Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Soupie]

Last night, when I picked out pajamas for my 4-year-old daughter, she said: "Those are the pajamas I was thinking about in my brain!" Fascinated, I asked her where her brain was, and she pointed to her forehead.

She does go to preschool a few days a week, and she said they are told that they use their brains to learn (but not think per se). Also, recently, she asked what the word "doubt" meant, and I explained that it was when we may not think something would happen that someone said would happen. I used the weather as an example.

It wasn't so much the first part of her statement that got me - "Those are the pajamas I was thinking about" (although this does indicate an ability to meta-cognate which is fascinating) - but the second part: "in my brain." It's fascinating to know she knew she was thinking, but even more interesting that she believes the thinking took place in her brain.

I'll be sure to report here if she mentions whether her brain produces the thinking or whether the thinking only localizes in her brain, haha!

 

[smcder]

That article didn't influence my thinking, but the central concept - that reflexive consciousness is adaptive - is one that I hold, yes.

OK

 

[smcder]

more phenomenological goodness from Peterson … Binswanger /Boss (Swiss psychologists)

00:45 "phenomenology is the study of experience as it is lived, existentialism puts a twist on that because existentialists assume that being has an implicitly moral dimension"

also consciousness:

2:00

"Scientific presuppositions or what pass for scientific presuppositions are generally extremely reductionistic and they assume that consciousness is in some manner that has not yet been determined a secondary byproduct of fundamentally material processes and its a perfectly reasonable hypothesis but i wouldn't say there is any real evidence for it. Its hard to overstate how mysterious consciousness is - as a phenomena …"

 

[smcder]

@Constance

per discussion of karma,
What the Buddha taught about karma is this: Your experience of the present moment consists of three things: 1) pleasures and pains resulting from past intentions, 2) present intentions, and 3) pleasures and pains resulting from present intentions. With reference to the question of happiness, this teaching has three main implications.

• The present is not totally shaped by the past. In fact, the most important element shaping your present pleasure or pain is how you fashion, with your intentions in the present, the raw material provided by the past.

• Pleasures and pains don’t just come floating by of their own accord. They come from intentions, which are actions. This means that they have their price, in that every action has an impact both on yourself and on others. The less harmful the impact, the lower the price. If your search for happiness is harmful to others, they will fight to undo your happiness. If it’s harmful to yourself, your search has failed.

• Your search for pleasure or gratification in the present has an impact not only on the present but also well into the future. If you want a long-term happiness, you have to take into account the way your present actions shape future events. And you have to pay careful attention now, for you can’t come back from tomorrow to undo any careless mistakes you had made today.

….
in a talk on this - it was noted that most of this was usually unconscious, and to use awareness to bring this into consciousness - the connection with the body and present intentions was through the breath, this is what I have been working on in every situation, check my breath and check my intentions … the talk also went into detail about the story you tell yourself about the situation and the interaction between this story and your emotions, I thought it tied in well with the 10 minute video you posted on pre-reflective consciousness above -

 

[Soupie]

definitely can see the influence on your thinking -

@smcder @Constance

It's interesting that you both feel that way, and I'd appreciate it if you both could elaborate on that perhaps. I've been reflecting on this excellent thread/discussion and in which ways it has influenced my thinking.

So far as I can tell, the only "change" in my thinking regarding metaphysics (the nature of what-is) and consciousness (the nature of mind) is a better understanding of the so-called hard problem of (phenomenal) consciousness. And that remains my main area of interest in this discussion: How does phenomenal consciousness (conscious experience) arise in our reality?

From where I stand, neither of you have presented ideas or beliefs that are incompatible with mine.

On @smcder's part, all he's offered - but not endorsed - is the idea of dependent origination. I don't believe this view is incompatible with reflexive monism.

