Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Constance]

"Phenomenology and Time-Consciousness

Edmund Husserl, founder of the phenomenological movement, employs the term “phenomenology” in its etymological sense as the activity of giving an account (logos) of the way things appear (phainomenon). Hence, a phenomenology of time attempts to account for the way things appear to us as temporal or how we experience time. Phenomenology offers neither metaphysical speculation about time’s relation to motion (as does Aristotle), nor the psychological character of time’s past and future moments (as does Augustine), nor transcendental-cognitive presumptions about time as a mind-dependent construct (as does Kant). Rather, it investigates the essential structures of consciousness that make possible the unified perception of an object that occurs across successive moments. In its nuanced attempts to provide an account of the form of intentionality presupposed by all experience, the phenomenology of time-consciousness provides important contributions to philosophical issues such as perception, memory, expectation, imagination, habituation, self-awareness, and self-identity over time.Within the phenomenological movement, time-consciousness is central. The most fundamental and important of all phenomenological problems, time-consciousness pervades Husserl’s theories of constitution, evidence, objectivity and inter-subjectivity. Within continental philosophy broadly construed, the movements of existential phenomenology, hermeneutics, post-modernism and post-structuralism, as well as the work of Martin Heidegger, Jean-Paul Sartre, Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Hans George Gadamer and Jacques Derrida, all return in important ways to Husserl’s theory of time-consciousness. After devoting considerable attention to Husserl’s reflections on time-consciousness, this article treats the developments of the phenomenological account of time in Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty. . . ."

Phenomenology and Time-Consciousness [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]

 

[Constance]

Interestingly, time consciousness seems to disappear in deep meditation, in which a timelessness beneath time and temporality is discovered and sustained experientially for periods of time. What does this signify about the nature of reality as accessed by consciousness (which includes that which subconscious information contributes to mind)? What do we perhaps already know, at levels beneath ordinary knowing, about the nature and extent of being?

 

[smcder]

Interestingly, time consciousness seems to disappear in deep meditation, in which a timelessness beneath time and temporality is discovered and sustained experientially for periods of time. What does this signify about the nature of reality as accessed by consciousness (which includes that which subconscious information contributes to mind)? What do we perhaps already know, at levels beneath ordinary knowing, about the nature and extent of being?

about the third jhanna


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

Interestingly, time consciousness seems to disappear in deep meditation, in which a timelessness beneath time and temporality is discovered and sustained experientially for periods of time. What does this signify about the nature of reality as accessed by consciousness (which includes that which subconscious information contributes to mind)? What do we perhaps already know, at levels beneath ordinary knowing, about the nature and extent of being?

And most everything else along with it ;-)

Dhyāna in Buddhism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

the talk found here:

Audio Dharma - All Talks

by Gil Fronsdal is good, Leigh Brasington also has good descriptions of the four jhanas as they are experienced

here Brasington has a collection of links discussing the Jhanas:

The Jhanas (Meditative Absorptions)

this may be of particular interest:
The Neurological Correlates of the Jhanas



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Michael Allen]

I don't doubt that our brain interacts with the phenomenal world -- the world as it appears to us -- on the basis, in part, of its interconnections with the physical body {what you refer to as a "phenomenal self model"}, but in my view, based in the philosophy I've referred to and in my own experience, consciousness and also mind interact directly with the world in its phenomenal appearances to us, which are enabled by (and no doubt limited by) our sensual and other embodied connections with it. These connections are not, I think, a matter of interaction of one informational 'module' with another, all taking place within the brain. If that were true, why would we experience the world we live in phenomenally, 'feel' our presence to and in its visibility and palpability, interpret it so variously in human societies and cultures, engage with it endlessly in the innumerable forms of human world-directed activity, and 'care' {in the Heideggerian sense} about its and our own 'meaning'?

I didn't mean to give the impression that the "coupling" between our CNS/Brain involved only "internal" relations between information modules. The "other embodied connections" is a good addition that I probably should have included in my earlier statements. I see the differences between what we call "consciousness" and "mind" to be artificial--since they are part of the overall structure of relations that are modeled from our CNS interconnected relations to the world. In the end its a physical system recursively picking at its own structures that are pulled into some kind of "isomorphism" with the environment (but its probably not an isomorphism). Remembering of course that the language arises out of this entire system--we might take it for granted that our observations and ruminations are contained in the very framework we are trying to analyze.

