Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 5

[Randall]

Please apply critical thinking ASAP and straighten this all out! ;-) I've got me a lot of reading to do ...

I've got it straightened out as far as I need it to be, the rest at this point seems to be incidental.

 

[smcder]

I repeat myself, but with variation - my thinking is epicyclic

The why my BBS works - I think of HCT as a IATOE

IA idiosyncratic/autodiactic - which means it comes outside the academy and formal lines of education/thinking there's good and bad there, because it is an opportunity for a unique viewpoint and opportunity to miss something fundamental

ToE theory of everything - which means it claims to have at least an extraordinary breadth of explanatory power - it offers to revision the world

It seems to me then that we can say something about ToEs in relation to theories that fit within the existing paradigm, we dont want to ask too much or too little of them - but they all seem to have in common a kind of underlying deep idea (usually an extant idea) that offers to explain more than that idea has in the standard theory of things ... so as far as I understand it now, HCT looks to equilibrium for a more than tautological role - there was something like this not to long ago where life was theorized to be an effectice means of retaining thermodynamic equillibrium and therefore the theorist predicted life to be abundant - so one thing I will keep in mind is what additional role, outside of its current place as a kind of fundamental concept across many fields, does equilibirum hold for HCT?

 

[smcder]

What you say is true... that genome alone might not be enough... that herein lies a flaw in the argument.
It is not really though.
The point still applies that whatever the plant has through its physiology and its workings with environment: that stands in as enough for it to survive and perpetuate its species. That EDNA (+ whatever) is the knowledge that corresponds with environment. And that knowledge is instituted by physiologies pertaining only to this species. There may well be environmental triggers to gene expression but this does not disarm the argument about knowledge and its (non-conceptual/non-belief) construction.

right I'm thinking of that, but there is a small crack still in either my understanding or ... will have to work toward it, might just be a glint in my own eye - not daylight coming through

the other issue though is that species, organisms are arbitrary classifications - this is also in the Dupre interview, I think -

but this also goes back to our discussion about the worlds fittest man - if there is a flaw in EDNA's knowledge, as there will be, surely, then the world we reconstruct (if we can) will be the world for which EDNA is pefectly adapted which will not be the world as it exists even in EDNA's prime ... just as our theories, our knowledge doesnt reflect reality 100% if or how that comes in as a critique, i dont know - will keep going


why are my comments going to be different from most others?

 

[smcder]

I've got it straightened out as far as I need it to be, the rest at this point seems to be incidental.

lol

 

[Pharoah]

Right.

Right.

OK now we're drilling into the heart of the issue. When you say, "... neurology might facilitate this ... ", it implies that none of the currently known material components and objectively measurable phenomena of the brain-body system ( BBS ) are consciousness, but rather act as "facilitators". On that we seem to be in a general agreement, and it leads naturally to a question something like this: OK then, if we look at the BBS as a facilitator, then what is being facilitated? Answer: It's facilitating the translation of objective reality into conscious awareness of that reality ( subjective reality ). However that's still not the same as consciousness itself.

In other words, the BBS as facilitator is only acting as a go between, and while that role is true, it isn't really the core of the issue. Instead I tend to fall into Searle's camp on this when I say that consciousness is a natural part of the BBS in its waking state. In other words, when whatever mechanisms are engaged within the BBS that are responsible for causing the emergence of consciousness, then consciousness is the result and it becomes part of the unified BBS as a physical entity. So there is then only the entity, and it's environment, rather than the environment, an entity, and this "other thing" we call consciousness.

Notice however that this view doesn't negate the particular type of duality which accepts that mental phenomena and material existence are two separate realities, e.g. a subjective visualization in our mind of an object vs. the objectively real material version of that object. The old labels "objective" and "subjective" still apply.

