, so I am trying to figure out the difference in the two situations. A few pages back I had posted:

... I think the thing @ufology didn't understand about causal exclusion (and may have since cleared up - I'm not caught up on the thread yet) is it doesn't mean one cause per effect, it means once you have sufficient cause (in total) then additional cause is a case of over-determination ... so a physicalist says all the causes are physical, one of the effects is the mental, the phenomenal feel ... what it is like ... etc but the mental is not itself a cause because we can explain all the behaviors with physical effects ...

and you replied:

If you have something to say about me, please try addressing me directly rather than putting words in my mouth and assuming I don't comprehend something.

And I pointed out that I did address you by using @ufology ... and I also responded to your other concerns.

So when you posted:

On the other hand, if you're in @Constance's camp where you believe that consciousness and the brain are two independent systems ( both can exist independent of the existence of the other ), then it becomes easier to assume that consciousness controls what the brain does in terms of decision making, and that in-turn makes it easier to believe in the common notion of free will ( and some related paranormal phenomena ).

... and here you are clearly putting words in her mouth (and see posts above where I asked her if this was a correct representation of her beliefs and she said "no") you defend this by saying you used @Constance as a kind of "cc" - so what is the difference in my usage and yours? She had already responded to you by that time in a way that indicated you were no longer on her "ignore" list - but even if you didn't realize that, the rule I would have drawn from your response:

If you have something to say about me, please try addressing me directly rather than putting words in my mouth and assuming I don't comprehend something.

Would be the same whether you had me on "ignore" or not and which I have tried to do since that time ... which is to put my comments in a form that clearly addresses you directly ... so why didn't you do this in addressing @Constance? or simply omit her name and say:

On the other hand, if you are in the camp where you believe ... ?

Help me distinguish the two cases, please.

Just read on in that post. It should clear that up for you. But to add clarity using your example, the key distinction is the part you quoted me saying:

"rather than putting words in my mouth and assuming I don't comprehend something".​

That situation, and tagging someone out of courtesy are two entirely different contexts. For example, out of respect for you, I wouldn't say @smcder thinks this or that and just doesn't get it. I would post directly to you including a quote from something you said, state a position, and ask you to clarify.

 

[smcder]

When you look up somnambulism it seems that it's classed as a sort of quasi-conscious state ( "low-consciousness" ), so some limited consciousness is in play.

Verified by fMRI? What information do we have about sleep walkers? How reliable would their own testimony be, after they wake up? I will look to see if any studies have been done.

But this still doesn't address my other question about p-consciousness matching up with the behavior of the person ... the somnambulist, as I said, might, in his or her quasi-conscious state, be dreaming of blue velveeta as he strangles his wife to death - so what's the moral responsibility there? and if so, by breaking p-consciousness off - what moral responsibility anywhere?

(by p consciousness I mean specifically not just the inner movie you are watching - but also the "what it is like" - that bit specifically doesn't need to be there in any of the examples, the hunter/warrior can run his movie without there being anything that it is like to be him or her specifically, individually (@Pharoah) - visualization is enough, then the whole thing can finish the rinse cycle from there ... right?)

the point being to try and find cases where p and a consciousness might diverge. The overall goal being to think about if p-consciousness plays an essential role ... I can't think of a way of proving directly that p-consciousness has no function, so I am looking indirectly to see if every function we assume it does play can also occur in its absence - again, that doesn't mean it doesn't have a function but it tells us where not to look ...

We get into circular arguments about the value of experience if for example we say that pain motivates us to learn or being in love motivates us to mate and protect, etc because clearly we have all of that from the wiring - the hormones crank up the intensity or the pain sends very strong signals and the organism learns - so of what use is the actual suffering (or joy) involved? Another loop of cirularity is that the pain signals, coming first, have to do additional work by playing a role in creating an experience of pain for us to learn from - arguably a waste of resources and time consuming, when the organism could just go ahead and learn ... and surely it's that way for the simplest organisms that respond quite well and learn what they need to without much or anthing in the way of experience and which got us to where we are now, presumably - so theres not an essential story of pain there.

At least that's how I see the problem of explaining the evolution of experience.

What am I missing?

 

[smcder]

Just read on in that post. It should clear that up for you. But to add clarity using your example, the key distinction is the part you quoted me saying:

"rather than putting words in my mouth and assuming I don't comprehend something".​

That situation, and tagging someone out of courtesy are two entirely different contexts. For example, out of respect for you, I wouldn't say @smcder thinks this or that and just doesn't get it. I would post directly to you including a quote from something you said, state a position, and ask you to clarify.

I didn't say just didn't get it - I said I think and I also noted it may have been cleared up by now ... but I do see the distinction ... I figured you would see the @ufology and could respond as you needed to (which you did!)... I could have easily said some people and everyone would still have known I meant you, but I wanted you to see that specifically ...

But here:

On the other hand, if you're in @Constance's camp where you believe that consciousness and the brain are two independent systems ( both can exist independent of the existence of the other ), then it becomes easier to assume that consciousness controls what the brain does in terms of decision making, and that in-turn makes it easier to believe in the common notion of free will ( and some related paranormal phenomena ).

You say what those in @Constance's camp think (and therefore what @Constance thinks) but ... that's not what @Constance thinks (again, see where I asked her that and she said no) ... you did not post directly to @Constance, include a quote from something she said, state a position and ask her to clarify. So I don't see a big difference ...

If you want to sift the sand further, I propose a new thread entitled:

Forum Courtesy and the Paranormal

 

[smcder]

Interesting response. I think you are correct in one sense. However at the same time we cannot dismiss that the experience also happens and that without that experience in place we have no subjective object upon which to gaze and feel for one reason or another is aesthetically pleasing or not ( that the color red is preferable to yellow ). So there is the aspect that only conscious experience can serve the purpose of giving the "OK signal" back to the physical brain for this process. This is again analogous to the way we use some magnetic fields as filters. So this implies that the structure of consciousness correlates directly to specific parts of the brain, some responsible for the decisions it will make in the future ( that again, at that moment, we're still not aware of ).

But isn't that a-consciousness? We may not be able to accept zombies but I think we can imagine a neural network that makes such judgements and gets feedback on its choices, rinse and repeat and produces something according to a set of principles - we could do that without giving it feedback from our aesthetic sense ... after all, we didn't get such feedback, we had to bootstrap up out of the mire ... so where did our aesthetic sense come from ... and what I am talking about is p-consciousness, that there is something it is like to have an aesthetic experience, which some argue is separable from a-consciousness which makes these judgements - so I could say that experience (p-consciousness) is along for the ride and watches the painting emerge according to aesthetic principles learned and implemented by a-consciousness but itself does nothing to affect its development. I need to go back to your post about the surf board and the post about VR simulations ...