It seems to me that it is we who, intentionally, break those objects apart in our scientific, philosophical, and artistic interrogation of the world and in the ensuing expression to one another of what we then find.

Except that I was meaning a much lower hardware driven "breaking up" of objects, which we (transparently) take for granted once such divisions become "obvious." In the event some random object we are looking at and studying becomes "obviously" comprised of smaller more fundamental units (we might find this by experimentation), not only do the new subsystems become more "real," but in another way they become estranged from our established expectations (i.e. like that of a person who sees their own house strewn about the neighborhood after a disaster such as a tornado--the eerie sense of alienation from what is most familiar suddenly pops additional elements which were always already present when in the normal configuration). It isn't as if the "we" decides intentionally to see these changes and shifts from familiar to alien and vice versa. And when the brain breaks down and does this shift randomly (as in deja vu)--we get a temporary glimpse into the artificiality (as though a computer system has suddenly lost touch and gone off the rails--a glitch).

If we continually find complexity beneath our former concepts concerning what-is, that is a fact of our lives as existents -- it is one of the 'existentials' in terms of which we have to negotiate our lives, recognizing the limitations of our knowledge. Nevertheless, our species' history records progress in comprehending the nature of being, our own and that of the world in which we dwell. We can never experience the protophenomenological level of physical being at the microphysical level, but we can think our way through to its reality and understand its foundational significance.

I am severely skeptical of any kind of proto-phenomenal elements, as though we are trying to take our pre-existing models of ourselves modelling physical reality (through labels and relations) and then subdivide those into smaller bundles to manipulate in the similar way we do our external reality. Primarily because our embodied coupling with the world sets the stage for the activity of analyzing ourselves and things in the world. I see this as an attempt to resurrect a non-existent entity such as "mind" and "de-world" it before any physicalists come around and stomp it out of existence.

Think about it this way, your ability to think right now is what it means to experience protophenomenon. Remembering of course that it was the equipment in our brain that first began the transparent "thinging" of all of reality.

This is the work of mind, which is indeed built out of the phenomenal appearances of the world as we have access to them -- and also out of the reflective capacities of consciousness itself to discover its own structure as access to 'things', as Husserl and the other existential-phenomenological philosophers have demonstrated.

It can also be considered the work of the entire universe, since the brain (and our mental "image" of ourselves that we like to call the mind) and body are already included. Regarding intentionality, I have an old quote:

“A scholar is just a library’s way of making another library.”--Dennett

A person may just be the universe's way of making another universe (in the event we create something that brings the next universe into existence--like finding a new type of subatomic positive feedback reaction that suddenly throws our region into another massive inflationary epoch) -- j/k.

 

[michaelangel1453]

I've had the misfortune, small at first but growing inexorably and disturbingly larger and larger, of following this thread from its inception. My final conclusion on it, and believe me, I know I'm correct, is that 1. it turned into gibberish long, long ago, 2. Wikipedia is alive and well, 3. the primary participants have never read an actual book in their lives, least of all any by any of the researchers of consciousness they name, 4. English has been dealt a humiliating blow again and again and we can only hope its resiliency wins out, and, oh, that's enough. Atrocious. The telling marker is to read their posts in other threads, and the absurdity of the whole becomes apparent.

 

[Michael Allen]

I've had the misfortune, small at first but growing inexorably and disturbingly larger and larger, of following this thread from its inception. My final conclusion on it, and believe me, I know I'm correct, is that 1. it turned into gibberish long, long ago, 2. Wikipedia is alive and well, 3. the primary participants have never read an actual book in their lives, least of all any by any of the researchers of consciousness they name, 4. English has been dealt a humiliating blow again and again and we can only hope its resiliency wins out, and, oh, that's enough. Atrocious. The telling marker is to read their posts in other threads, and the absurdity of the whole becomes apparent.

Your hobby is to read what you hate? Nice. What a miserable soul! Pity.

