Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Tyger]

Again, this is a very romantic, anthropocentric worldview. I don't know that it's wrong, but I do know that it's just one worldview among many.

Romantic? You've lost me there.

Based on this worldview, you must believe that the human capacity for free will was bestowed upon us by an other, correct?

No - plus I don't see that one leads to the other even if I did. You are constructing something here. Not sure I must believe anything.

Because if free will is a capacity that has evolved,

Novel idea - that never occurred to me.

than it would be bold to say that other animals do not have this capacity. (In cognitive psychology worldview, this is known as Executive Functioning.)

I don't think it is bold - it makes sense. Animals do not display free will as we define it - they behave according to what we have hypothesized is instinct. That works for me.

I don't disagree with you that humans are unique among the others animals. However, I think they are unique in degree, not quality.

To some extent that is true, I would agree, if just comparing us as animals. A human, however, that has initiated higher thinking, is significantly different from an animal. Something 'new under the sun.'

I also disagree with you that our uniqueness was bestowed on us by an other in a mystical fashion.

Well, I never said that, so......

Yes, the other matter is scale.

Destruction wrought by humankind is far beyond scale - though scale is certainly part of it. It's the sheer creativity of our destructiveness. Animals can be relied upon to fight in particular ways under certain conditions - and usually in limited ways. Humans fight each other, both to the death and into slavery and torture. There is no question, the human is unique among the animals.

It's not just native peoples, it's religious/mystic peoples in general. As I've said elsewhere, the ideas of karma, Original Sin, etc. are all bedfellows. Our Executive Functioning allows us to inhibit our impulses, to delay gratification.

Wherever you've said it I didn't read it so I know not of what you speak here. Looks like you've got quite a snarl there of various concepts, though.

I'm cursing myself because I just deleted an essay about why people have consciousness at all. It was the same old, same old (social interaction) so I didn't bother posting it here. However, the author did mention something that I've believed for a long time, but had never seen in writing: If consciousness can be defined as being aware that one is aware, then many mystical/religious practices - such as meditation and mindfullness - are an effort to shed, if momentarily, this awareness; rather than being aware of our awareness, we strive to just be.

Would be interested in that essay - but as you mention about there being many world views, so there are many spiritual practices with various goals. No easy way to lump them all together. Would make it easier if one could - like you say all those "religious/mystic peoples in general" - the blanket term that makes it into a 'them' scenario. Fact is - IMO - everyone is religious and mystical - one has only to argue science with a materialistic, atheistic scientist to be aware that religious-like thought and mystical-like articulations are universal tendencies.

His point was this "altered" state is more akin to the animal state; that is, a state of being in which we lose our self-awareness. The ego/self dissolves and we merge with reality. I'll continue to search for the essay.

The writer must have serious insights if he can equate what another person experiences (without experiencing them himself) with the condition of an animal he as well has not experienced. This is part of our problem - dialog proceeds in the abstract, rather than grounded in perception and experience. "The ego/self dissolves and we merge with reality" sounds like what those 'mystical sorts' are up to, I suppose. I would offer that if one is referencing the Freudian ego, okay - lots of dissolving and rebuilding going on there - but Ego as in the Monad or Incarnating Individuality - not so much. You experience your Ego in full awareness you will not be the same person after that. Guaranteed.

I suppose we could boil it down to two world views:

Ah, the eternal dialectic. Yes/No, Black/White, Good/Evil. You are a Manichean.

1) Humans, and everything else in the universe, are the result of self-organising processes. Thus, we can't say that humanity is evolving towards anything like a perfectly moral uber race, but perhaps we can say they are evolving.

2) Humans are the result of a super being bestowing upon us free will and morality. If humanity can come together just so we can evolve into the super special species we were meant to be and make it to the next, perfect plane of existence.

Why do you subscribe to the latter and I the former? I don't know,

I don't know, either - but mainly because I don't recognize the latter to which I am suppose to subscribe or that you say I am suppose to subscribe.

but it probably has something to do with both nature and nurture.

I would say you have effectively argued with yourself, not with me. There is the shadow of a straw man argument taking place here.

Fascinating story, but I'm not sure how it ties in to the discussion.

Oh well - someone else will get the connection.

 

[Tyger]

I'd like to see the essay on self-consciousness - what was the part you'd never seen in print before - specifically that it was a return to animal nature? Is self-consciousness a qualitative difference in humans? Sometimes self consciousness in and of itself seems painful to me, like you are zooming in on Yourself and this can be akin to panic or cosmic claustrophobia, don't know what else to call it. This seems to happen when self consciousness piles up on itself - awareness of awareness of ... Like the pain comes from supporting too many layers or levels. Of course in the best of times I seem to flow in and out of self awareness more or less comfortably.

Around me I see most people modulating their self awareness almost continuously and more less unconsciously in some way or other - worry, distraction, TV , obsession, busyness, sporting events, concentration, drugs ... So that I wonder what ordinary, unaltered consciousness is? And what states are extraordinary? Zen tells me Enlightenment is "nothing special" ... Chop water, carry wood = argue with wife, smoke cigarette. Just under no circumstances are you to worry about worrying, there yawns the abyss. (With boredom, no doubt.)

The quote I believe - as I know you know - is 'Before Enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After Enlightenment - chop wood, carry water.' Which means......the actions in the world that are required for life's continuance, continue. We are not 'relieved' of our worldly tasks/obligations once enlightened. Quite the reverse.