On @Constance's part, she's offered phenomenology and the idea of embodied consciousness. The practice of phenomenology is clearly not incompatible with any of my views as it's the practice of describing consciousness, an endeavor that I clearly support and enjoy. Regarding embodied consciousness - while I hold that the brain is primary in producing the mind - I also recognize consciousness is reliant on and impacted by the body, the environment, and the social milieu in which the organism is situated.

In fact, I'm the one who has stated that we have no way to conceive of mind without the body and an ability to interact with the environment. I'm still no sure how @Constance can hold that consciousness must be embodied while at the same time hold that it can then exist in the absence of a brain, body, environment, and social milieu.

A Brief Guide to Embodied Cognition: Why You Are Not Your Brain

Embodied cognition, the idea that the mind is not only connected to the body but that the body influences the mind, is one of the more counter-intuitive ideas in cognitive science. In sharp contrast is dualism, a theory of mind famously put forth by Rene Descartes in the 17th century ...

Embodied cognition has a relatively short history. Its intellectual roots date back to early 20th century philosophers Martin Heidegger, Maurice Merleau-Ponty and John Dewey and it has only been studied empirically in the last few decades. One of the key figures to empirically study embodiment is University of California at Berkeley professor George Lakoff. ...

I'm not trying to challenge either of you, nor to have either of you expound on your views. My point is - as I mentioned weeks ago - that the two of you seem to believe that my views differ drastically from yours, but so far as I have seen, they do not. And in the case of @Constance, what she finds troublesome in my views may be in fact a reflection of her own views.

 

[smcder]

Last night, when I picked out pajamas for my 4-year-old daughter, she said: "Those are the pajamas I was thinking about in my brain!" Fascinated, I asked her where her brain was, and she pointed to her forehead.

She does go to preschool a few days a week, and she said they are told that they use their brains to learn (but not think per se). Also, recently, she asked what the word "doubt" meant, and I explained that it was when we may not think something would happen that someone said would happen. I used the weather as an example.

It wasn't so much the first part of her statement that got me - "Those are the pajamas I was thinking about" (although this does indicate an ability to meta-cognate which is fascinating) - but the second part: "in my brain." It's fascinating to know she knew she was thinking, but even more interesting that she believes the thinking took place in her brain.

I'll be sure to report here if she mentions whether her brain produces the thinking or whether the thinking only localizes in her brain, haha!

Did she point to her third eye? ;-) There is a small indention just above and between the eyes

Glabella - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and that seems to be a natural place to point (or rub when one is frustrated) - there or on the dominant hand side above the eye, in the "smart thinking" gesture -

But I think where we locate ourself is cultural . . . I have a book on the Samurai and there is a saying about how Westerners are top-heavy b/c they locate themselves in their heads, whereas the Japanese have a concept of Hara and so are centered:

Head, Heart and HARA

... harakiri ... right?

Abdominal breathing is also encouraged in the martial arts and of course in meditation. The center of gravity is located here so it is essential to learn this area in order to move and to move others in Judo for example or Sumo. Sumo wrestlers actually follow diet, sleep and exercise prescriptions to develop muscle and concentrate fat in these central regions - as a result they have the highest muscle mass of any athlete .. with only about 20-25% bodyfat.

Of course the enteric nervous system has been described as a second brain and uses 90% of the serotonin in the body and half the dopamine ... and there is also a heart brain composed of 40000 neurons in the heart.

This article was also kind of fun:
Brain Deposed as Seat of Consciousness | Indigenize!

Since we have no idea what consciousness is, then where it is (or if that question even makes sense) ... is open.

 

[smcder]

@smcder @Constance

It's interesting that you both feel that way, and I'd appreciate it if you both could elaborate on that perhaps. I've been reflecting on this excellent thread/discussion and in which ways it has influenced my thinking.

So far as I can tell, the only "change" in my thinking regarding metaphysics (the nature of what-is) and consciousness (the nature of mind) is a better understanding of the so-called hard problem of (phenomenal) consciousness. And that remains my main area of interest in this discussion: How does phenomenal consciousness (conscious experience) arise in our reality?

