Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 5

[Constance]

@ufology wrote: "If I recall correctly, some time back, I asked everyone if they believed consciousness requires a functioning brain, and she was the only one at that time who answered "No." Logically that is the same as believing that: "... consciousness and the brain are two independent systems ( both can exist independent of the existence of the other ) ..." I

If I recall correctly, some time back, I asked everyone if they believed consciousness requires a functioning brain, and she was the only one at that time who answered "No." Logically that is the same as believing that: "... consciousness and the brain are two independent systems ( both can exist independent of the existence of the other ) ..."

Only by the 'lights' of your reductive 'logic', which is limited by presuppositions based in ignoring a significant and irreducible range of human experiences your logic refuses to entertain, much less investigate..

 

[smcder]

While I appreciate the entertainment value of the purple prose Burnt introduced into the thread {it's like the bites of 'Coming Attractions' we watch preliminary to seeing the film we came to see}, I'd prefer that we get back to the issues Steve brought forward at the beginning of today's thread, first citing Catherine Malabu (sp?) -- to that series of posts by Steve and also his linking back to a very productive discussion in Part 2. That would be my preference, but I'm only one consciousness participating here.

The kind of thinking Malabou did is what attracted me to philosophy in the first place. Zizek! is up to it as well. It's thinking about things - this is what I meant when I said something about just doing the hard work, we have methods and tools and we especially have history - the thing about history being cyclical is we can look pretty much exactly at what people did in our position last time around - the shock to us today is to discover that there have been people in our position - that there has been a last time around. One of the dangers in not taking history seriously is to think "it's different this time around".

So to my mind Malabou has asked some questions that should concern all of us - and points up one of the main critiques of science, in my mind, which is how and by whom it is being done ... not to mention why.

 

[Randall]

First, as I said, I do see your point ...

Great. That's all that matters.

but, again, my intent in using @ufology was to draw your attention to the remark so you could respond if you felt like it and you did.

Well you got my attention to the remark alright, and since you also got my point, next time you make a remark like that, you'll be sure to address it to me rather than someone else ... LOL. It's no more big a deal than that, I didn't detect any malice aforethought on your part. I'm not angry. We're still cool ( I hope ). Let's move on.

Anyway ... back to your rule, now I am really lost ... because from what I can see, this post continues to break that very rule! At this point, shouldn't you at least directly address @Constance above and ask her? or instead use a generic @username for the example?

The examples aren't the same. I'm neither stating nor implying any judgement about @Constance's ability to comprehend the discussion or anything else about her personality or ability. Nor am I saying anything that could be interpreted in any such manner. I'm not making any value judgements ( implied or otherwise ) about her. Rather I described a situation that puts her in a particular "camp" in a very generic sense that fit with the answer she gave to a specific question she was asked, and out of courtesy to her, included a tag for her. There's no hypocrisy here, if that's what you've been trying to imply.

When I checked with @Constance if it was an accurate portrayal, she said "no" and you have still made no response to that, no attempt to ask her what an accurate portrayal would be and correct your statement accordingly.

I stated the reasoning behind my comment and you can probably verify that for yourself. So if either you or Constance care to explain how the two positions can be reconciled. I'm listening.

Anyway, if you can write a paragraph and give me an example that will get my attention ;-) and have it on my desk Monday morning by 8, I will consider adopting the rule more generally (as it is I will apply it in all interactions with you - and you can call me on any violations) otherwise, unless asked to follow a different protocol by other forum members, I will continue to simply use @username.

Sure that's fine. We've already wrote an essay worth here. Sheesh ... Let's move along.

 

[Constance]

Does this point to the inevitable ouroboros nature of the thread?

No it doesn't.

 

[smcder]

Great. That's all that matters.

Well you got my attention to the remark alright, and since you also got my point, next time you make a remark like that, you'll be sure to address it to me rather than someone else ... LOL. It's no more big a deal than that, I didn't detect any malice aforethought on your part. I'm not angry. We're still cool ( I hope ). Let's move on.

The examples aren't the same. I'm neither stating nor implying any judgement about @Constance's ability to comprehend the discussion or anything else about her personality or ability. Nor am I saying anything that could be interpreted in any such manner. I'm not making any value judgements ( implied or otherwise ) about her. Rather I described a situation that puts her in a particular "camp" in a very generic sense that fit with the answer she gave to a specific question she was asked, and out of courtesy to her, included a tag for her. There's no hypocrisy here, if that's what you've been trying to imply.

I stated the reasoning behind my comment and you can probably verify that for yourself. So if either you or Constance care to explain how the two positions can be reconciled. I'm listening.

Sure that's fine. We've already wrote an essay worth here. Sheesh ... Let's move along.