Being transformed by Love is far from dull and boring. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Tyger]

This is relevant - because all this is an example of the complexity of the human being - no animal comes close to this. Reducing the human being to 'just the animal' has a long and storied lineage (at least 100 years old anyway - its a new idea). The post is written by a follower of Rand's philosophy - and one finds this everywhere: Objectivism. What animal has these kinds of debates? What animal comes close to this sophistication? Not one. The Human Being is unique in the world - the only creature with the ability to destroy itself - and argue the reasons why one is going down in flames as one goes down in flames - writing songs and reciting poetry. It is so clear that we are unique - it is sheer willfulness to deny what is right in front of us as evidence every waking moment of our lives.

POST: "Ayn Rand was a genius. An honest, courageous and disciplined thinker far ahead of her time. She challenged existing false philosophic, moral and political premises and was hated for it. She discovered man's true code of morality, a code based on man's life as the standard of value, a code consistent with the principle of inalienable Individual Rights as proclaimed in the "Declaration of Independence".

"Her philosophy is true and will eventually lead to the greatest levels of wealth, peace, standard of living, self-esteem, freedom and happiness possible for mankind.

"If anyone thinks they have an argument that refutes her philosophy or ideas, then I challenge you to present it . . . ."

 

[boomerang]

Because of their different notions of time, observers moving with respect to each other will not agree on whether two events occur at the same time. They also will not agree on "what is happening now", "what happened 10 minutes ago", and so on. In fact, they may not agree even on whether one thing happened before another. "That's why fundamental physics supplies no unique notion of past, present, and future," says Professor Hartle.

Yes--There is no "now" in Einstein's universe, no master clock. An ongoing puzzle in physics is (I think) is why time should flow in one direction only. As this is mathematically not so.

According to Professor Hartle, this human-mimic IGUS hints at why we experience a "flow of time". This is actually a puzzle because even a little thought reveals that such a concept is a nonsense.

Our experience of time as sequentially moving through a subjective "now" being an evolutionary adaption for survival is an intriguing concept. Assuming biological brains are a kind of virtual reality generator, we might ask whether we experience "now" as an evolutionary adaption, or due to a kind of constraint placed upon the brain out of functional necessity. I.E., can reality be virtually modeled in individuated consciousness without some concept of flow of time as past present and future? The latter, if true, might suggest "now" as more than a particular neurological algorithm, whether it is relativistically altered or not. On the other hand (another way of saying I don't know) well documented subjective experiences with time as very elastic or even non-existent during neurologically altered states would argue in favor of Hartle's survival adaption theory.

sorry if this is not particularly relevant

Not at all irrelevant and very interesting. Especially since it is based on active research.

From Soupie:

The Scientific Consensus is that life/organisms adapt to the environment. Sometimes this means life becomes more complex, sometimes less.

I don't think this point is in serious dispute. Life at all levels of complexity finds a way to adapt and survive in its particular surroundings. The question may rather be whether complex life is altering its surroundings in such a way as to favor the survival of complex organisms, or unconsciously planning for extreme environments. Or, is it just making a kind of temporary mess? The picture is currently too large for us to see. At the extreme end of the anthropocentric hypothesis, imagine humans (or their descendants) boarding intergalactic spaceships ahead of our failing sun or approaching swarm of asteroids, and not taking the much maligned cockroach with them. Overly simplistic fantasy, probably. But I still think that technology for H sapiens is a kind of one way street. There is no turning back and perhaps not even an acceptable way to remain still.

 

[Tyger]

Zen and Buddhism - if I understand correctly, is about waking up.

Waking up makes it sound so ordinary and banal - though it is true enough - but it is also so very far from that imo. It is the universe shaking down it's fruit.

We should ask ourselves: what would the experience be like to meet someone enlightened? Would we recognize them as different from us? On a chat site that speculates about alien life - what might transformed human life be like? How would we experience such a human being? On a chat site with members who willingly entertain alien uber beings yet cannot accept human beings as anything more than glorified animals - what would it be like to truly interact with a human being who has 'changed' to something beyond the animal?

There is a Japanese film director - not sure if it was Akira Kurosawa - if it was, it was one of his very early films - 1950's? - where he explored the idea of what it would be like to encounter a truly good person - a person manifesting a divine kind of love. Interesting. Point being - such people stimulate what is already within us - and that includes everything. Not a simple matter. Rambling...its late....

 

[smcder]

The quote I believe - as I know you know - is 'Before Enlightenment - chop wood, carry water. After Enlightenment - chop wood, carry water.' Which means......the actions in the world that are required for life's continuance, continue. We are not 'relieved' of our worldly tasks/obligations once enlightened. Quite the reverse.

Being transformed by Love is far from dull and boring. Just my opinion, of course.

Agreed. That part about the yawning abyss was a play on words and the rest about day to day thoughts, mine and others I see around me.

 

[smcder]

Waking up makes it sound so ordinary and banal - though it is true enough - but it is also so very far from that imo. It is the universe shaking down it's fruit.

We should ask ourselves: what would the experience be like to meet someone enlightened? Would we recognize them as different from us? On a chat site that speculates about alien life - what might transformed human life be like? How would we experience such a human being? On a chat site with members who willingly entertain alien uber beings yet cannot accept human beings as anything more than glorified animals - what would it be like to truly interact with a human being who has 'changed' to something beyond the animal?