@ufology:
"Answer: It's facilitating the translation of objective reality into conscious awareness of that reality ( subjective reality ). However that's still not the same as consciousness itself."
"conscious awareness" is a fuzzy term. In my understanding of it, conscious awareness is what humans have, but not animals. You may be using the term differently.
On my account, creatures with as few as 100,000 neurons may be conscious of the phenomenal qualitative nature of experience: they have a subjective reality. But that subjectivity is not the same as the human introspective experience. Humans are aware of being conscious of the phenomenal qualitative nature of experience: they recognise (unlike other animals) an objective/subjective distinction, and in that recognition, recognise their 'self' as part of an objective world from the view-point of a subjective world-view.
Another fuzzy bit... are you talking about conscious awareness as being the distinction between awake vs not awake?...
So... I am not sure where you are coming from...

 

[Constance]

if there is a flaw in EDNA's knowledge, as there will be, surely, then the world we reconstruct (if we can) will be the world for which EDNA is pefectly adapted which will not be the world as it exists even in EDNA's prime ... just as our theories, our knowledge doesnt reflect reality 100% if or how that comes in as a critique, i dont know - will keep going

Are you thinking that we will "reconstruct the world" by replacing ourselves with AI? Mess around with nature's interior machinery until we no longer have to deal with individual conscious beings, or if we do, ones that will be able to eat plastic? I know you've been attracted to that meme in the past, but I'm never able to put that together with your explorations of Eastern philosophy and efforts to catch your own vivid dreams. Thus you are mysterious.

 

[smcder]

In your view 'representation' gets in between the organism and its experience in its environment to the extent that you cannot recognize the directness of the organism's lived reality in response to that which it encounters in the environment. This the palpable guts of the issue between informational neuroscience and phenomenological neuroscience. The issue Steve has been pursuing today seems to be mired in confusion about the difference between these two distinct approaches to the experiential roots of consciousness.

It is not either/or -- either that every organism beginning with the first single-celled organism as studied by Maturana and Varela is a mechanism whose activities are entirely shaped and directed by a matrix of abstract, numerical 'information' that requires no contact with the actual physical environment to enable the organism to seek, find, and survive in its situation, or that the organism entirely lacks orientation in its life provided by informational constructs within itself in its environment. It is both.

As I read Pharoah, he is working toward a philosophical recognition that both neuroscience and phenomenology are required to reach a fuller understanding of what consciousness is. As we have seen, phenomenologists working in consciousness studies have already moved toward interdisciplinary investigations with neuroscience and constructed a field of investigation they refer to as neurophenomenology. Some neuroscientists, including Panksepp and several other biologists and ethologists cited in past sections of this thread {and some neuroscientists as well}, apply phenomenology in their thinking and in their experimentation concerning protoconsciousness and consciousness. They represent a break from the attempt by biologists for several decades to ape physics in their own fields of expertise, one of the first solid signs that a paradigm shift is underway.

Can you help me to understand this?

The issue Steve has been pursuing today seems to be mired in confusion about the difference between these two distinct approaches to the experiential roots of consciousness.

What I am trying to do initially and I've probably posted up too many of my thinking out loud thoughts today, is to just put in my own words, section by section, the paper on HCT that Pharoah has posted. Along the way I am looking for problems, challenges and inconsistencies, just as they come up - but the main thing is to be able to put it in my own words back to Pharoah so that he can say yes thats it - I am looking for kind of understanding you would need to teach a subject ...

 

[smcder]

In your view 'representation' gets in between the organism and its experience in its environment to the extent that you cannot recognize the directness of the organism's lived reality in response to that which it encounters in the environment. This the palpable guts of the issue between informational neuroscience and phenomenological neuroscience. The issue Steve has been pursuing today seems to be mired in confusion about the difference between these two distinct approaches to the experiential roots of consciousness.

It is not either/or -- either that every organism beginning with the first single-celled organism as studied by Maturana and Varela is a mechanism whose activities are entirely shaped and directed by a matrix of abstract, numerical 'information' that requires no contact with the actual physical environment to enable the organism to seek, find, and survive in its situation, or that the organism entirely lacks orientation in its life provided by informational constructs within itself in its environment. It is both.

As I read Pharoah, he is working toward a philosophical recognition that both neuroscience and phenomenology are required to reach a fuller understanding of what consciousness is. As we have seen, phenomenologists working in consciousness studies have already moved toward interdisciplinary investigations with neuroscience and constructed a field of investigation they refer to as neurophenomenology. Some neuroscientists, including Panksepp and several other biologists and ethologists cited in past sections of this thread {and some neuroscientists as well}, apply phenomenology in their thinking and in their experimentation concerning protoconsciousness and consciousness. They represent a break from the attempt by biologists for several decades to ape physics in their own fields of expertise, one of the first solid signs that a paradigm shift is underway.