 

[smcder]

I've had the misfortune, small at first but growing inexorably and disturbingly larger and larger, of following this thread from its inception. My final conclusion on it, and believe me, I know I'm correct, is that 1. it turned into gibberish long, long ago, 2. Wikipedia is alive and well, 3. the primary participants have never read an actual book in their lives, least of all any by any of the researchers of consciousness they name, 4. English has been dealt a humiliating blow again and again and we can only hope its resiliency wins out, and, oh, that's enough. Atrocious. The telling marker is to read their posts in other threads, and the absurdity of the whole becomes apparent.

Thank you for such a refreshingly candid view! I found myself chuckling as I found the right way to appreciate the humor in your post. I certainly see things that apply to me - despite my best efforts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tyger]

A random thought:

I continue to be influenced by Jordan Peterson's description of humans as living/creating an ongoing, dynamic narrative. His ideas of encountering the unexpected, the ensuing chaos, and personal sacrifice are life-changing ideas. It's not a wholly new concept, but his description of it made it clear to me like never before. This personal narrative encapsulates our world-view and our private logic or private sense.

However, I also think that the human race as a whole is living/creating a dynamic narrative as well. This common sense - or consensus sense - that the elders shared, or the religious leaders, or now the "scientific experts" share is just a story.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't an objective, consistent, external reality... but our common sense, collective narrative certainly doesn't fully capture objective reality and there's a very good possibility and reason to believe that minds have the ability to causally effect reality - though to what extent I'm not sure.

I like this. Not far from from the deep work in esoteric occultism - that we are not a completed being - we are actually creating ourselves. This is profound: "Wherever thou art, thou dost assemble thyself, and in assembling thyself, thou dost assemble ME" - from 'The Cloud of Unknowing'. One of my favorite quotes.

I offer this video which is concerning the spiritual teacher Rudolf Steiner who at the beginning of the 20th century introduced the idea of a rigorous spiritual 'research'. At 9:00 the mystery is openly broached - the method - the object of his research is not given, he says, he's researching/searching for something that isn't there - yet - we have to produce it. Yet what we are producing is not produced by us - doesn't exist, but when we create it, it exists by it's own and not by our creation. The materialist is right - there is nothing - but if you're working on it - something will become -

In this video at the beginning is broached the occult view that humanity is the last to appear on the earth but humanity was there (in the spiritual world) from the very beginning - and has been part of the creation of this world in profound ways.

Aside: it is why the winking out of this creation (extinctions) will have profound ramifications for humanity's (spiritual) existence. Without this creation, humanity will not be able to construct the spiritual world (in a sense).

 

[boomerang]

Your hobby is to read what you hate? Nice. What a miserable soul! Pity.

One must at least admire the perseverance. Nihilistic masochism or masochistic nihilism? A sad thing either way.

 

[Tyger]

Thought maybe this lecture on Jung and the esoteric teacher Rudolf Steiner might be of interest - this is a very different 'stream' (as the saying goes) from what is going forward generally - your impressions........the Spinoza quote is "all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare."

Carl G. Jung and Rudolf Steiner 11-2-2012, Robert McDermott

 

[smcder]

I am curious if we can draw together - perhaps drawing together is the wrong instinct here ... but I'm reflecting on the breadth of material we have at this point ... and how we might usefully go forward. We have several independent tracks of thought going and my opinion is that some of these could benefit from breaking into their own threads for better focus and perhaps to attract fresh perspectives.

we have Chalmers' work on what consciousness is, what we can know about it, Chalmers keeps the hard problem in front of us and I think that's important - because I think it keeps us honest, to me it's the core of the problem of consciousness. We ultimately have to do something with it - solve it, show why it can't be solved or otherwise discredit or discard it - in a fully satisfactory manner. In the meantime, it keeps us uneasy and restless. Spending a few moments a day in meditation on it - as a koan may sharpen our intutions about the whole subject.

we have Phenomenology and I think, please correct me anyone, that its importance is underestimated, because it is not well understood by the other participants ... I am very slowly getting a sense of how radical it is ... I also am fascinated by it's tie-ins with Eastern thinking

we have other approaches, including Michael Allen's posts and Tyger has brought back up another aspect of the thread that hasn't been in the forefront in some time. Like phenomenology, most participants do not have much knowledge of mysticism - although it has been extremely well defined and examined by Underhill and Huxley. Also, the occult and magic (variously defined, but I think most usefully for now as changes in consciousness in accordance with will) ... the interesting thing to me about magic is that, along with science and religion, it is powerfully active in our society today. Unlike science and religion, however, it is almost completely unacknowledged.