There is a Japanese film director - not sure if it was Akira Kurosawa - if it was, it was one of his very early films - 1950's? - where he explored the idea of what it would be like to encounter a truly good person - a person manifesting a divine kind of love. Interesting. Point being - such people stimulate what is already within us - and that includes everything. Not a simple matter. Rambling...its late....

Was it this one?

The Idiot (1951) - IMDb

The Razors Edge comes to mind on enlightenment too. I have only seen the Tyrone Power version.

Looks like there is a 2003 version of The Idiot as well.

I thought this film was remarkable:

Ostrov (2006) - IMDb

The production history is interesting too.

 

[Soupie]

Do you think humanity's (and/or a subset thereof) view of its role/position in reality have any impact on it's actual role/position/destiny? What is the effect if all mankind embraces the story you are telling above? What effect does it have on you in your day to day life? What would a Cosmic Therapist advise?

This was addressed well in the essay you posted recently regarding biophobia. If all of mankind embraces the idea that we're damned if we do, damned if we don't when it comes to the environment, I think it would absolutely effect their behavior.

On the other hand, if mankind were to believe something akin to what Tyger does - that mankind has the capacity to become something special - that will have an effect as well.

The effect it has on my day-to-day life is that I try to control what I can. You know, the Irish saying and all.

What would a Cosmic Therapist say? Do the best you can? (Isn't that what we're already doing?)

On your view what are the virtues of a non-anthropocentric view? What differences in your lifestyle result from embracing this viewpoint?

It's simply the idea of seeing/considering the forest and the trees, and not missing one for the sake of the other. I like to think it allows me to be more objective.

@Soupie: Based on this worldview, you must believe that the human capacity for free will was bestowed upon us by an other, correct?

@Tyger: No - plus I don't see that one leads to the other even if I did. You are constructing something here. Not sure I must believe anything.

@Soupie: Because if free will is a capacity that has evolved, [then animals must have it to some degree as well.]

@Tyger: Novel idea - that never occurred to me.

Tyger, if you don't believe that free will is a capacity that has evolved in humans, nor believe that free will was bestowed upon us by something, how do you suppose humans came to have free will?

Re: the article about consciousness.

I simply can't find it. It was written by a biologist. It was either the forward for a book or an excerpt from the book. Here's a summary:

• Scientific ideas about consciousness that are not agreed upon by Consensus Science are drivel.
• Non-Scientific ideas are trash.
• Philosophy has never had anything meaningful to say about consciousness.
• Consciousness can be defined as being aware one is aware.
• It is a blessing and a curse to be conscious.
• Why do we have it? We can do almost anything without it.
• Many religious exercises are an effort to shed self-awareness and experience peace, which is very akin to a non-human animal state of mind.
• So why are we conscious after all?
• It must confer an advantage.
• What's the advantage?
• The ability to read other people's minds, i.e., Theory of Mind.

 

[smcder]

This was addressed well in the essay you posted recently regarding biophobia. If all of mankind embraces the idea that we're damned if we do, damned if we don't when it comes to the environment, I think it would absolutely effect their behavior.

On the other hand, if mankind were to believe something akin to what Tyger does - that mankind has the capacity to become something special - that will have an effect as well.

The effect it has on my day-to-day life is that I try to control what I can. You know, the Irish saying and all.

What would a Cosmic Therapist say? Do the best you can? (Isn't that what we're already doing?)

It's simply the idea of seeing/considering the forest and the trees, and not missing one for the sake of the other. I like to think it allows me to be more objective.

@Soupie: Based on this worldview, you must believe that the human capacity for free will was bestowed upon us by an other, correct?

@Tyger: No - plus I don't see that one leads to the other even if I did. You are constructing something here. Not sure I must believe anything.

@Soupie: Because if free will is a capacity that has evolved, [then animals must have it to some degree as well.]

@Tyger: Novel idea - that never occurred to me.

Tyger, if you don't believe that free will is a capacity that has evolved in humans, nor believe that free will was bestowed upon us by something, how do you suppose humans came to have free will?

Re: the article about consciousness.

I simply can't find it. It was written by a biologist. It was either the forward for a book or an excerpt from the book. Here's a summary:

• Scientific ideas about consciousness that are not agreed upon by Consensus Science are drivel.
• Non-Scientific ideas are trash.
• Philosophy has never had anything meaningful to say about consciousness.
• Consciousness can be defined as being aware one is aware.
• It is a blessing and a curse to be conscious.
• Why do we have it? We can do almost anything without it.
• Many religious exercises are an effort to shed self-awareness and experience peace, which is very akin to a non-human animal state of mind.
• So why are we conscious after all?
• It must confer an advantage.
• What's the advantage?
• The ability to read other people's minds, i.e., Theory of Mind.

What would a Cosmic Therapist say? Do the best you can? (Isn't that what we're already doing?)

I really like to equivocate when I can - but on this one, I am going to say "no".

I used to tell people a lot that they were doing the best they can. but something always bothered me about saying that. Partly it was easy and it was expected and it tended to make my life easier.

For my own part, I know I rarely do the best I can and from what I can see in others, it's an uncommon trait - much less when we talk about doing the best we can all together.

On the other hand, if mankind were to believe something akin to what Tyger does - that mankind has the capacity to become something special - that will have an effect as well.