As I read Pharoah, he is working toward a philosophical recognition that both neuroscience and phenomenology are required to reach a fuller understanding of what consciousness is. As we have seen, phenomenologists working in consciousness studies have already moved toward interdisciplinary investigations with neuroscience and constructed a field of investigation they refer to as neurophenomenology. Some neuroscientists, including Panksepp and several other biologists and ethologists cited in past sections of this thread {and some neuroscientists as well}, apply phenomenology in their thinking and in their experimentation concerning protoconsciousness and consciousness. They represent a break from the attempt by biologists for several decades to ape physics in their own fields of expertise, one of the first solid signs that a paradigm shift is underway.

@Pharoah is this a correct reading? If so, it will be helpful to me to understand this.

 

[Pharoah]

right I'm thinking of that, but there is a small crack still in either my understanding or ... will have to work toward it, might just be a glint in my own eye - not daylight coming through

the other issue though is that species, organisms are arbitrary classifications - this is also in the Dupre interview, I think -

but this also goes back to our discussion about the worlds fittest man - if there is a flaw in EDNA's knowledge, as there will be, surely, then the world we reconstruct (if we can) will be the world for which EDNA is pefectly adapted which will not be the world as it exists even in EDNA's prime ... just as our theories, our knowledge doesnt reflect reality 100% if or how that comes in as a critique, i dont know - will keep going
why are my comments going to be different from most others?

@smcder :
"the world we reconstruct (if we can) will be the world for which EDNA is pefectly adapted which will not be the world as it exists"
Yes. In fact, the world as it is has killed her and all other species on the planet. There is a correspondence between all levels of knowledge and reality. That correspondence is justified but never completely.
Very interesting line of thought.

Your comments may be the same, but they will reflect your particular bias in thought about the ideas as they come up.

 

[smcder]

Are you thinking that we will "reconstruct the world" by replacing ourselves with AI? Mess around with nature's interior machinery until we no longer have to deal with individual conscious beings, or if we do, ones that will be able to eat plastic? I know you've been attracted to that meme in the past, but I'm never able to put that together with your explorations of Eastern philosophy and efforts to catch your own vivid dreams. Thus you are mysterious.

I've been repelled by that meme - my father had that kind of thinking when I was gorwing up - but I don't follow this line of thought from my comment, my comment was based on @Pharoah's idea that we could reconstruct EDNAs world (including unlight, gravitation, etc) from EDNAs DNA only ... I said IF that were true (see above for my questions about that from epigenetics, etc) IF that were true, we would, according to I think the same logic, that we would reconstruct a world that was a reflection of that genome's current attempt to adapt to that world - so its own "vision" of that world so to speak ... but no, I personally dont think its plausible that you can even reconstruct an organism from knowldge of its genes apart from knowledge of its envrionment (and other things) but @Pharoah says that isnt necessary to this argument - but I am still wondering if it might be ...

 

[smcder]

@smcder :
"the world we reconstruct (if we can) will be the world for which EDNA is pefectly adapted which will not be the world as it exists"
Yes. In fact, the world as it is has killed her and all other species on the planet. There is a correspondence between all levels of knowledge and reality. That correspondence is justified but never completely.
Very interesting line of thought.

Your comments may be the same, but they will reflect your particular bias in thought about the ideas as they come up.

then each commentator will be the same and I will be no more different from any other commentator than they are from one another

 

[smcder]

@Pharoah

It is not possible to preempt the questions and answer them at the point they get asked in the text, without destroying the flow of the argument. And your questions are going to be often different to any other commentators.

Why not just say everybody will have different questions if thats what you mean?