Mathematics - this is an area we have done nothing with.

From my perspective, we have a number of strong specialized interests that bring a lot of interesting material forward but not in a way that is acccessible to a general reader - it would take an enormous commitment, for example for someone to understand phenomenology on a level to be a good discussant for Constance ... the same for magic and the occuly or for monism and Chalmers' views of consciousness ... we have been at this point for some time and I imagine the thread could continue indefinitely to collect these posts as a kind of repository and that is useful or it could split into focused areas - but that would risk breaking the group up.

So ... and I am thinking as I go here ... but perhaps we do need to think of a way to archive this material ... I'm not sure what property rights apply here to individual posts - but it would be a shame to lose this volume of work. The work, in another format, might also be indexed - (as Burnt State requested!) there appears to be indexing software out there (of course!) ...

... so as you each work on your areas, keep in mind the whole - each of us could very well want to reference this in 10 years time and I'd like to see if that's possible - and secondly, are we at a crux where we would benefit from splitting the threads off into specialities or do we have a kind of synergy here that we should not risk losing?

 

[Constance]

I didn't mean to give the impression that the "coupling" between our CNS/Brain involved only "internal" relations between information modules. The "other embodied connections" is a good addition that I probably should have included in my earlier statements. I see the differences between what we call "consciousness" and "mind" to be artificial--since they are part of the overall structure of relations that are modeled from our CNS interconnected relations to the world. In the end its a physical system recursively picking at its own structures that are pulled into some kind of "isomorphism" with the environment (but its probably not an isomorphism). Remembering of course that the language arises out of this entire system--we might take it for granted that our observations and ruminations are contained in the very framework we are trying to analyze.




Except that I was meaning a much lower hardware driven "breaking up" of objects, which we (transparently) take for granted once such divisions become "obvious." In the event some random object we are looking at and studying becomes "obviously" comprised of smaller more fundamental units (we might find this by experimentation), not only do the new subsystems become more "real," but in another way they become estranged from our established expectations (i.e. like that of a person who sees their own house strewn about the neighborhood after a disaster such as a tornado--the eerie sense of alienation from what is most familiar suddenly pops additional elements which were always already present when in the normal configuration). It isn't as if the "we" decides intentionally to see these changes and shifts from familiar to alien and vice versa. And when the brain breaks down and does this shift randomly (as in deja vu)--we get a temporary glimpse into the artificiality (as though a computer system has suddenly lost touch and gone off the rails--a glitch).





I am severely skeptical of any kind of proto-phenomenal elements, as though we are trying to take our pre-existing models of ourselves modelling physical reality (through labels and relations) and then subdivide those into smaller bundles to manipulate in the similar way we do our external reality. Primarily because our embodied coupling with the world sets the stage for the activity of analyzing ourselves and things in the world. I see this as an attempt to resurrect a non-existent entity such as "mind" and "de-world" it before any physicalists come around and stomp it out of existence.

Think about it this way, your ability to think right now is what it means to experience protophenomenon. Remembering of course that it was the equipment in our brain that first began the transparent "thinging" of all of reality.



It can also be considered the work of the entire universe, since the brain (and our mental "image" of ourselves that we like to call the mind) and body are already included. Regarding intentionality, I have an old quote:

“A scholar is just a library’s way of making another library.”--Dennett

A person may just be the universe's way of making another universe (in the event we create something that brings the next universe into existence--like finding a new type of subatomic positive feedback reaction that suddenly throws our region into another massive inflationary epoch) -- j/k.

I’m left with only questions I’d like to ask you based in my understanding (perhaps way off) of your various statements in this thread. Do you consider philosophy to be significant and valuable/productive activity for humans in the world we live in? If not, why not? If so, which philosophers do you consider to be most significant and productive for us at this time in our species history, and why? What do you think is the origin of consciousness?

Could you clarify what you wrote here:

Remembering of course that the language arises out of this entire system--we might take it for granted that our observations and ruminations are contained in the very framework we are trying to analyze.

Would you explain what you mean by ‘artificiality’ in this statement:

And when the brain breaks down and does this shift randomly (as in deja vu)--we get a temporary glimpse into the artificiality (as though a computer system has suddenly lost touch and gone off the rails--a glitch).