The effect it has on my day-to-day life is that I try to control what I can. You know, the Irish saying and all.

I know Seligman has been criticized for his optimism and positive psychology but I've found some of his ideas useful.

What is the Irish saying?

The whole Free Will thing needs to bust out to its own thread - I've never really dug deep into the question. A rabbit hole no doubt.

The only problem with something bestowing it on us is the infinite regress of where did that thing get it? . . . and the only problem with it evolving is all the problems with emergence that we don't talk about in polite company . . .



I tend to turn off when broad strokes like drivel and trash are used or whole areas of human activity, like philosophy, are dismissed - generally I've found the statements come from folks who don't have a good background in that area, but you never know.

Given:

Why do we have it? We can do almost anything without it.

I assume the author shows that

• The ability to read other people's minds, i.e., Theory of Mind.

. . . requires consciousness or that consciousness is the most efficient away to obtain it?

There seems at first look to be a chicken/egg question in terms of there had to be a mind there in the first place to be read in order to give rise to a mind to read it . . .

Oh well, I suppose that's the best we can do for the time being . . . ;-)

 

[smcder]

This was addressed well in the essay you posted recently regarding biophobia. If all of mankind embraces the idea that we're damned if we do, damned if we don't when it comes to the environment, I think it would absolutely effect their behavior.

On the other hand, if mankind were to believe something akin to what Tyger does - that mankind has the capacity to become something special - that will have an effect as well.

The effect it has on my day-to-day life is that I try to control what I can. You know, the Irish saying and all.

What would a Cosmic Therapist say? Do the best you can? (Isn't that what we're already doing?)

It's simply the idea of seeing/considering the forest and the trees, and not missing one for the sake of the other. I like to think it allows me to be more objective.

@Soupie: Based on this worldview, you must believe that the human capacity for free will was bestowed upon us by an other, correct?

@Tyger: No - plus I don't see that one leads to the other even if I did. You are constructing something here. Not sure I must believe anything.

@Soupie: Because if free will is a capacity that has evolved, [then animals must have it to some degree as well.]

@Tyger: Novel idea - that never occurred to me.

Tyger, if you don't believe that free will is a capacity that has evolved in humans, nor believe that free will was bestowed upon us by something, how do you suppose humans came to have free will?

Re: the article about consciousness.

I simply can't find it. It was written by a biologist. It was either the forward for a book or an excerpt from the book. Here's a summary:

• Scientific ideas about consciousness that are not agreed upon by Consensus Science are drivel.
• Non-Scientific ideas are trash.
• Philosophy has never had anything meaningful to say about consciousness.
• Consciousness can be defined as being aware one is aware.
• It is a blessing and a curse to be conscious.
• Why do we have it? We can do almost anything without it.
• Many religious exercises are an effort to shed self-awareness and experience peace, which is very akin to a non-human animal state of mind.
• So why are we conscious after all?
• It must confer an advantage.
• What's the advantage?
• The ability to read other people's minds, i.e., Theory of Mind.

I forgot this one:

It's simply the idea of seeing/considering the forest and the trees, and not missing one for the sake of the other. I like to think it allows me to be more objective.

One more question (I feel like Columbo here, but asking questions is the only way I know to try and find out what people really think and how it works for them in their lives) . . . so that is, more objective in relationship to what or compared to what? Compared to other people? Again, how does this play out in day to day life?

Don't we have to always make assumptions or just start from somewhere more or less arbitrary (which might mean a place comfortable to us - maybe we start from who we are)?

I'll let it go at that because the trees are spinning now . . .

 

[Soupie]

I first want to say that I have enjoyed this discussion with everyone tremendously. It has provided something I haven't had for a few years.

>> What would a Cosmic Therapist say? Do the best you can? (Isn't that what we're already doing?)

I really like to equivocate when I can - but on this one, I am going to say "no".

I used to tell people a lot that they were doing the best they can. but something always bothered me about saying that. Partly it was easy and it was expected and it tended to make my life easier.

For my own part, I know I rarely do the best I can and from what I can see in others, it's an uncommon trait - much less when we talk about doing the best we can all together.

On the same hand, smcder, is anyone perfect? Should we be perfect? Currently our culture seems to really value the always-on, A-type personality. Go, go, go, do more, more more!

We are awash in global information. We can never be good enough! How can I enjoy this apple when there are millions of starving children in Africa (I mean that sincerely)? Should we all go the way of Christ and give away all our belongings and serve the poor? Perhaps we should. Perhaps we shouldn't.

There. Are. So. Many. Problems. Let's work on the problems in our own life, family, extended family, neighborhood, city, county, state, country and then focus on the world.

No, it's not that simple, nor should we ignore the rest of the world, not in our new global village. And yes, I do believe everyone can make a difference.

I do think people are doing the best they can. That does not mean they can't do better. With some love, encouragement, knowledge, and support perhaps they can. But those things are in scarce supply in our current culture.

What is the Irish saying?

Haha, okay, perhaps it's not Irish:

Give me strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

I tend to turn off when broad strokes like drivel and trash are used or whole areas of human activity, like philosophy, are dismissed - generally I've found the statements come from folks who don't have a good background in that area, but you never know.

Yes, another of the reasons I didn't post it here.

Given:

Why do we have it? We can do almost anything without it.