From where I stand, neither of you have presented ideas or beliefs that are incompatible with mine.

On @smcder's part, all he's offered - but not endorsed - is the idea of dependent origination. I don't believe this view is incompatible with reflexive monism.

On @Constance's part, she's offered phenomenology and the idea of embodied consciousness. The practice of phenomenology is clearly not incompatible with any of my views as it's the practice of describing consciousness, an endeavor that I clearly support and enjoy. Regarding embodied consciousness - while I hold that the brain is primary in producing the mind - I also recognize consciousness is reliant on and impacted by the body, the environment, and the social milieu in which the organism is situated.

In fact, I'm the one who has stated that we have no way to conceive of mind without the body and an ability to interact with the environment. I'm still no sure how @Constance can hold that consciousness must be embodied while at the same time hold that it can then exist in the absence of a brain, body, environment, and social milieu.

I'm not trying to challenge either of you, nor to have either of you expound on your views. My point is - as I mentioned weeks ago - that the two of you seem to believe that my views differ drastically from yours, but so far as I have seen, they do not. And in the case of @Constance, what she finds troublesome in my views may be in fact a reflection of her own views.

I guess I didn't know we where having an argument!? ;-) Are we? Should we?

I don't think of us as having to choose up sides or a position and then defend it and be rigidly consistent ... Terminology has been a problem from the get-go, I'll give you that - referring to the SEP seems to have helped that a bit lately though.

When I posted the Greer article on magic, it was no reproving, but just informative - the idea of magic that Clarke used isn't the historical one - I do think we should learn about these things and I think magic is very interesting -it's on a par with philosophy and science and it is very active in our world today.

. . . you do seem to be defensive from time to time or feel like you have to respond to a post - but that's just my sense of it - all I can go by is wording and make a guess - and that particular story isn't very helpful anyway.

I have have had very little time lately to read or post and I have very limited access to the internet - so I share things that I listen to on my way to and from work and while working at home - having to keep up with thread in my head, I probably don't always take pains to make it clear how it's related or whether it's in response to a particular comment.

I try to make it things I think may be of general interest or may point to other areas of research relevant to something someone's posted - it's also a place to put my thoughts and if ever I have a chance to go back and say now what did Soupie say? Or what was that Constance posted?

I posted Tyger's original post recently that started it all - and this was conceived to be very broad and free-wheeling ... some of your frustration may come from trying to bring a focus to the thread that just might not be there. You might start another thread with a more narrow focus.

There is a lot of compatibility in all that's been posted. Buddhist phenomenology impresses me with its sophistication and clarity and with how much he saw and understood - but because the Buddha had one focus - the end of suffering, he simply didn't spend time on questions that weren't to that end. And I appreciate that view point for my own life and I try to work those practices, not to be a Buddhist, but to be a better whatever I am ... a better human being.

Disembodied consciousness fascinates me too and I want to know more. I don't particularly care if Constance can reconcile that with phenomenology, it's also conceivable to me that both could be true- that consciousness in human beings works in an embodied fashion and these other phenomena are . . . well, other phenomena.

 

[Constance]

@smcder @Constance

It's interesting that you both feel that way, and I'd appreciate it if you both could elaborate on that perhaps. I've been reflecting on this excellent thread/discussion and in which ways it has influenced my thinking.

The thread has influenced my thinking as well, and I'm sure Steve would say the same. We've all had an opportunity here to read a variety of perspectives on consciousness and to discuss a range of issues being explored in consciousness research centering around the mind/body problem. These issues are far from being resolved, but it seems fair to say that the concept of the embodiment of consciousness first raised in MP's philosophy and influential in Maturana/Varela's biological theory of autopoeisis, further developed by Thompson, is currently challenging earlier neuroscientific and computationalist presuppositions (that we are our neural nets and that our consciousness and minds can be explained in terms of computation, the brain being conceived as a 'biological computer'. Likewise, phenomenologists involved in consciousness studies have been challenged by progress in neuroscience and work with neuroscientists in what has been called 'neurophenomenology'. Evan Thompson, Alva Noe, George Lakoff, and others pursue the integration of phenomenology, biology, neuroscience, and other disciplines. Consciousness remains a mystery and so does the mind, but progress is being made by the interdisciplinary cooperation described above.

