Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 9

[smcder]

Jack Panksepp has apparently passed away. I was unable to find an article with details however.

@smcder I don't necessarily have a response to objectifying/using consciousness. I think humans already manipulate human consciousness and if we learn to manipulate consciousness with greater precision we will. For better and worse, as with all technology.

Edit: This is Soupie. My mind has apparently become embodied by a new account. It's still green.

Eme?

If current is passed through a wire in the presence of a magnetic field, an electro- motive force acts on the wire:


Is an "equivalent" consciousness motor as described by Ufology possible on your view? If so what components would it have?

i.e. would some kind of field be involved? How would the components interact with other parts of the brain or mind as described by Ufology?

 

[smcder]

"consciousness motor" as the ultimate example of "standing reserve"

 

[smcder]

"consciousness motor"

• responses to this idea as quick way to sort out various views?...e.g. a substance dualist might think its absurd? a physicalist might envision a literal field capable of inducing a motive force? emergentists would say consciousness is a by-product, causally impotent ... ID theorists would not recommend using the brain=consciousness as a motor, etc.

@Soupie @eme believe(s) it's possible in some sense, if they is a monist then they see consciousness as substantive or capable of inducing a force?

 

[Soupie]

"consciousness motor"

• responses to this idea as quick way to sort out various views?...e.g. a substance dualist might think its absurd? a physicalist might envision a literal field capable of inducing a motive force? emergentists would say consciousness is a by-product, causally impotent ... ID theorists would not recommend using the brain=consciousness as a motor, etc.

@Soupie @eme believe(s) it's possible in some sense, if they is a monist then they see consciousness as substantive or capable of inducing a force?

Correct.

Hm, I like the idea. Answering this question could help people refine their own conception of consciousness.

On my (Conscious Realism) view, consciousness is a dynamic substrate which self-organizes into a variety of forms which we recognize as atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, brains, planets, stars, cars, and motors.

 

[smcder]

Correct.

Hm, I like the idea. Answering this question could help people refine their own conception of consciousness.

On my (Conscious Realism) view, consciousness is a dynamic substrate which self-organizes into a variety of forms which we recognize as atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, brains, planets, stars, cars, and motors.

 

[smcder]

Correct.

Hm, I like the idea. Answering this question could help people refine their own conception of consciousness.

On my (Conscious Realism) view, consciousness is a dynamic substrate which self-organizes into a variety of forms which we recognize as atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, brains, planets, stars, cars, and motors.

It might discriminate based on gut reaction ... if you think it's absurd for example.

 

[smcder]

Correct.

Hm, I like the idea. Answering this question could help people refine their own conception of consciousness.

On my (Conscious Realism) view, consciousness is a dynamic substrate which self-organizes into a variety of forms which we recognize as atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, brains, planets, stars, cars, and motors.

"On my (Conscious Realism) view, consciousness is a dynamic substrate which self-organizes into a variety of forms which we recognize as atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, brains, planets, stars, cars, and motors."

I don't think that's a "conscious motor" as Ufology describes it.

 

[smcder]

!

 

[smcder]

Poem of the Week: Wallace Stevens

 

[Soupie]

@smcder

I don't think that's how Ufology meant it either, but the point was to have the question help discriminate between the various conceptions.

Re: miracle

Why do you think being/existence isn't fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious?

If you don't think that being/existence is fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious but is rather a duality, how do you explain their existence and relationship? (Which is of course the HP.)

I know you find CR unpalatable, but you've never articulated a reason why that I recall. Only to say that there are "problems" with it, which is of course true, but then again, there are problems with all ontologies/metaphysics.

 

[smcder]

@smcder

I don't think that's how Ufology meant it either, but the point was to have the question help discriminate between the various conceptions.

Re: miracle

Why do you think being/existence isn't fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious?

If you don't think that being/existence is fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious but is rather a duality, how do you explain their existence and relationship? (Which is of course the HP.)

I know you find CR unpalatable, but you've never articulated a reason why that I recall. Only to say that there are "problems" with it, which is of course true, but then again, there are problems with all ontologies/metaphysics.

"Why do you think being/existence isn't fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious?"

Well, I have suggested that something more than minimal consciousness might be fundamental, that POV/intentionality/mindedness might be "strange-attractors" around which mind/brains form (fight "/"s with "/"s I always say ...) and I like Russelian Neutral Monism just fine ... It's more the Philosophy by Proclamation aspect of CR as you've articulated it ... And to a degree as Hoffman has ...

As theories what evidence do we have? How would you falsify it? What experiment could we do to show consciousness is a dynamic self-organizing substrate that emerges(?) from a "neutral" sub-substrate? And why stop there ... where does the sub-substrate come from?