I assume the author shows that

• The ability to read other people's minds, i.e., Theory of Mind.

. . . requires consciousness or that consciousness is the most efficient away to obtain it?

He (she?) did.

There seems at first look to be a chicken/egg question in terms of there had to be a mind there in the first place to be read in order to give rise to a mind to read it . . . Oh well, I suppose that's the best we can do for the time being . . . ;-)

Correct, but a mind can exist yet not be self-aware.

 

[Soupie]

@Soupie: It's simply the idea of seeing/considering the forest and the trees, and not missing one for the sake of the other. I like to think it allows me to be more objective.

@Scmder: One more question (I feel like Columbo here, but asking questions is the only way I know to try and find out what people really think and how it works for them in their lives) . . . so that is,more objective in relationship to what or compared to what? Compared to other people? Again, how does this play out in day to day life?

Don't we have to always make assumptions or just start from somewhere more or less arbitrary (which might mean a place comfortable to us - maybe we start from who we are)?

I'll let it go at that because the trees are spinning now . . .

I don't mind the questions (from anybody). In fact, I welcome them.

Edit: I see I misunderstood the question. It helps me be more objective... than I otherwise would be.

I believe it helps me be more objective in relation to reality. I'm not saying I actually achieve objectivity, but I strive for it. I consider my point of view, what might be the point of view of others, and then - reflexively - I (attempt to) consider situations from a cosmic, abstract point of view. (I think it is probably reflected in my thoughts as shared here. This is related to what I shared much earlier about often having the feeling of "stepping back" and watching myself interact with the world.)

Compared to other people? It has been my experience that I tend to consider things from the existential point of view more than most others (which is to say that I always do, and most people occasionally do).

How does it play out in day to day life? I tend to make a lot of odd connections and see parallels between various events and concepts. I also tend not to think things are as big a deal as many other people do. And in many situations, I tend to be less judgmental/opinionated than others, probably to a fault.

I think many contributors to this thread do the same, and is perhaps why I've found this discussion so engrossing.

 

[smcder]

I first want to say that I have enjoyed this discussion with everyone tremendously. It has provided something I haven't had for a few years.

On the same hand, smcder, is anyone perfect? Should we be perfect? Currently our culture seems to really value the always-on, A-type personality. Go, go, go, do more, more more!

We are awash in global information. We can never be good enough! How can I enjoy this apple when there are millions of starving children in Africa (I mean that sincerely)? Should we all go the way of Christ and give away all our belongings and serve the poor? Perhaps we should. Perhaps we shouldn't.

There. Are. So. Many. Problems. Let's work on the problems in our own life, family, extended family, neighborhood, city, county, state, country and then focus on the world.

No, it's not that simple, nor should we ignore the rest of the world, not in our new global village. And yes, I do believe everyone can make a difference.

I do think people are doing the best they can. That does not mean they can't do better. With some love, encouragement, knowledge, and support perhaps they can. But those things are in scarce supply in our current culture.

Haha, okay, perhaps it's not Irish:

Give me strength to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

Yes, another of the reasons I didn't post it here.

He (she?) did.

Correct, but a mind can exist yet not be self-aware.

Great answers!

I think Columbo is the wrong metaphor, because Columbo was very shrewd and certainly not Socrates, who was a very intelligent and/or wise man (I read somewhere that his IQ was estimated at 180, 180 what I don't know - drachma? . . . but whatever, that's 5 standard deviations above the norm) and in law school we used a "modified socratic method" meaning the teacher knew the answer and guided you with questions toward it - none of these apply, so I think I feel more like the kid tugging on grown-up sleeves asking what does that mean? That or Theodore Sturgeon's motto of "ask the next question".

I think instead of telling people "you are doing the best you can" I want to tell them, try to do a little better next time . . . that's what I tell my kids. Nicely, of course, because they are grown up now.

So the first consciousness was a consciousness of another mind . . . ? I'm always intrigued by the idea of Eden as a metaphor for the arising of self-consciousness. Kripal talks about this in the Serpent's Gift, for example.

I would like to read the essay - if you don't want to post it, send it to me PM if you do find it. I try to read things that challenge my sensibilities when I can.

 

[smcder]

@Soupie: It's simply the idea of seeing/considering the forest and the trees, and not missing one for the sake of the other. I like to think it allows me to be more objective.

@Scmder: One more question (I feel like Columbo here, but asking questions is the only way I know to try and find out what people really think and how it works for them in their lives) . . . so that is,more objective in relationship to what or compared to what? Compared to other people? Again, how does this play out in day to day life?

Don't we have to always make assumptions or just start from somewhere more or less arbitrary (which might mean a place comfortable to us - maybe we start from who we are)?

I'll let it go at that because the trees are spinning now . . .

I don't mind the questions (from anybody). In fact, I welcome them.

Edit: I see I misunderstood the question. It helps me be more objective... than I otherwise would be.

I believe it helps me be more objective in relation to reality. I'm not saying I actually achieve objectivity, but I strive for it. I consider my point of view, what might be the point of view of others, and then - reflexively - I (attempt to) consider situations from a cosmic, abstract point of view. (I think it is probably reflected in my thoughts as shared here. This is related to what I shared much earlier about often having the feeling of "stepping back" and watching myself interact with the world.)

Compared to other people? It has been my experience that I tend to consider things from the existential point of view more than most others (which is to say that I always do, and most people occasionally do).