Should we argue about this?, as Steve asked. Why should we when we have so much to learn from the real experts in the disciplines involved?

ps, it will be a very long time before all the information and insights already accumulated about consciousness can be integrated into a fuller understanding of what it is, and how it opens us to and informs us about the world we experience as being part of it.

 

[Constance]

Of course the enteric nervous system has been described as a second brain and uses 90% of the serotonin in the body and half the dopamine ... and there is also a heart brain composed of 40000 neurons in the heart.

Brain Deposed as Seat of Consciousness | Indigenize!

Since we have no idea what consciousness is, then where it is (or if that question even makes sense) ... is open.

Indeed, it seems to be everywhere in various ways. The Global Consciousness Project at Yale supports the Jungian idea of the collective unconscious. You've posted recent research on consciousness in plants, and that goes back decades to Clive Beckster's plant research with Ingo Swann. People sensitive in various ways sense awareness at the other side of their perceptions. MP wrote about this as exemplified in Cezanne's paintings and his comments about his experience while painting as one in which he felt the trees observing him as he touched them through his paintbrush on the canvass. This is all expressed in a key essay by MP entitled "Eye and Mind," linked here. The first three pages summarize succinctly the phenomenological critique of materialist/objectivist science; the rest is revelatory concerning the chiasmic relation between consciousness and the world.

http://pg2009.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/eye-and-mind-merleu-pontymmp-text1.pdf

Your link above to the illustrated article "Brain Deposed as Seat of Consciousness" is marvelous and historically significant. Early German Expressionist filmmakers were among the first to recognize that the dominance of the machine meme in modern culture threatened to efface and even destroy consciousness along with human freedom (see Fritz Lang's Metropolis). As the article you linked demonstrates, people were fascinated and repelled by the future they could sense forming in the modern world. This wiki link on the film is a good introduction to what artists in particular, especially cinematic artists, seem to have sensed about what was to come in the 'modern' world, a form of prescience.

Metropolis (1927 film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How much of their early insight in that period of history came from the subconscious, accumulated through their continuous sensitivity to the changing images presented by an increasing technologized world and their thinking through to its outcome in human terms? Millions of people have reacted to the spector of AI before Stephen Hawking, Stuart Russell, Max Tegmark, and Frank Wilczek were moved, on the basis of seeing the current film Transcendence, to recognize its enormous risks, moved enough to speak out on the subject in this statement in the UK's Independent newspaper:

Stephen Hawking: 'Transcendence looks at the implications of artificial intelligence - but are we taking AI seriously enough?' - Science - News - The Independent

It's obvious that our species needs to understand what consciousness is and what it enables before it's displaced by posthuman machine intelligence.

 

[Soupie]

@smcder Since we have no idea what consciousness is, then where it is (or if that question even makes sense) ... is open.

I wonder what this belief does for you.

While we certainly don't have complete understanding of consciousness, I disagree that "we have no idea what it is." Phenomenal consciousness in particular seems to elude understanding, but even it can be understood to a degree by way of understanding our sensory systems. But how/why "green" in the visual cortex becomes "Greenish" in our stream of phenomenal consciousness is indeed a mystery.

But our admitted lack of understanding of the brain/body itself should serve as a note of caution that perhaps we better hold off on crediting the supernatural.

Things You Cannot Unsee (And What That Says About Your Brain) - Alexis C. Madrigal - The Atlantic

"I think one can describe the can't-unsee phenomenon as follows: Once you interpret visual stimulus in a certain way, you'll continue to interpret it in the same way now and the next time you encounter the stimulus," Toppino said. "Ambiguous figures certainly involve some of the same processes."

