Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 8

[Constance]

Conscious Realism is a non-physicalist monism.

Idealism is "idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial."

So is CR an Idealist position?

Are you referring to Donald Hoffman's 'conscious realism'? That is, are there other forms of 'CR' than Hoffman's? My impression from what @Soupie has written here is that he takes the idea of 'conscious realism' from Hoffman. In Hoffman's case, it does seem that CR is a form of idealism, but a mechanized form apparently dependent on Hoffman's belief that the 'world' (and human ideas about the 'world') are the output of a matrix-like computational entity or force {?} which produces only illusions of 'reality' in human consciousnesses that are no more real than the things humans think they encounter. This characterization is only what I've been able to surmise so far from what @Soupie has said here about CR and might not represent what he has intended to c0mmunicate.

 

[Constance]

"For Idealists and Phenomenalists, perception is an awareness of mind-dependent objects or events.4 Idealists take perceived objects to be ontologically dependent on being perceived (esse est percipi)."

Sorry, but I have to ask for the source of that quote.

 

[smcder]

Sorry, but I have to ask for the source of that quote.

I added it above. Pierre Le Morvan "Arguments Against Direct Realism and How To Counter Them"

 

[smcder]

Are you referring to Donald Hoffman's 'conscious realism'? That is, are there other forms of 'CR' than Hoffman's? My impression from what @Soupie has written here is that he takes the idea of 'conscious realism' from Hoffman. In Hoffman's case, it does seem that CR is a form of idealism, but a mechanized form apparently dependent on Hoffman's belief that the 'world' (and human ideas about the 'world') are the output of a matrix-like computational entity or force {?} which produces only illusions of 'reality' in human consciousnesses that are no more real than the things humans think they encounter. This characterization is only what I've been able to surmise so far from what @Soupie has said here about CR and might not represent what he has intended to c0mmunicate.

I'm not sure either. I think he said recently that the version by Kafatos and Theise was more to his liking.

So we have for @Soupie

1. Conscious Realism
2. Neutral Monism

Is that correct?

 

[Constance]

I'm not sure either. I think he said recently that the version by Kafatos and Theise was more to his liking.

I'm remembering now that @Soupie linked us a few weeks ago to a YT video in which Theise perhaps used the term 'conscious realism'. I asked for a paper instead and it might be that the following is what Soupie linked:

Fundamental awareness: A framework for integrating science, philosophy and metaphysics

I'm going to read that paper as a whole, which I don't think I did at the time.



Here is the link to a Sceptiko forum concerning Hoffman's interface theory of perception that I am reading now:

Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception


I like this by Bernardo Kastrup (linked in the skeptico forum on Hoffman's 'conscious realism'):

Bernardo Kastrup's Metaphysical Speculations: Our future sanity

 

[smcder]

Neutral Monism

"In the philosophy of mind, neutral monism is the view that the mental and the physical are two ways of organizing or describing the same elements, which are themselves "neutral", that is, neither physical nor mental. This view denies that the mental and the physical are two fundamentally different things."

Non-dual Conscious Realism

I've not found a brief statement but we've read Kafatos & Theise:

Non-Dual Conscious Realism ~ Neil Theise | Science and Nonduality

"We propose a generalized theory of “Non-Dual Conscious Realism” addressing the fundamental issue of consciousness. This theoretical framework posits the universing arising from an undifferentiated, non-dual field of pure conscious awareness. From within this universal consciousness emanate the complementary phenomena of Planck scale quantum vacuum and quantum foam, generating space and time, matter and energy."

I'm not sure if this is neutral monism or not ...

"Through successive, recursive, creative interactions, phenomena and entities at each level of scale self-organize into emergent phenomena and entities at each next higher scale, comprising the entire cosmos." ... the primacy of non-dual conscious awareness is then re-asserted and a distinction made from emergentist/materialist positions.

 

[smcder]

More things we know:

Strawson argues that real, realistic physicalism entails panpsychism.