Got to have the last word, doncha? ;-)

Since this is the crux of the matter:

I'm neither stating nor implying any judgement about @usernames ability to comprehend the discussion or anything else about their personality or ability ...

and since I didn't imply any judgement about your @ufology's ability to comprehend the discussion or anything else about your personality or ability ...

then the two examples are the same

 

[smcder]

@Constance

What was the discussion in part two you wanted to see continued?

 

[Randall]

Only by the 'lights' of your reductive 'logic', which is limited by presuppositions based in ignoring a significant and irreducible range of human experiences your logic refuses to entertain, much less investigate..

Hi Constance. Glad we're speaking again ... I think ... LOL. You've made some really great comments lately and I hope we can continue on in that spirit. I'll take it that your comment above is just a friendly gibe to encourage me not to be dismissive of the ideas you present. As always, you can be assured that when I do make a comment, it has followed at least some study and reflection, and that I'm not being dismissive. I value your participation here and am glad you stayed.

I also think a number of our views are actually much more aligned than might be presumed, and I feel better about that. I don't recall your exact words, but you mentioned that you believe consciousness is something that is part of the natural universe ( in the larger sense ), and I took that as being opposed to something supernatural. If that's true then between that and a number of other points you've made, there are only a few differences of opinion with respect to a couple of key issues. We both know what those issues are, so no need to recap them. Looking forward to more of your participation and insight.

 

[Constance]

@Constance

What was the discussion in part two you wanted to see continued?

The one you linked by way of linking back to a reference in Part 2 to a reference Michael Allen offered today re his and someone else's reading of Heidegger and the AI situation.

I've continued reading several pages of the thread beyond the post you linked and just came across a post by @Soupie that I think might guide us in the present discussion here in Part 5. I'll reflect on it a moment and then post it.

 

[Constance]

This is the post in Part 2 that your link landed on, an excellent post by you and a productive discussion following it:

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

 

[Randall]

Got to have the last word, doncha? ;-)

It seems I'm prone to that for sure. I'm wondering who isn't? I'm pretty sure it's a normal response to issues that cause cognitive dissonance.

Since this is the crux of the matter:
I'm neither stating nor implying any judgement about @usernames ability to comprehend the discussion or anything else about their personality or ability ...

Although you may think that telling someone else you don't think I understand something doesn't imply any judgement about my comprehension, the fact is that the words themselves do, and that position ( intended or not ) might even be true. I don't always understand everything. But that's not the problem. I wouldn't stand next to you at a meeting and tell the guy across from us I don't think you understand something. Please have the same consideration is all I'm asking.

 

[smcder]

The solution to the technology problem is wiser choices where the use of the technology is concerned. As an example, I would say that a wiser choice for nuclear energy would have been to restrict its R & D to a few remote locations until the safety issues had been resolved, preferably by the advancement of the research into successful fusion based systems. Now with all the commercial nuclear waste and Fukushima still spewing radioactive contamination, we've long past exceeded in damage any benefit the risks of using it may have had.

Of course that all leads us to ask, who's to decide what the wiser choice is? We all tend to think that we as individuals know what's better than the next person. Make me world dictator for a decade, and assuming I live through it, I'll change the world and it will be a wonderful place! If only it were just that simple. Ultimately I think the only possible solution is for our species to outgrow what Sagan called our Technological Adolescence. As our species grows older, hopefully it will grow wiser and at some point all the bozos who got us into this mess will all have passed on, leaving capable wise people in charge of the cleanup and management. Or maybe all the really smart wise people will build an interstellar craft and take off for some other world where they don't have to put up with all the bozos. Either way, as unlikely as it may be, I'd like to live long enough to see that day.

Do you have any thoughts on (wait ... look at who I'm asking ;-) ... on Stephen Hawking's warnings re: AI ... or some of the groups that have gotten together to look at AI issues like letting AI make firing decisions in warfare ... etc? I linked to something like that recently in the review of Malabou's book - an organization to get together to ask what kind of neuroscience do we want?

I tend to be pessimistic - because it seems that whatever we can do, we do ... in fact someone on the forum has quoted a line, maybe by Heinlein, about justification - something to the effect that if you can do a thing, that's the only moral justification you need ... I'll see if I can find that post, it was on a transhumanist thread I think. It sounds suspiciously like something from chaos magick or Crowley's dictum do what you will shall be the whole of the law ... ie substitute do what you can ... and the curious way we have of doing things we know better than to do (like my engagement in my little I'm right, you're wrong dialogue - above)

 

[Burnt State]

I'd say we are past due for our turn at burial and discovery - woe, woe I say unto us if we take ourselves in our current senescence out into the stars! Better to leave our rocket ships on top of the mound to be discovered by a more barbaric and healthier civilization, nicht wahr? ;-)

 

[Constance]

This is the post in Part 2 that your link landed on, an excellent post by you and a productive discussion following it:

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

That post of yours is number 1336 in Part 2. The post of @Soupie's I wanted to call attention to is numbered 1356. That whole section is worth rereading at this point, so I recommend that all involved here at present review it.