Before we get into the mechanics of those processes, let's step back for a minute and talk about a current hypothesis about the way the visual processing works. We tend to think of the eyes as sensors, like a CCD in a camera. Light falls on retinal cells and they convey that information "up" to the brain, which shows us a real-time image of our environment.

Of course, the brain is much more complex than this. When scientists look at the visual cortex, they find distinct layers that function in a rough hierarchy. Each layer handles a certain level of complexity. So, the most basic might simply process lines at a certain angle. Here, we see a famous illustration by Nobel Prize winners David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel of neural recordings in V1, the region that receives input most directly from the retina, through two areas of the thalamus known collectively as the lateral geniculate nucleus, or LGN.

It depicts recordings from neurons that respond most strongly to diagonal lines running through their receptive field, which is represented as the dashed box. Diagonal line: heavy firing. Horizontal line: not so much.

The neurons in the next layer might respond most intensely to a simple pattern, or density of lines. Through the cortex, the complexity increases, but the mechanisms remain the same: neurons are tuned to certain phenomena, whether that's a line of a certain orientation or a face.1

Much of this has been known for decades.2 But here's where the science has gotten really interesting in the last five or ten years. When neuroscientists look at the connections between the cells, they don't just see information passing up the complexity chain. There is information running down from the neocortex's higher levels to the lower ones.

"For every axon coming from the retina into our thalamus before entering our 'consciousness' in the primary visual cortex, the primary visual cortex sends at least twice as many axons back onto the thalamus to modulate the raw signal," explained UC San Diego neuroscientist Bradley Voytek.3

Why is that significant? "Our cortex is already changing the raw visual information before that information gets into our consciousness," Voytek concluded.

I think understanding phenomenal consciousness will continue to for a very long time, if only because even if it is ever achieved artificially, due to its subjective, 1st person perspective nature, certain humans will deny its presence in non-organic entities - despite what these entities may claim about possessing phenomenal consciousness. (Same with alien life should we ever encounter it.)

One thing I find fascinating about phenomenal consciousness is that I can experience it simply by recalling memories and also in my dreams. Now, they're not nearly as rich as the phenomenal stream I experience when interacting with the environment, but they are there nonetheless.

How am I able to have phenomenal consciousness in the absence of sensory information? And why do blind people not experience Greenish in their phenomenal stream of consciousness... or their dreams?

Hurovitz et al.: Dreams of the Blind

Drawing on a sample of 372 dreams from 15 blind adults, this paper presents two separate analyses that replicate and extend findings from previous studies. The first analysis employed DreamSearch, a software program designed for use with dream narratives, to examine the appearance of the five sensory modalities. It revealed that those blind since birth or very early childhood had (1) no visual imagery and (2) a very high percentage of gustatory, olfactory, and tactual sensory references. The second analysis found that both male and female participants differed from their sighted counterparts in the same ways on several Hall and Van de Castle (1966) coding categories, including a high percentage of locomotion/transportation dreams that contained at least one dreamer-involved misfortune. The findings on sensory references and dreamer-involved misfortunes in locomotion/transportation dreams are interpreted as evidence for the continuity between dream content and waking cognition.

@smcder I guess I didn't know we where having an argument!? ;-) Are we? Should we?

No, absolutely not. It's just that in an effort to "prune my own tree" I crave the ideas of others. While you, Constance, and others have shared a tremendous amount of ideas and resources, I suppose I'm still baffled as to why you reject monism and the body/brain as the origin of consciousness. Neither of you owe me anything, and I'm not asking you to explain your views, I'm just stating that I don't understand why you have them. I'm sure you've both had experiences which cause you to hold the beliefs that you do.

@smcder I don't particularly care if Constance can reconcile [disembodied consciousness] with phenomenology, it's also conceivable to me that both could be true- that consciousness in human beings works in an embodied fashion and these other phenomena are . . . well, other phenomena.

