Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 7

[Soupie]

The lived world of experienced reality takes place in the actual world as partially described in the physical sciences and partially known to all of us on the basis of our existence in it.

The above is compatable with MUI theory.

You are now asking the question that has most perplexed the physical and human sciences, i.e., how life itself emerges.

No. The emergence of life and the emergence of consciousness are not the same. Phenomenologists and neurophenomenologists may hypothesize that consciousness emerged with life, but it remains a hypothesis. There are others who argue it emerged earlier, those who argue it emerged later with more complex life (and neurons), and those that argue that consciousness does not emerge at all, that it is a fundamental aspect of Being.

Only hypotheses are on the table to date. Hoffman's 'Conscious Realism' does not seem to me to produce "a viable model of how feeling might emerge from non-feeling matter." I see that this latter question (the hard problem in simplified, primordially biological, terms) besets you. I can only suggest that you try to live with the problem while interdisciplinary researchers attempt to resolve it.

No. On Hoffman's approach, feeling does not emerge from non-feeling matter, rather matter emerges from feeling/awareness/consciousness.

 

[Soupie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html

Galen Strawson, Russelian Monism, and the New York Times.

 

[boomerang]

Pickover is an interesting guy - are you familiar with his question:

If an alien comes to you and asks:

"What is the most important question we can ask humanity and what is the best possible answer you can give?"

Naturally, I googled this and I think Pickover's answer is worth posting.

"....the safest reply is, "You have just asked the most important question you can ask humanity, and I'm giving you the best possible answer."

 

[Constance]

The above is compatable with MUI theory.

I don't think so. Let's agree to disagree.

No. The emergence of life and the emergence of consciousness are not the same. Phenomenologists and neurophenomenologists may hypothesize that consciousness emerged with life, but it remains a hypothesis. There are others who argue it emerged earlier, those who argue it emerged later with more complex life (and neurons), and those that argue that consciousness does not emerge at all, that it is a fundamental aspect of Being.

You're correct that those other hypotheses also do exist. Let's just leave them all on the table, then, for anyone who wants to pick one of them up. As WS wrote, "They'll get it right one day at the Sorbonne."

No. On Hoffman's approach, feeling does not emerge from non-feeling matter, rather matter emerges from feeling/awareness/consciousness.

It's not clear what statement of mine the above response refers back to. Why don't we just give up on this particular dialogue since we're not communicating very well?

 

[Randall]

The first few pages of the Hoffman paper would be a good overview for you.

What makes you think that?

 

[smcder]

What makes you think that?

intuition

this one that @Constance just posted is good too:

What ‘Science of Consciousness’? A Phenomenological Take on Naturalizing the Mind [1]

 

[smcder]

Claiming that "The whole universe of science" is one thing or another is a rather sweeping statement. Therefore it can probably be either disproven or rendered meaningless other than as an expression of MP's personal attitude, which will have more meaning for some people than others. In this case, there are plenty of examples where science involves experiments that cannot be directly experienced.

A simple and often misunderstood example is wave-particle duality and the double slit experiment. Certain purveyors of quantum woo try to prop up their belief that the experiment demonstrates that consciousness changes the outcome of the experiment, when in actual fact consciousness has nothing to do with it. The photons are not being directly experienced, and are often fired from inside a sealed chamber where they cannot be observed even we had the capacity to physically detect single photons.

There are many more examples in which the primary means of detection in scientific experiments is not a "direct experience" if for no other reason than because it would be impossible to do so. One might counter that the results still must be "directly experienced" in order to study them. However that argument renders the point meaningless because virtually all our "experiences" are "directly experienced", including our reflections on MP's philosophy. Therefore in the context of MP's claim, singling out science serves no useful purpose other than to convey his personal attitude about science.

MP's claim also implies that science is no more or less objective than our direct experience, which is not supportable. A simple machine detector may be prone to malfunctions and anomalous readings, but it is not prone to the biases humans impart on their "direct experience". So let's forget the idea that, “The whole universe of science is built upon the world as directly experienced." It's not, and even when direct experience forms part of the process, the aim is to factor bias into the experiment as accurately as possible so as to differentiate the objective results from personal bias.