How does it play out in day to day life? I tend to make a lot of odd connections and see parallels between various events and concepts. I also tend not to think things are as big a deal as many other people do. And in many situations, I tend to be less judgmental/opinionated than others, probably to a fault.

I think many contributors to this thread do the same, and is perhaps why I've found this discussion so engrossing.

More very good answers. Now, I am going to go outside and play!

I agree with the contributors - many great voices here, all go to make up the group intelligence, I always learn something.

 

[Soupie]

I think instead of telling people "you are doing the best you can"

I don't tell them they are doing their best, but I make the assumption that they are. I then (try to) show them other ways of thinking and behaving that may help them meet their goals more effectively.

So the first consciousness was a consciousness of another mind . . . ? I'm always intrigued by the idea of Eden as a metaphor for the arising of self-consciousness. Kripal talks about this in the Serpent's Gift, for example.

Hm, yeah, good question. Was the human mind first aware of other minds or its own? Nice.

I often think of Hellen Keller's statement that her self emerged when she learned language, the names of things. Before then, everything, including her self, just was one. Kind of like that animal state of non-awareness noted above.

As soon as she began labeling things, her self emerged from the oneness along with everything else.

I would like to read the essay - if you don't want to post it, send it to me PM if you do find it. I try to read things that challenge my sensibilities when I can.

Will do. I've already spent about 30 min looking for it to no avail.

 

[smcder]

Episode 13: What Are the Metaphysical Implications of Quantum Physics? | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

On Werner Heisenberg’s “Physics and Philosophy” (1958), and talking about it with an actual former particle physicist, Dylan Casey.
What weird stuff about reality does quantum physics imply? Is Heisenberg (of the Uncertainty Principle fame) right that we need to reject “metaphysical realism” based on this very well established scientific framework? The discussion ranges over the uncertainty principle, relativity, wave/particle duality, Pre-Socratic metaphysics, why Kant is wrong about space, and lots of very weird things.
Read the text online or purchase it.

Plus, we spend far too much time talking about an article by Thomas Nagel about intelligent design; you can read that here. And the blog post by Brian Leiter that got us talking about it is here.

 

[smcder]

I don't tell them they are doing their best, but I make the assumption that they are. I then (try to) show them other ways of thinking and behaving that may help them meet their goals more effectively.

Hm, yeah, good question. Was the human mind first aware of other minds or its own? Nice.

I often think of Hellen Keller's statement that her self emerged when she learned language, the names of things. Before then, everything, including her self, just was one. Kind of like that animal state of non-awareness noted above.

As soon as she began labeling things, her self emerged from the oneness along with everything else.

Will do. I've already spent about 30 min looking for it to no avail.

That's ok - if it turns up great but no worries.

So the difference in animal and human awareness is quantitative but not qualitative? I'm trying to sort out what you are getting at in saying the human/animal "difference" is quantitative but not qualitative. Is it to avoid a "special place" for humans? It seems humans, then, would have a special place among the animals in being the only ones to be aware that they need to make an effort not to take a special place . . .

Besides a quantitative or qualitative difference in self-awareness there is also a difference in language in terms of the brain structures involved, structures allowing speech, written language, analysis of languages, etc - and chimpanzee/gorilla "language use" is controversial . . .

David Berlinski

David Berlinski
David Berlinski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

writes:

"Having been given the gift of language, they have nothing to say. When two simian prodigies meet, they fling their placards at each other.

More is expected but more is rarely forthcoming. Experiments - and they are exquisite - conducted by Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth indicate that like other mammals, baboons have a rich inner world. Simian social structures are often intricate. Chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas reason; they form plans; they have preferences; they are cunning; they have passions and desires; and they suffer. In much of this, we see ourselves. But beyond what we have in common with the apes, we have nothing in common, and while the similarities are interesting, the differences are profound.

If human beings are as human beings think they are, then questions arise about what they are, and so do responses. These responses are ancient. They have arisen in every culture. They have seemed to men and women the obvious conclusions to be drawn from just looking around. Accordingly, an enormous amount of intellectual effort has been invested in persuading men and women not to look around."

-------

I think animals experience cognitive pain. We have five dogs (six temporarily) all taken in as strays. Someone once told me that a stray had a whole other life and they often seemed to look sad, or to look into the distance and sigh and we don't know what they are remembering, because they can't tell us.

Someone pointed out animals are subject to brute suffering whereas humans can sometimes mitigate their suffering in a variety of ways. Escape in fantasy, reframing, even just being mindful of physical pain, turning your full attention on it - reveals that it's not continuous. Certainly humans can control pain to a remarkable extent - through hypnotism but also by force of will (see G Gordon Liddy's autobiography for examples).

In The New Religions, Jacob Needleman writes that it is the purpose of eastern traditions in meditation to bring all the animal passions in the individual to heel. I'll find and post the passage later - but his point is that its the human aspect bringing animal consciousness under control that brings about a calm mind.

So I wonder if this notion of animal consciousness is akin to theRomantic idea of the "noble savage"?

 

[Soupie]

So the difference in animal and human awareness is quantitative but not qualitative? I'm trying to sort out what you are getting at in saying the human/animal "difference" is quantitative but not qualitative. Is it to avoid a "special place" for humans? It seems humans, then, would have a special place among the animals in being the only ones to be aware that they need to make an effort not to take a special place . . .