You also wrote:

I am severely skeptical of any kind of proto-phenomenal elements, as though we are trying to take our pre-existing models of ourselves modelling physical reality (through labels and relations) and then subdivide those into smaller bundles to manipulate in the similar way we do our external reality.

Would you develop the reasons for your skepticism concerning “any kind of proto-phenomenal elements”? Do you regard Maturana and Varela’s biological discovery of ‘autopoesis’ as far down in evolution as single-celled organisms to be a manipulation of external reality?


Finally, do you consider human behavior and thought to be determined or free?

 

[Constance]

I am curious if we can draw together - perhaps drawing together is the wrong instinct here ... but I'm reflecting on the breadth of material we have at this point ... and how we might usefully go forward. We have several independent tracks of thought going and my opinion is that some of these could benefit from breaking into their own threads for better focus and perhaps to attract fresh perspectives.

we have Chalmers' work on what consciousness is, what we can know about it, Chalmers keeps the hard problem in front of us and I think that's important - because I think it keeps us honest, to me it's the core of the problem of consciousness. We ultimately have to do something with it - solve it, show why it can't be solved or otherwise discredit or discard it - in a fully satisfactory manner. In the meantime, it keeps us uneasy and restless. Spending a few moments a day in meditation on it - as a koan may sharpen our intutions about the whole subject.

we have Phenomenology and I think, please correct me anyone, that its importance is underestimated, because it is not well understood by the other participants ... I am very slowly getting a sense of how radical it is ... I also am fascinated by it's tie-ins with Eastern thinking

we have other approaches, including Michael Allen's posts and Tyger has brought back up another aspect of the thread that hasn't been in the forefront in some time. Like phenomenology, most participants do not have much knowledge of mysticism - although it has been extremely well defined and examined by Underhill and Huxley. Also, the occult and magic (variously defined, but I think most usefully for now as changes in consciousness in accordance with will) ... the interesting thing to me about magic is that, along with science and religion, it is powerfully active in our society today. Unlike science and religion, however, it is almost completely unacknowledged.

Mathematics - this is an area we have done nothing with.

From my perspective, we have a number of strong specialized interests that bring a lot of interesting material forward but not in a way that is acccessible to a general reader - it would take an enormous commitment, for example for someone to understand phenomenology on a level to be a good discussant for Constance ... the same for magic and the occuly or for monism and Chalmers' views of consciousness ... we have been at this point for some time and I imagine the thread could continue indefinitely to collect these posts as a kind of repository and that is useful or it could split into focused areas - but that would risk breaking the group up.

So ... and I am thinking as I go here ... but perhaps we do need to think of a way to archive this material ... I'm not sure what property rights apply here to individual posts - but it would be a shame to lose this volume of work. The work, in another format, might also be indexed - (as Burnt State requested!) there appears to be indexing software out there (of course!) ...

... so as you each work on your areas, keep in mind the whole - each of us could very well want to reference this in 10 years time and I'd like to see if that's possible - and secondly, are we at a crux where we would benefit from splitting the threads off into specialities or do we have a kind of synergy here that we should not risk losing?

I agree with what you say in this post, Steve. Both 'Consciousness' and 'the Paranormal' are enormous subjects, and after 100 pages we have barely focused on their relevance for one another. I do think it's a good idea to branch off into different threads for discussion of the various topics that hold particular interest for the various members who have posted in this thread. I brought phenomenology forward because it represents the strongest critique of the reductive, computationalist approach to consciousness that is dominant in our time. I think I've posted enough relevant links and extracts here by now for anyone who might be interested in pursuing the phenomenology of consciousness further. Re the hard problem of consciousness, thousands of academics in science and philosophy continue to struggle with it (after several decades of attempts to resolve it) and I don't think we here can either dismiss it or benefit from carrying discussion of it forward. [Edit to add] It will either turn out over time to be irresolvable (as McGinn thinks) or some progress will be made in the current combined efforts of phenomenologists and neuroscientists working together.

 

[Tyger]

Here is the second part - or second day - of the above linked video - in two parts with both speakers - adding up to about 4 hours total of viewing time (6 hours with the above linked video - a considerable time investment) - but well worth the listen, I think - especially when - in the above video at the end - they go into Kant - and give the intellectual context for the thinking of these two. As mentioned by McDermott - Jung bowed to the limitations of the Kantian view of knowledge, Steiner (as an esoteric teacher) did not, with the result that it is Jung one may bring to the dinner party, not Steiner.