All that being said, I am still a huge advocate for the validity of firsthand experience, and regardless of whatever some skeptic might try to claim, there is no question that it forms a significant part of the scientific method. When it comes to the paranormal, it seems more like the problems are in how such experiences are interpreted rather than whether or not some people are actually having such experiences.

Can you relate what you mean by "firsthand experience" to the epoché / "reduction"(s) of phenomenology?

 

[Constance]

Can you relate what you mean by "firsthand experience" to the epoché / "reduction"(s) of phenomenology?

Is this a question for me or @Soupie ?

ETA: just realized that you were responding to a post by @ufology that I hadn't seen.

 

[Randall]

intuition

LOL, perhaps you were onto something:

Quote: "Others rather blame the empirical neurosciences for notoriously confusing the so-called “ hard problem of consciousness”, that is, the subjectivity of conscious experience with the so-called 'easy' ..."​

Seems almost like another lifetime ago .

 

[Randall]

If I might ask:

• What has the purpose of this thread become for those who are participating?
• Has it changed since the thread was first started?
• What are the greatest insights gained from participating for each participant?

 

[smcder]

Is this a question for me or @Soupie ?

ETA: just realized that you were responding to a post by @ufology that I hadn't seen.

Yes ma'am - it was a question for Ufology.

 

[smcder]

Indeed "most interesting and accessible ... where they intersect." You go on to write:

"There is also the issue of practice - in phenomenology there is the epoche' and the phenomenological reduction but this is different than the purposes and goals of meditation as I understand them in Buddhism and Western contemplative traditions. I know very little about the Platonic and the Stoic traditions of contemplation - more about Christian mysticism - a very rich and largely forgotten history and there is also the work of Arthur Zajonc and others in Western contemplative traditions as applied to science, contemporary work ... this comes I believe from Rudolf Steiner and brings us into the Western esoteric tradition - also a fascinating area we've not discussed in a long time.

At one time I had a PDF for:
The Western Esoteric Traditions: A Historical Introduction


so it may be available and is a good overview."

Steve, this is one of many book references you've provided that I've meant to follow up on and haven't. If you can relocate a pdf of the text, please post the link. The illustration/artwork used in the cover of this book visually expresses the transcendental nature of mind as emergent from phenomenological experience in and of the world as consciousness encounters and reflects on it. I've come across this illustration numerous times in the past and can't remember (if I ever knew) its source or creator. The name Flammarion bubbles up from some semiconscious source. Anyone know?



That history has been, as Heidegger expressed it, the history of "the forgetfulness of being" -- of the 'be-ing' of radically temporal consciousness recognized as 'being-there' in an asymmetrical relationship with, and within, nature.


This paper might serve as a beginning guide to our thinking about the development of phenomenological philosophy from Kantian transcendental philosophy and the major differences marked in that development, beginning with the author’s critique of the vague notions regarding 'transcendence' among analytical philosophers such as Davidson:


The Transcendental Significance of Phenomenology

Stephen L. White


http://www.theassc.org/files/assc/2669.pdf

I will see if I can find a copy of the PDF for you.

Spent the day re-reading the introduction of Being and Time. Second reading was very productive - I hope to start re-reading the main text, section 1, think I will look for another commentary than Dreyfus -

 

[Soupie]

If I might ask:

• What has the purpose of this thread become for those who are participating?
• Has it changed since the thread was first started?
• What are the greatest insights gained from participating for each participant?

(1) To learn about and discuss approaches to the mind-body problem. To discuss how these various approaches might change the way we think about other domains.

For example, panpsychism is one approach to the MBP. If panpsychism is true, what does that mean for physics, biology, psychology, ufology, or the paranormal?

(2) Oh, yes. When I first began participating in this discussion, I approached the problem of consciousness as an epistemic problem. That is, just like any other problem/question we have in physics. I now recognize—thanks to @smcder—that in order to fully explain consciousness, we will need to resolve the MBP and all that is entails.

(3) When I began participating in this discussion, I had a sense that the mind was not made of physical matter like, say, a table. I conceived of the mind as a dynamic pattern created by the brain. But again thanks to Smcder, I was introduced to the problems of substance monism/dualism, emergence, mental causation, mind-body interaction, free will, direct realism, etc.