1. Materialists hold that every concrete phenomenon is wholly physical or material.

2. Realistic materialists are realists about consciousness (not the same as conscious realism)

3. Therefore a realistic materialist holds that consciousness is a physical phenomenon.

This means that some arrangements of matter are conscious or constitute consciousness.

Then if all matter is made of the same stuff, then all matter can be arranged in a consciousness-constituting way.

Arguing that you cannot get consciousness from non-consciousness, realistic materialists would claim that no matter can be ultimately non-conscious.

Thus any serious materialist must be a panpsychist.

 

[smcder]

I'm remembering now that @Soupie linked us a few weeks ago to a YT video in which Theise perhaps used the term 'conscious realism'. I asked for a paper instead and it might be that the following is what Soupie linked:

Fundamental awareness: A framework for integrating science, philosophy and metaphysics

I'm going to read that paper as a whole, which I don't think I did at the time.



Here is the link to a Sceptiko forum concerning Hoffman's interface theory of perception that I am reading now:

Consciousness and The Interface Theory of Perception


I like this by Bernardo Kastrup (linked in the skeptico forum on Hoffman's 'conscious realism'):

Bernardo Kastrup's Metaphysical Speculations: Our future sanity

I remember reading the Kafatos-Theise paper, I'll review it too.

 

[smcder]

Kastrup

"notion that reality is a kind of shared, compound thought is called idealism ... the notion that reality exists 'out there,' independently of our minds, is called realism."

Kastrup claims that idealism is a more sceptical, parsimonious, and cautious worldview.

 

[smcder]

Strawson noted that "anyone can call themselves anything" meaning can claim any philosophical position ... and Strawson, I like that he pulls us back to some sense of tradition ... but some of these ideas seem to go beyond easy categorization ... bu it also makes sense to continue to check our own/others thinking for consistency ... so the tightrope walk maybe should be a little uneasy

 

[Constance]

Here's a paper linked on about page 5 of the Sceptico forum discussion. The forum itself provides some long extracts from a number of Hoffman's papers over the last decade. The more I read by Hoffman, the more I think he is probably certifiable. Perhaps this linked paper provides some enlightenment (though I have got to say that the more I read of and about DH's speculations, the less interested I become in reading more):

Reverse engineering the world: a commentary on Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash, “The interface theory of perception”

 

[Constance]

Strawson noted that "anyone can call themselves anything" meaning can claim any philosophical position ... and Strawson, I like that he pulls us back to some sense of tradition ... but some of these ideas seem to go beyond easy categorization ... bu it also makes sense to continue to check our own/others thinking for consistency ... so the tightrope walk maybe should be a little uneasy

I admire your open-mindedness. I hope you can find some consistency in Hoffman and translate it for me.

 

[Constance]

My impression is that 'conscious realism' is a misnomer for what Hoffman has to offer. Is there any writing of his in which he articulates what he means by 'conscious realism' in terms that ordinary mortals can understand?

ETA: I have far less trouble following what Theise writes in the paper you linked a few posts ago, where he too uses the term 'conscious realism'. I wonder what Kafatos would say about Hoffman's metaphysics.

 

[smcder]

I admire your open-mindedness. I hope you can find some consistency in Hoffman and translate it for me.

I'm not so sure ...

I do think Kafatos & Theise know their history and have developed their thinking within known contexts (the 3 domains and the various principle) and then are working to go beyond it or to bring it together (which makes me think of the esoteric tradition) and so the project is accessible to me in this way.

It seems the views on QM in consciousness studies (generally) are crucial but may also be a vulnerability as there are interpretations on which consciousness does not play a role? But I know very little about this.

 

[Constance]

Toward the end of page 5 of the sceptiko discussion a new member named PorpoiseSeeker enters the forum and posts this:

"I think the importance of Hoffman's work is his model of the universe as comprised entirely of Conscious Agents. To me, he is a pioneer in applying a scientific approach to understanding consciousness as fundamental rather than epiphenomenal of matter in motion. He is bold, claiming that (if correct) he will derive Quantum Theory, Relativity and Quantum Gravity from what I would call "the inside." He has succeeded in demonstrating an equivalence between his model of a group of interacting conscious agents and Schrodinger's Wave Equation for an elementary particle. I can't comment on whether he actually "derived" a piece of QM, but his equation is identical term for term as the specific wave equation including the square root of -1. Has anybody else done anything close to this?