In this next video, McDermott outlines some of the elements of esoteric human history.

Carl G.Jung and Rudolf Steiner 11-3-12 a, Robert McDermott

Carl G. Jung and Rudolf Steiner 11-3-12 b, Sean Kelly and Robert McDermott

 

[Michael Allen]

Do you consider philosophy to be significant and valuable/productive activity for humans in the world we live in?

Yes I do.

If so, which philosophers do you consider to be most significant and productive for us at this time in our species history, and why?

I am not really qualified enough to answer this question, but I will list some of my favorites:

G.W.F. Hegel, Martin Heidegger,Thomas Metzinger, Daniel Dennett, Douglas Hofstadter, each for different reasons which probably deserve treatment in another thread.

What do you think is the origin of consciousness?

I suspect it is evolution by natural selection--but again I am not ready to claim anything definitive on this.

Would you explain what you mean by ‘artificiality’ in this statement:

That the creation of "something felt" by a person is something that is manufactured in the same way a model in the brain is manufactured out of the raw sensory input--as well as the CNS reactions to the same. When we "feel" that something is familiar and at the same time do not have a "felt why" on the same then we have a glimpse of the breakdown in one of the subsystems that was to "follow up" on the feelings of familiarity (deja vu).

Would you develop the reasons for your skepticism concerning “any kind of proto-phenomenal elements”?

Another analogy might help here: we have these things called universities and cities (and cities around universities). What would it mean to have a proto-city or proto-university element? Would these proto-elements be a mirror of the totalities they create on a smaller scale (like the homunculi, or even something like Leibniz's monad)--i.e. would it make sense to take a component of the relational totality as simply a mirror image of the totality it creates? Take a modern computer--what would it mean to have a proto-computer element? Would transistors and diodes be enough--or would we draw the line somewhere between a quartz time keeping circuit and amplifier and something that has a quartz timer tied to a chip full of transistors (a logic gate array) but with no RAM or ROM? Would computers have "proto-algorithms" that they can run and load on "proto-processors" with "proto-memory?"

Do you regard Maturana and Varela’s biological discovery of ‘autopoesis’ as far down in evolution as single-celled organisms to be a manipulation of external reality?

Replicators.

External/Internal terms here fail to account for the arbitrary nature of the boundary set by the system itself. So the nature of "external" again becomes relevant only to the point that the dynamic system in question has managed to hijack its own feedback systems (positive and negative) to account for the manipulation of the boundary itself. There's a certain relativity here in that the boundary in question not the same according to the perspective (first, second, etc) and stance taken by the inquirer. Solipsism becomes a problem with this only when the observers take each of these stances alone to be absolute. Similar to the "relativity of simultaneity" discovered by Einstein, we have a perspectival relativity according to where we station the canonical "ego" within the observer. If the relations between the autopoetic organism are resolved by an external observer, they from their own view shrink the observed boundary, if on the other hand the observer themselves suddenly (for instance) have a breakdown in their PSM (phenomenal self model), they are unable to distinguish their own speaking aloud (everyone does this) from another agent voice.

Finally, do you consider human behavior and thought to be determined or free?

We must be free.

 

[Constance]

Thank you for your responses to my questions, Michael. I have further questions only about the last two of them:

Q: Do you regard Maturana and Varela’s biological discovery of ‘autopoesis’ as far down in evolution as single-celled organisms to be a manipulation of external reality?

A: Replicators.

External/Internal terms here fail to account for the arbitrary nature of the boundary set by the system itself. So the nature of "external" again becomes relevant only to the point that the dynamic system in question has managed to hijack its own feedback systems (positive and negative) to account for the manipulation of the boundary itself. There's a certain relativity here in that the boundary in question not the same according to the perspective (first, second, etc) and stance taken by the inquirer. Solipsism becomes a problem withan be this only when the observers take each of these stances alone to be absolute. Similar to the "relativity of simultaneity" discovered by Einstein, we have a perspectival relativity according to where we station the canonical "ego" within the observer. If the relations between the autopoetic organism are resolved by an external observer, they from their own view shrink the observed boundary. . .