 

[Pharoah]

As I read Pharoah, he is working toward a philosophical recognition that both neuroscience and phenomenology are required to reach a fuller understanding of what consciousness is. As we have seen, phenomenologists working in consciousness studies have already moved toward interdisciplinary investigations with neuroscience and constructed a field of investigation they refer to as neurophenomenology. Some neuroscientists, including Panksepp and several other biologists and ethologists cited in past sections of this thread {and some neuroscientists as well}, apply phenomenology in their thinking and in their experimentation concerning protoconsciousness and consciousness. They represent a break from the attempt by biologists for several decades to ape physics in their own fields of expertise, one of the first solid signs that a paradigm shift is underway.

@Pharoah is this a correct reading? If so, it will be helpful to me to understand this.

@smcder I am interested in how Constance interprets things because they come from a very different knowledge base. I can't say that "I am working toward..." these things intentionally. I am prepared to accept that such links could arise by accident, but I am ignorant of the connections about which Constance is speaking. I wouldn't disagree with the sentiment, but it is not a direction that I am intentionally pursuing

 

[Pharoah]

@Pharoah

It is not possible to preempt the questions and answer them at the point they get asked in the text, without destroying the flow of the argument. And your questions are going to be often different to any other commentators.

Why not just say everybody will have different questions if thats what you mean?

lol. That would be far too straightforward

 

[smcder]

lol. That would be far too straightforward

that is almost not funny ... ;-)

 

[smcder]

I may try re-writing the next section in my own words, that would be a stronger confirmation that I "get it" if I do - a kind of inside knowledge ... that may be hard as, once you get something, once something is put spot on, coming up with a different way of putting it can be tough but if you can it should mean you understand it well - again, like a teacher who has to teach to different ways of understanding ...

 

[Constance]

@smcder I am interested in how Constance interprets things because they come from a very different knowledge base. I can't say that "I am working toward..." these things intentionally. I am prepared to accept that such links could arise by accident, but I am ignorant of the connections about which Constance is speaking. I wouldn't disagree with the sentiment, but it is not a direction that I am intentionally pursuing

I have yet to read your most recent version of the paper (though I did read your responses to the referee's reports not long ago). My impression in two earlier versions I read was that the latter of the two seemed to take some account of prereflective consciousness in animals. I think I commented on that at the time, also presenting the argument that prereflective consciousness is always already absorbing and developing 'meaning' {understanding that 'makes sense' of experience} before reflective consciousness is developed (and that the latter is not necessarily an exclusive capacity of humans). In understanding animal consciousness, but also human prereflective consciousness in young children, we need to become aware, to the maximum extent possible, of what the being is aware of -- the aspects and components of the physical, cultural, and interpersonal environment to which the being responds and adapts before reflective consciousness eventually develops and issues from what is known and lived prereflectively.

 

[Pharoah]

I have yet to read your most recent version of the paper (though I did read your responses to the referee's reports not long ago). My impression in two earlier versions I read was that the latter of the two seemed to take some account of prereflective consciousness in animals. I think I commented on that at the time, also presenting the argument that prereflective consciousness is always already absorbing and developing 'meaning' {understanding that 'makes sense' of experience} before reflective consciousness is developed (and that the latter is not necessarily an exclusive capacity of humans). In understanding animal consciousness, but also human prereflective consciousness in young children, we need to become aware, to the maximum extent possible, of what the being is aware of -- the aspects and components of the physical, cultural, and interpersonal environment to which the being responds and adapts before reflective consciousness eventually develops and issues from what is known and lived prereflectively.

yes. This makes sense to me

 

[smcder]

Are you thinking that we will "reconstruct the world" by replacing ourselves with AI? Mess around with nature's interior machinery until we no longer have to deal with individual conscious beings, or if we do, ones that will be able to eat plastic? I know you've been attracted to that meme in the past, but I'm never able to put that together with your explorations of Eastern philosophy and efforts to catch your own vivid dreams. Thus you are mysterious.

@ufology asked for a 500 word report on his desk by 8am on the theme "what I believe" by smcder ... its been very challenging to think about - but @pharaoh may have given me a way to think about it that shows EDNA and I may have something in common ... I'll see if it makes any sense or is worth sharing

 

[Constance]

That should be a challenge. I guess you've chosen to accept that impossible mission. I always wondered why the spies in that television program never declined the missions described to them, even though the last line of the mission outline specified "should you choose to accept it."