He claims he has theorems that show how networks of interacting Conscious Agents function as a higher level Conscious Agent with indefinite levels of such embedding. Extrapolating to us, we are Conscious Agents that fit his 6-tuple model--messages (2) come to Conscious_Agent_me from the World (1) and are Experienced (3), then processed with who knows what constraints until a "choice" is made (4), and an Action is taken (5). Action means sending a message (6) back to the World (1). And then recall, that the World (1) is comprised entirely of Conscious Agents. He aspires to develop this Conscious Agent model to be analogous to a universal Turing machine."

 

[smcder]

Here's a paper linked on about page 5 of the Sceptico forum discussion. The forum itself provides some long extracts from a number of Hoffman's papers over the last decade. The more I read by Hoffman, the more I think he is probably certifiable. Perhaps this linked paper provides some enlightenment (though I have got to say that the more I read of and about DH's speculations, the less interested I become in reading more):

Reverse engineering the world: a commentary on Hoffman, Singh, and Prakash, “The interface theory of perception”

Yes ...this paper does look very nteresting ...

 

[smcder]

Toward the end of page 5 of the sceptiko discussion a new member named PorpoiseSeeker enters the forum and posts this:

"I think the importance of Hoffman's work is his model of the universe as comprised entirely of Conscious Agents. To me, he is a pioneer in applying a scientific approach to understanding consciousness as fundamental rather than epiphenomenal of matter in motion. He is bold, claiming that (if correct) he will derive Quantum Theory, Relativity and Quantum Gravity from what I would call "the inside." He has succeeded in demonstrating an equivalence between his model of a group of interacting conscious agents and Schrodinger's Wave Equation for an elementary particle. I can't comment on whether he actually "derived" a piece of QM, but his equation is identical term for term as the specific wave equation including the square root of -1. Has anybody else done anything close to this?

He claims he has theorems that show how networks of interacting Conscious Agents function as a higher level Conscious Agent with indefinite levels of such embedding. Extrapolating to us, we are Conscious Agents that fit his 6-tuple model--messages (2) come to Conscious_Agent_me from the World (1) and are Experienced (3), then processed with who knows what constraints until a "choice" is made (4), and an Action is taken (5). Action means sending a message (6) back to the World (1). And then recall, that the World (1) is comprised entirely of Conscious Agents. He aspires to develop this Conscious Agent model to be analogous to a universal Turing machine."

Interesting ... what I can understand of it ... Do they say what a conscious agent is?

 

[Constance]

Shortly thereafter NDEs come up and a forum member named 'malf' writes:

"I guess we focus on death because it's something we all have in our futures. Unfortunately, 'what happens to consciousness at death' is very tricky to study for some obvious reasons.

I suspect we can learn far more about the nature of consciousness by studying and researching the emergence of our conscious experience at the other end of life."

Ja.

 

[smcder]

From the "reverse engineering" paper you linked:

"We should instead regard HSK’s careful computational experiments as driving one more nail into the coffin of a view of reality as perceptually self-evident that has been challenged by philosophers at least since Heraclitus in the West and Siddhārtha Gautama in the East (both ca. 500 BC) and that was, in the 20th century, progressively deconstructed by special and general relativity, quantum theory, classical information theory, and computer science."

I say ... maybe ... I think also WWGD? As Strawson does maintain his position with explicit acknowledgement of QM not being like the physical world we think we live in ...

 

[smcder]

I'd come across something on NDEs when looking at Kafatos.... I just did a search:

Quantum Physics of God. Neuroscience of Souls, Spirits, Dreams, Prophecy, Near Death, Reality eBook: Deepak Chopra, Scott Atran, Andrew Newberg, Menas Kafatos, William Braud, R Joseph, Kevin Nelson, Michael Persinger, Bruce Greyson, Matthew Alper: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store