Rightly or wrongly, I view consciousness on a spectrum. I don’t think it’s a binary thing, meaning various organisms either have it or they don’t have it.

I think other organisms (but not all) experience consciousness, but not to the same degree as humans.

Thus, many organisms have the quality of consciousness, but humans have a larger quantity of consciousness. Thus, it’s an issue of quantity, not quality.

Also, I don’t disagree that humans are special, but again, it’s a matter of degree, not quality.

For example, NBA players are “special” in that they are uniquely, freakishly tall. However, all humans have the quality of height, NBA players simply have a larger quantity of height.

I think of consciousness in the same way.

In The New Religions, Jacob Needleman writes that it is the purpose of eastern traditions in meditation to bring all the animal passions in the individual to heel. I'll find and post the passage later - but his point is that its the human aspect bringing animal consciousness under control that brings about a calm mind.

So I wonder if this notion of animal consciousness is akin to the Romantic idea of the "noble savage"?

There is a difference between human and animal passions/instincts/goals, and human and animal consciousness/self-awareness.

I think all animals (which includes humans) have different “psychologies.” Now, some species are more similar than others; for example, social species will have more in common psychologically than non-social species. For instance, that’s why humans and dogs get along so well, both social/pack animals.

Also, humans are definitely more able to inhibit their impulses - impulses that are related to our human physiology and psychology - than other animals, no doubt. I think this is an ability that sets us apart (by degree) from other animals. In the cognitive sciences, this is known as executive functioning. Children have poor executive functioning, but that is a developmental issue. On the other hand, many adults with mental health issues have poor executive functioning. The executive functions are inhibiting, focusing attention, planning, organising, and modulating.

Various yogi and other “holy” types have taken these executive skills to completely new level. They are masters of self-control, at freakish levels.

Consciousness/self-awareness is a different concept: Humans are aware that they are aware. Many animals are not.

Thus, humans are self-conscious, and many animals are not. Being self-conscious has its advantages and disadvantages. Being self-aware - having an ego - isolates us from the rest of reality.

[reality] self

When I think of “animal consciousness,’ I’m thinking of an egoless state of being.

[reality/self]

When the ego melts aways, we merge back into reality. We experience a “oneness” with reality. Such an experience is profound and, I imagine, perceived as mystical/magical by the experiencer.

This oneness with reality is what I imagine non-self-conscious others experience. There is nothing “noble” or superior about it per se, it’s just another way of being.

 

[smcder]

Rightly or wrongly, I view consciousness on a spectrum. I don’t think it’s a binary thing, meaning various organisms either have it or they don’t have it.

I think other organisms (but not all) experience consciousness, but not to the same degree as humans.

Thus, many organisms have the quality of consciousness, but humans have a larger quantity of consciousness. Thus, it’s an issue of quantity, not quality.

Also, I don’t disagree that humans are special, but again, it’s a matter of degree, not quality.

For example, NBA players are “special” in that they are uniquely, freakishly tall. However, all humans have the quality of height, NBA players simply have a larger quantity of height.

I think of consciousness in the same way.

There is a difference between human and animal passions/instincts/goals, and human and animal consciousness/self-awareness.

I think all animals (which includes humans) have different “psychologies.” Now, some species are more similar than others; for example, social species will have more in common psychologically than non-social species. For instance, that’s why humans and dogs get along so well, both social/pack animals.

Also, humans are definitely more able to inhibit their impulses - impulses that are related to our human physiology and psychology - than other animals, no doubt. I think this is an ability that sets us apart (by degree) from other animals. In the cognitive sciences, this is known as executive functioning. Children have poor executive functioning, but that is a developmental issue. On the other hand, many adults with mental health issues have poor executive functioning. The executive functions are inhibiting, focusing attention, planning, organising, and modulating.

Various yogi and other “holy” types have taken these executive skills to completely new level. They are masters of self-control, at freakish levels.

Consciousness/self-awareness is a different concept: Humans are aware that they are aware. Many animals are not.

Thus, humans are self-conscious, and many animals are not. Being self-conscious has its advantages and disadvantages. Being self-aware - having an ego - isolates us from the rest of reality.

[reality] self

When I think of “animal consciousness,’ I’m thinking of an egoless state of being.

[reality/self]

When the ego melts aways, we merge back into reality. We experience a “oneness” with reality. Such an experience is profound and, I imagine, perceived as mystical/magical by the experiencer.

This oneness with reality is what I imagine non-self-conscious others experience. There is nothing “noble” or superior about it per se, it’s just another way of being.

Rightly or wrongly, I view consciousness on a spectrum. I don’t think it’s a binary thing, meaning various organisms either have it or they don’t have it. I think other organisms (but not all) experience consciousness, but not to the same degree as humans. Thus, many organisms have the quality of consciousness, but humans have a larger quantity of consciousness. Thus, it’s an issue of quantity, not quality. Also, I don’t disagree that humans are special, but again, it’s a matter of degree, not quality. For example, NBA players are “special” in that they are uniquely, freakishly tall. However, all humans have the quality of height, NBA players simply have a larger quantity of height. I think of consciousness in the same way.