 

[smcder]

@smcder

I don't think that's how Ufology meant it either, but the point was to have the question help discriminate between the various conceptions.

Re: miracle

Why do you think being/existence isn't fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious?

If you don't think that being/existence is fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious but is rather a duality, how do you explain their existence and relationship? (Which is of course the HP.)

I know you find CR unpalatable, but you've never articulated a reason why that I recall. Only to say that there are "problems" with it, which is of course true, but then again, there are problems with all ontologies/metaphysics.

"Only to say that there are "problems" with it, which is of course true, but then again, there are problems with all ontologies/metaphysics."

Right, which is why we have to discriminate theories based on elegance, explanatory power, evidence, falsifiability ... anything we can get our paws on.

 

[smcder]

"If you don't think that being/existence is fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious but is rather a duality, how do you explain their existence and relationship? (Which is of course the HP.)"

The hard problem is a problem for physicalists ... not dualists!

Many people point to "well how do two totally different substances interact?" as a knock-out blow for Dualism but, as I've said many times, on a Humean account of causation as "constant conjunction" there isn't a problem of causation for dualism.

 

[Soupie]

"If you don't think that being/existence is fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious but is rather a duality, how do you explain their existence and relationship? (Which is of course the HP.)"

The hard problem is a problem for physicalists ... not dualists!

Many people point to "well how do two totally different substances interact?" as a knock-out blow for Dualism but, as I've said many times, on a Humean account of causation as "constant conjunction" there isn't a problem of causation for dualism.

Yes, you're right. In this case it would be the MBP then.

"Why do you think being/existence isn't fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious?"

Well, I have suggested that something more than minimal consciousness might be fundamental, that POV/intentionality/mindedness might be "strange-attractors" around which mind/brains form (fight "/"s with "/"s I always say ...) and I like Russelian Neutral Monism just fine ... It's more the Philosophy by Proclamation aspect of CR as you've articulated it ... And to a degree as Hoffman has ...

As theories what evidence do we have? How would you falsify it? What experiment could we do to show consciousness is a dynamic self-organizing substrate that emerges(?) from a "neutral" sub-substrate? And why stop there ... where does the sub-substrate come from?

None that I'm aware of. It's hard enough determining if something has a mind, let alone whether something is conscious.

The proposal is that the neutral background is unbound potential and thus stops there. From out of unbound potential emerges a self interacting substrate.

 

[smcder]

Yes, you're right. In this case it would be the MBP then.

None that I'm aware of. It's hard enough determining if something has a mind, let alone whether something is conscious.

The proposal is that the neutral background is unbound potential and thus stops there. From out of unbound potential emerges a self interacting substrate.

Can you lay out the steps that led you to this conclusion?

 

[smcder]

The Graham Harman book is off to a good start. The biographical material is helpful. Heidegger seemed to be, to use a Yiddish term, a putz.

Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[Constance]

The Graham Harman book is off to a good start. The biographical material is helpful. Heidegger seemed to be, to use a Yiddish term, a putz.

Which of Harman's books are you referring to?

 

[smcder]

Which of Harman's books are you referring to?

https://www.quora.com/Martin-Heideg...hould-you-know-before-you-read-Being-and-Time


The first answer has a good list of resources ... "Heidegger Explained" by Graham Harman is available as .PDF ... just Google it.

I couldn't get the link to the PDF to paste... But it's easy to find.

 

[Constance]

I couldn't get the link to the PDF to paste... But it's easy to find.

Thanks. I will look it up. I'm sceptical that anyone could explain or even explicate Heidegger's philosophy in a paper. I especially doubt that Harman, as an exponent of 'object-oriented ontology', could do so.

 

[smcder]

Thanks. I will look it up. I'm sceptical that anyone could explain or even explicate Heidegger's philosophy in a paper. I especially doubt that Harman, as an exponent of 'object-oriented ontology' could do so.

It's a book with a more modest aim than the title (it's part of a series "Ideas Explained" - so the title is not Harman's)

"This book explains the philosophy of Martin Heidegger in clear and simple terms, without footnotes or excessive use of technical language. The goal of this Open Court series is to present difficult philosophers in a way that any intelligent reader can understand. But even while aiming at clarity for a general audience, a book of this kind can do something more: by avoiding professional jargon and the usual family quarrels of scholars, it can bring Heidegger’s philosophy back to life as a series of problems relevant to everyone. Since Heidegger is probably the most recent great philosopher in the Western tradition, to present his ideas to general readers means inviting them to witness the emerging drama of twenty-first century philosophy."