I wouldn't call them insights, but the two biggest concepts that I've learned about, I suppose, would be the MBP and the Kantian idea of noumena and phenomena. (I thank @Michael Allen for drawing out the power of this concept for me, although I know both Smcder and @Constance had addressed it as well.)

I think those two concepts/problems are also super interesting to think about in terms of UFOs and the paranormal.

I haven't talked too much about how consciousness relates to the paranormal phenomena mostly due to the fact that I don't have a grip on how consciousness relates to the brain, let alone paranormal phenomena.

 

[smcder]

Functional neuroanatomy of meditation: A review and meta-analysis of 78 functional neuroimaging investigations

Premonitions: A Global Online Statistical Tracking Study of Precognitive Predictions

 

[boomerang]

I toss another pebble into these deep waters. Hopefully a ripple will rock a leaf or two.

Heinlein quipped that anything not proven by math is opinion, not fact. I think this is at least partially true. A long held personal criticism of biological evolution by virtue of random mutation and natural selection has nothing to do with religious belief, but rather a seeming lack of functional algorithms demonstrating statistical feasibility. (Or do they exist? Dunno...) That is probably another discussion for polymaths wielding complex algorithms.

Beyond attempts to mathematically quantify qualia in terms of collapsing wave functions and other esoterica, Hoffman's efforts in turning the mind's relation to physical law on its head using CR emphasizes the wide chasm between philosophy and science. Any hope of solving the hard problem must lie in a more cross-fertilized approach. Three thousand years of philosophy has failed to make a dent in the Hard Problem. Neuroscience is doing a little better, but not much. So Hoffman is due his 15 minutes of fame and peer review by those versed in quantum mechanics and the higher mathematics used to describe it. This is a small club that may or may not yet be looking at his work. It is interesting to note that this club may be small precisely because widespread comprehension of QM is the victim of non-Faithful Depiction. Most people simply do not have the neural hardware. That his work is almost verbally ineffable may or may not be a weakness or smokescreen in terms of its validity. The predictive power of QM should prompt us to give him at least some benefit of the doubt.

The history of physicist turned mystic Brian Josephson's discovery of the Josephson junction is an excellent example of how conventional sanity may fail larger truth. The JJ simply should not work. Some of the best minds in physics predicted it would not. But it does. The story is a kind of cautionary tale for those placing too much stock in good sense.

-Hoffman is asked in Q & A after a lecture if he sees evidence of humans evolving to better model reality for truth as opposed to survival value. His opinion is that he sees, if anything, a retrogressive trend and a slight reduction in human brain size over the previous 30,000 years.

-He is asked if iconic spiritual seers throughout history may have been notable exceptions to the principle of "Faithful Deception". I find his answer intriguing: Possibly, but that perception and cognitive understanding are not synonymous. We therefore cannot say.

Some of what has been discussed here in terms of HFD and human evolution, seen in light of recent technological advances in human history, produce puzzle pieces that may fit. The fossil record is one of long lapses punctuated by relatively short bursts of "progress", characterized by appearance of new species. I honestly don't know if "punctuated equilibrium" is currently in vogue. Suffice to say the fossil record is oddly non-linear.

Consider now evidence that H sapiens may be approaching one such point of punctuation brought about by its modeling of reality that has rendered itself dangerously obsolete.

a) We are overpopulating our planet and altering its ecosphere in ways not conducive to our long term survival.
b) We have, since 1945, possessed weapons capable of rendering ourselves extinct.

As a species perhaps our brains lack a modeling format that, despite our best intentions, is capable of resolving these problems. The next logical step is not tough: We/nature may either re-configure our perceptual mechanisms in a way that allows us to survive by seeing reality at least a bit closer to a larger truth. Or lacking this, we run the risk of stagnation or complete extinction.

 

[Randall]

Can you relate what you mean by "firsthand experience" to the epoché / "reduction"(s) of phenomenology?

I made no comment about how firsthand experience relates to the epoché / "reduction"(s) of phenomenology. Perhaps this will help:

My comment was in the context of MP's claim about science: "The whole universe of science is built upon the world as directly experienced ...".