I'm not following you here. I don't understand how the relations, interrelations, identified at the boundary between an autopoetic organism and its environment can be "resolved by an external observer" since they are ongoing in the life of the organism. It seems to me that Maturana and Varela simply observed these interactive boundaries and drew conclusions from them concerning the autopoetic nature of living organisms in general as both embedded in nature (environment) and self-organizing within its ecological niche. Perhaps by "resolved" you simply meant 'identified' -- noticed, observed, or visually resolved -- by the scientists and their microscopic equipment? I realize that science in general recognizes at this post-quantum point that 'measuring' physical systems introduces some degree of change or interference in the system measured. But it does not seem to me that M and V's arm's-length observation and description of the phenomenon of the interactive boundary between a single cell and its environment is a 'measurement' in the same sense. Can you clarify what you meant here?

continuing:

if on the other hand the observer themselves suddenly (for instance) have a breakdown in their PSM (phenomenal self model), they are unable to distinguish their own speaking aloud (everyone does this) from another agent voice.

This reminds me of another statement from the above quoted material: "Solipsism becomes a problem withan be [?] this only when the observers take each of these stances alone to be absolute." You seem to be referring to solipsism as a possibility for either the cell (on one side of the permeable boundary) or the environment, which the cell's boundary serves to filter for the purposes of obtaining nourishment from outside itself while maintaining its own integrity (survival). And you seem to refer to the scientists who discover this phenomenon as other observers who might take their own perspective/'stance' on the phenomenon to be 'absolute'. I can't see any of these perspectives {the cell's, the environment's, the observing scientists'} to be susceptible to 'solipsism'. The cell and its environing niche together realize (make real) a permeable boundary between them. The two scientists merely observe and understand the phenomenon of the cell's autopoetic nature by virtue of that permeable boundary, and by no means consider their own perception of it to be 'their's alone or to be 'absolute'. Your idea of a potential 'breakdown' of some sort in the naturally given 'phenomenal self model' of the cell, the environment, or the scientists does not seem to touch the profound reality discovered by M and V: that living organisms, from the earliest cells appearing on the planet, are both embedded in and yet separate from surrounding nature. If I've misunderstood what you were saying, please clarify.

Q: Finally, do you consider human behavior and thought to be determined or free?

A: We must be free.

I think so too, but freedom implies choice. At what point in evolution do you think this capacity arrives on the scene of life?

 

[Constance]

One more question, Michael, concerning this statement:

"External/Internal terms here fail to account for the arbitrary nature of the boundary set by the system itself."

Do you mean that any boundaries in nature -- between one physical system and another in nature, and between living organisms and their environments -- are arbitrarily pre-set by the 'system' of Nature as a whole? Is this a concept of Nature as an immense and self-proliferating computational machine? If so, do you think that the emergence of life on earth was inevitable or an accidental but fortuitous occurrence (as many scientists seem to think of it)?

 

[Constance]

Musical interlude:

 

[Michael Allen]

One more question, Michael, concerning this statement:

"External/Internal terms here fail to account for the arbitrary nature of the boundary set by the system itself."

Do you mean that any boundaries in nature -- between one physical system and another in nature, and between living organisms and their environments -- are arbitrarily pre-set by the 'system' of Nature as a whole? Is this a concept of Nature as an immense and self-proliferating computational machine? If so, do you think that the emergence of life on earth was inevitable or an accidental but fortuitous occurrence (as many scientists seem to think of it)?

Starting with the last question first:

I think emergence of life in this particular universe was inevitable.
I am still processing our continued usage of the word/prefix "self-" in terms such as "self-organizing," "self-model," etc. However I am talking mainly about the loops of a system on itself (feedback processes) which more or less mark out the boundaries--remembering of course that the specifics of these boundaries are determined by the interrelations of the subsystems with itself and how they coupled with other systems that lie outside these feedback loops.

So I am not talking about the entire framework for which these systems dwell in (such as "nature"), but a particular biological system in question, such as a microbe, a human body, or a brain.

Regarding the solipsism comment, I am simply discarding the extreme where autopoiesis carries self-referentiality forward without any reference to an external--leading to the notion that all reality is created by and within the autopoietic system. Probably an unnecessary comment.

I'll have to spend more time thinking about your other questions.