It seems so . . . but something isn't quite right or doesn't feel right, I'm not grokking something and experience says I'll get my finger on it eventually . . . something here:

but humans have a larger quantity of consciousness. (consciousness as quantifiable makes me think of the machine in Forbidden Planet where Walter Pigeon hooks the spacemen up to his machine and measures their brainpower)

and here:

Being self-aware - having an ego - isolates us from the rest of reality. (maybe this is just semantic, how can anything be isolated from reality? yet I know what you mean)

When the ego melts aways, we merge back into reality. We experience a “oneness” with reality. Such an experience is profound and, I imagine, perceived as mystical/magical by the experiencer.

Actually it sounds like a good working definition of mystical to me, which means the experiencer's perceptions are accurate?

This oneness with reality is what I imagine non-self-conscious others experience. There is nothing “noble” or superior about it per se, it’s just another way of being.

Maybe there is something "noble" about it, or superior? Why not. Judged by the fruits, etc. We treat these words as somehow wrong or something, our egalitarian culture maybe. That's different from saying one human is worth more than another . . . but of course we make that judgement every day.


I'll have to come back to the qualitative, quantitative thing or maybe it's not very important . . . although, if it's strictly quantitative, what does that do to the idea of emergence?

Because as we go along that spectrum, new things emerge - self-consciousness, impulse control and then finally the "mystical" (or whatever) . . . and those new things seem qualitatively different - like "critical mass" get just enough plutonium together and I think you'll agree we have a qualitative change from the instant before.

BOOM

But do they just come out of there being more of the thing? Or does some organizing principle intervene because you have enough of that thing . . . or does it amount to the same thing? and now we are back to semantics. Where is Ufology with his predicate calculus when we need him!

In his book on Feynman, called Genius - the author talks about the difference in an ordinary genius, which would be someone like Sherlock Holmes - just like us only much smarter, then there is the "wizard" who does things you can't think are possible and can't exactly explain just by being smarter (and the "wizard" himself doesn't really understand how either - but not in a savant sort of way) and that would be Mycroft Holmes or Feynman himself. I think of your guy with the high IQ who wrote that paper you posted, I forget his name - as being an "ordinary" genius . . .

When Feynman went back to his high school after winning the Nobel prize to check his IQ, it was 128. Not good enough for Mensa . . . :-(
One last question, Mr Soupie, if that is your real name . . . I'm just kidding, I'm done!

For now.

 

[Soupie]

It seems so . . . but something isn't quite right or doesn't feel right, I'm not grokking something and experience says I'll get my finger on it eventually . . . something here:

but humans have a larger quantity of consciousness. (consciousness as quantifiable makes me think of the machine in Forbidden Planet where Walter Pigeon hooks the spacemen up to his machine and measures their brainpower) ...

Because as we go along that spectrum, new things emerge - self-consciousness, impulse control and then finally the "mystical" (or whatever) . . . and those new things seem qualitatively different - like "critical mass" get just enough plutonium together and I think you'll agree we have a qualitative change from the instant before.

No, I absolutely agree. While I think all organisms - on account of being made of the same stuff and being a result of the same processes - have the same potential to evolve (and thus experience) consciousness, I also think some degrees of self-awareness are tantamount to qualitative differences. (Haha, is that cheating?)

Think of the development of a baby and the gradual emergence of self-awareness (I probably have the progression way out of order):

No self-awareness <----> Self-awareness

I'm separate from mum; I'm separate from Dad and sister/brother; I'm a person too; I'm a person that is uncomfortable right now; I'm a girl; I'm a girl person that is hungry; I'm a girl person that is fast; I'm a girl person that is mad; I'm a girl person that is making mum angry; I'm a girl person who's a daughter that will some day die, etc.

Crude, I know. But that might be one way to "quantify" just how self-aware a person is, and likewise a non-human. They may be aware they are a unique self distinct from everything else (reality) but their awareness may end there (or not).

Being self-aware - having an ego - isolates us from the rest of reality.

Yes, semantics. A better word might be "distinct."

It's the beginning of reductionism. It's a powerful tool that was externalized via language. Yes, Eden is def a metpahor; what did Adam and Eve do in the Garden? They named the animals. They peeled them from the rest of reality, just as man was beginning to peel himself from reality. Again, the example of Hellen Keller illustrates this well: language allows us to pull things from the oneness. When HK grokked language, she began to peel herself and everything else out of the oneness of being. What a profound moment that must have been.

How about the first human to do so... Wow.

Did "teenagers" exist before someone coined the term? Of course. But now that we've named them, they exist in a way they didn't before... There is a self-awareness (albeit cultural) now of this made up thing, teenagers.

Maybe there is something "noble" about it, or superior? Why not. Judged by the fruits, etc. We treat these words as somehow wrong or something, our egalitarian culture maybe.

It all depends on what perspective you're viewing it from. What metric is one using? Survival in the wilderness? Or simply being a kind neighbor?

In his book on Feynman, called Genius - the author talks about the difference in an ordinary genius, which would be someone like Sherlock Holmes - just like us only much smarter, then there is the "wizard" who does things you can't think are possible and can't exactly explain just by being smarter (and the "wizard" himself doesn't really understand how either - but not in a savant sort of way) and that would be Mycroft Holmes or Feynman himself. I think of your guy with the high IQ who wrote that paper you posted, I forget his name - as being an "ordinary" genius . . .

I like it. I think of Leonardo da Vinci, Isaac Newton, Ben Franklin, and Herman Hesse. Tesla should prob be in there too.