I used "directly experienced" to address that point, and I used the phrase "firsthand experience" in a synonymous manner because the philosophical issue of what it means to "directly experience" something isn't relevant to the context of what science is "built on". A cornerstone of what science is built on is the scientific method, which relies heavily on empirical evidence, which is evidence that is gained by observation or experimentation. In this context, observation is as close to "direct experience" as science can get.

 

[Randall]

(1) To learn about and discuss approaches to the mind-body problem. To discuss how these various approaches might change the way we think about other domains.

For example, panpsychism is one approach to the MBP. If panpsychism is true, what does that mean for physics, biology, psychology, ufology, or the paranormal?

(2) Oh, yes. When I first began participating in this discussion, I approached the problem of consciousness as an epistemic problem. That is, just like any other problem/question we have in physics. I now recognize—thanks to @smcder—that in order to fully explain consciousness, we will need to resolve the MBP and all that is entails.

(3) When I began participating in this discussion, I had a sense that the mind was not made of physical matter like, say, a table. I conceived of the mind as a dynamic pattern created by the brain. But again thanks to Smcder, I was introduced to the problems of substance monism/dualism, emergence, mental causation, mind-body interaction, free will, direct realism, etc.

I wouldn't call them insights, but the two biggest concepts that I've learned about, I suppose, would be the MBP and the Kantian idea of noumena and phenomena. (I thank @Michael Allen for drawing out the power of this concept for me, although I know both Smcder and @Constance had addressed it as well.)

I think those two concepts/problems are also super interesting to think about in terms of UFOs and the paranormal.

I haven't talked too much about how consciousness relates to the paranormal phenomena mostly due to the fact that I don't have a grip on how consciousness relates to the brain, let alone paranormal phenomena.

Thanks for your reply . At this point I'm finding that it's more interesting for me to know why people are searching for answers than learning to perform verbal acrobatics with philosophical jargon. I also really like that you've kept your focus on applying the concepts discussed here to paranormal phenomena and possibly even UFOs.

For me personally, I remain of the view that the MBP is more of a semantics problem than a real problem. By that I mean that I'm personally satisfied that the mind of any living individual is a product of their brain-body system and that it is as physical in nature as other non-material phenomena produced by the body, such as electromagnetic fields. So in this sense, physical is not synonymous with material, e.g. the brain material is as physical in nature as the EM fields of the brain, and consciousness seems to be intimately associated with the existence of both. But it is important to note that this isn't the same as saying that consciousness = brain matter + EMF.

Like Chalmers, I'm more with the train of thought that consciousness is physically similar, and equally fundamental, and while dependent on the material brain and possibly even the EM fields it produces, is not identical in the same way that magnetism is not identical to wire, a metal core, and electricity, yet they are all related in such a way that each has an effect on the other. How this relates to our focus on the paranormal has been mentioned in the past when we have touched on the work of Persinger, who demonstrates that exposing the brain to EM fields can cause us to experience things very similar to paranormal experiences.

 

[Soupie]

I toss another pebble into these deep waters. Hopefully a ripple will rock a leaf or two.

Heinlein quipped that anything not proven by math is opinion, not fact. I think this is at least partially true. A long held personal criticism of biological evolution by virtue of random mutation and natural selection has nothing to do with religious belief, but rather a seeming lack of functional algorithms demonstrating statistical feasibility. (Or do they exist? Dunno...) That is probably another discussion for polymaths wielding complex algorithms.

Beyond attempts to mathematically quantify qualia in terms of collapsing wave functions and other esoterica, Hoffman's efforts in turning the mind's relation to physical law on its head using CR emphasizes the wide chasm between philosophy and science. Any hope of solving the hard problem must lie in a more cross-fertilized approach. Three thousand years of philosophy has failed to make a dent in the Hard Problem. Neuroscience is doing a little better, but not much. So Hoffman is due his 15 minutes of fame and peer review by those versed in quantum mechanics and the higher mathematics used to describe it. This is a small club that may or may not yet be looking at his work. It is interesting to note that this club may be small precisely because widespread comprehension of QM is the victim of non-Faithful Depiction. Most people simply do not have the neural hardware. That his work is almost verbally ineffable may or may not be a weakness or smokescreen in terms of its validity. The predictive power of QM should prompt us to give him at least some benefit of the doubt.