 

[Constance]

And the next post following Soupie's 1356 is this one by you, Steve:

"Light comes into your eyes, sound comes into your ears - stick your finger in a socket, you feel something, stick a wire into a nerve in your shoulder you feel something, change the input enough and it will feel "like" your real arm did ... where's the new information?

Take a pencil and run it along a smooth surface ... now run it along a rough surface ... "where" do you feel the surface, at the tip of the pencil?

Homo something or other became a cyborg the moment he did this:

 

[smcder]

It seems I'm prone to that for sure. I'm wondering who isn't? I'm pretty sure it's a normal response to issues that cause cognitive dissonance.

Although you may think that telling someone else you don't think I understand something doesn't imply any judgement about my comprehension, the fact is that the words themselves do, and that position ( intended or not ) might even be true. I don't always understand everything. But that's not the problem. I wouldn't stand next to you at a meeting and tell the guy across from us I don't think you understand something. Please have the same consideration is all I'm asking.

And I have, I do and I will (the same consideration) - is all I'm saying - so it appears there's also a judgement from your words that I would be the kind of person who would do that ... right?

This is what's been so fascinating to me about this exchange - how it's possible to move bit by bit in to the crux of it, which for me (and that's all that matters ;-) is that you see now that your words too could be saying the exact thing you say my words may be saying ... and look again, another loop has just formed - right at the top where you are now saying I don't understand something about how my words could imply something ... that's actually pretty nice to see that happening in vivo ... to see ourourorobos takes time out to bite us both on the ego. I could use this dialog in a short story, I think ... to further the Adventures of Al Dente, The Case of the Ouroboros.

And let's look at the extent of the sin, considered in the worst possible light:

@ufology ... oh boy, that @ufology - he just doesn't resonate with a specific formulation of the hard problem, now what does that say about his intellect and character?

In a final irony, I tuned in to a dhamma talk this afternoon while cutting the grass, one I'd heard before but what do you the title was ... ? Yes ... I'm right, you're wrong. I like the teacher because he has such an infectious laugh.

Dharma Seed - Achaan Sumedho's Dharma Talks

If you haven't listened to a dharma (dhamma) talk ... they are very interesting. I heard the first when I lived in Dallas. The interesting thing is that there are these long, reflective pauses and they aren't organized point by point like a lecture ... and they aren't for a set length, instead one point flows into the next, when there's a natural break there may be a long silence until the next words come or the talk ends ... as I said it's very much like the concept of free will you describe because you realize the teacher is hearing the talk at the same time you are (which is true of any speech - they are just more aware of it- try it sometime, try and figure out what it is you are going to say before it comes out and then compare it to what does)

 

[smcder]

This is the post in Part 2 that your link landed on, an excellent post by you and a productive discussion following it:

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

OK I am headed there now.

 

[Constance]

"Homo something or other became a cyborg the moment he did this."

Let's talk about that proposition, which followed from what Soupie was arguing and Steve entertained at that point. Who can believe that proposition at this point, and why (on what basis)?

That's a real, not a rhetorical, question, btw. Looking forward to any declared positions at this point.

 

[smcder]

This is the post in Part 2 that your link landed on, an excellent post by you and a productive discussion following it:

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 2

@Pharoah may want in on this too ... the discussion of Emergence and it specifically looks at his example of ants.

 

[Constance]

Ufology wrote:

"Although you may think that telling someone else you don't think I understand something doesn't imply any judgement about my comprehension, the fact is that the words themselves do, and that position ( intended or not ) might even be true. I don't always understand everything. But that's not the problem. I wouldn't stand next to you at a meeting and tell the guy across from us I don't think you understand something. Please have the same consideration is all I'm asking."

FFS, can you just let it go and allow the rest of us to get on with the subject of the discussion? All of us have felt dismissed or misunderstood in on-line discussions. Get over it.

There's something else, something obvious, in your verbal behavior that clogs up discussions in this thread. It's what Steve had in mind when he said, approximately, that 'you've always got to be right'. I should probably have let this addendum go, because now you'll most likely engage yourself in further self-defensiveness and irrelevant self-aggrandizement. Let's see if you can resist and step your ego aside for awhile.

 

[Constance]

@Pharoah may want in on this too ... the discussion of Emergence and it specifically looks at his example of ants.

Yes, @Pharoah provided a long post there that clarified the line of his thinking and its eventuation in his HCT theory. We should take all this up again.