The history of physicist turned mystic Brian Josephson's discovery of the Josephson junction is an excellent example of how conventional sanity may fail larger truth. The JJ simply should not work. Some of the best minds in physics predicted it would not. But it does. The story is a kind of cautionary tale for those placing too much stock in good sense.

-Hoffman is asked in Q & A after a lecture if he sees evidence of humans evolving to better model reality for truth as opposed to survival value. His opinion is that he sees, if anything, a retrogressive trend and a slight reduction in human brain size over the previous 30,000 years.

-He is asked if iconic spiritual seers throughout history may have been notable exceptions to the principle of "Faithful Deception". I find his answer intriguing: Possibly, but that perception and cognitive understanding are not synonymous. We therefore cannot say.

Some of what has been discussed here in terms of HFD and human evolution, seen in light of recent technological advances in human history, produce puzzle pieces that may fit. The fossil record is one of long lapses punctuated by relatively short bursts of "progress", characterized by appearance of new species. I honestly don't know if "punctuated equilibrium" is currently in vogue. Suffice to say the fossil record is oddly non-linear.

Consider now evidence that H sapiens may be approaching one such point of punctuation brought about by its modeling of reality that has rendered itself dangerously obsolete.

a) We are overpopulating our planet and altering its ecosphere in ways not conducive to our long term survival.
b) We have, since 1945, possessed weapons capable of rendering ourselves extinct.

As a species perhaps our brains lack a modeling format that, despite our best intentions, is capable of resolving these problems. The next logical step is not tough: We/nature may either re-configure our perceptual mechanisms in a way that allows us to survive by seeing reality at least a bit closer to a larger truth. Or lacking this, we run the risk of stagnation or complete extinction.

Do you have a link to the presentation you refer to in the above? I'd be curious to see it.

Here is one in which he defines what a Conscious Agent is:

One of the things he notes is that is he making some very bold hypothesis in as precise of terms as possible so as to allow others to clearly refute the hypothesis. In other words, he is not delusional about the fact that this hypothesis is radical.

This hypothesis does hinge on the concept that evolution proceeds via natural selection that has no direction (i.e. Evolution is not moving toward truth or perfection etc.)

@smcder has discussed an alternative model via Nagel that there may be a teleology to evolution, i.e. A direction toward truth or whatever.

My question is what impact of any would this have on Hoffman's thesis of non-faithful depiction?

There are countless species on earth and if we assume many of them are conscious like humans, then it follows that they will perceive and conceive of what-is (the noumenal) in species-specific ways. Whether evolution has a direction or is indeed random, does the HFD hold?

I don't see that it does but would love to be corrected.

 

[Soupie]

Like Chalmers, I'm more with the train of thought that consciousness is physically similar, and equally fundamental, and while dependent on the material brain and possibly even the EM fields it produces, is not identical in the same way that magnetism is not identical to wire, a metal core, and electricity, yet they are all related in such a way that each has an effect on the other.

I don't think above view mirrors Chalmers view. To say that (1) consciousness is fundamental and (2) that it is dependent on the brain is a contradiction.

One could argue that consciousness is fundamental and that it is shaped into a mind via the brain, but that's not what you are arguing.

And as has been noted several times, any similarities between magnetic fields and phenomenal consciousness (i.e. experience of colors, smells, sounds, textures, etc) is weak at best.

There are simply no objective, 3rd person processes that are similar to subjective, 1st person experience.

 

[Soupie]

Here an excellent expanding mind podcast which touches on many of the themes we've discussed here:

Expanding Mind – Dharma and Drugs – 05.12.16

A talk with Buddhist scholar Douglas Osto about perennialism, experiential narratives, the limits of reason, and his new book Altered States: Buddhism and Psychedelic Spirituality (University of Columbia Press)

One concept touched on in particular the author referee to as aporia.

He used this term in reference to the apparent fact that all experience is inevitably filtered through our concepts. It's unavoidable. So when we have an experience and reflect on it, we inescapably shape that experience with our (human) concepts.

And of course, one of the, ehem, concepts I've been playing with (and Michael Allen and Hoffman have stretched even further) is the aporia that arises from the dialectal between the noumenal and perception of the noumenal (phenomena).

So the aporia that arises between the phenomenal and the conceptual is preceded by the aporia that arises between what-is and our perception of what-is, no?

@Burnt State