I don't care either - in the sense that I feel she needs to share my view - but I do in the sense that if she knows something I don't, I want to know it too!

 

[Soupie]

@Constance The Global Consciousness Project at Yale supports the Jungian idea of the collective unconscious.

The Jungian concept of the collective unconscious is meant to refer to the "collective genotype" of the human species from which follows the "collective phenotype." (And since according to the evolutionary mythos all life is descended from a common ancestor, we all share a collective unconscious.) In other words, the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious doesn't refer to a disembodied, ambient consciousness of which humans have access. (That's not to say that there isn't such a consciousness, but only that this is not what Jungian collective unconscious is.)

From Wiki: Collective unconscious is a term of analytical psychology, coined by Carl Jung. It is proposed to be a part of the unconscious mind, expressed in humanity and all life forms with nervous systems, and describes how the structure of the psyche autonomously organizes experience. Jung distinguished the collective unconscious from the personal unconscious, in that the personal unconscious is a personal reservoir of experience unique to each individual, while the collective unconscious collects and organizes those personal experiences in a similar way with each member of a particular species.

I feel strongly that this collective unconscious plays a powerful role in all our lives. And while I don't think it's sentient per se, I do think wonder if it can speak to the ego at times.

 

[Constance]

@Constance The Global Consciousness Project at Yale supports the Jungian idea of the collective unconscious.

The Jungian concept of the collective unconscious is meant to refer to the "collective genotype" of the human species from which follows the "collective phenotype." (And since according to the evolutionary mythos all life is descended from a common ancestor, we all share a collective unconscious.) In other words, the Jungian concept of the collective unconscious doesn't refer to a disembodied, ambient consciousness of which humans have access. (That's not to say that there isn't such a consciousness, but only that this is not what Jungian collective unconscious is.)

I'm not an expert in Jung, but my impression has been that the collective unconscious carries the unconscious memories not of a single common ancestor but of our species and even of other species in the deep history of our evolution. It's widely surmised that the subconscious and unconscious precincts of human consciousness are also the regions in which we can access whatever psychic abilities we may have and within which trance mediums, remote viewers, mystics, and prophets are able to access other levels of reality than that which is apparent to us in waking consciousness. The boundaries between these different precincts of consciousness also seem to be porous, allowing communication among them. This general picture is probably what has motivated the Global Consciousness Project, which measures at about 80 locations around the planet divergences in the activity of random number generators placed at those locations. A look at their recording data on and just before the attacks of 9/11 makes the point that at some level, likely unconscious, people in many places in the world shared a sense that something significant, and perhaps alarming, was imminent, registering a peak in divergence from the normal RNG functioning.

I feel strongly that this collective unconscious plays a powerful role in all our lives. And while I don't think it's sentient per se, I do think wonder if it can speak to the ego at times.

I think what's lodged in the unconscious and subconscious is information based in experiences and emotions of the past (from both the individual and the collective past) and that it certainly does affect waking consciousness as well as dreaming.

 

[boomerang]

Why 'artificial'?

Artificial inasmuch as such a demarcation may be a kind of illusion produced by specific neural mechanisms configured to enhance survivability of the individual organism. But only peripheral when speculating about the universe as a larger and ultimately non-individuated consciousness. Whether it is real or illusory may depend solely on which level we choose to look.

I don't know that this is 'wrong'. It is, I believe, a theory at this point rather than something proved.

By wrong, I mean wrong in the sense that it may not be well supported by best evidence in current neurological research. Like most of us, I rely on interpretations of raw data simplified and condensed for public consumption. But my impression is that science is beginning to identify specific neural networks dedicated to our sense of 'self'.

I don't think there are such lines of distinction as you postulate above. But, if there are such lines of distinction to be drawn, why would their necessary implication be that 'self' is hard-wired in the brain?

This is tougher to support. But a biologically based sense of personal boundaries would seem necessary for individual survival. Ancient man feeling a metaphysical "oneness' with the tiger encountered on the trail would probably achieve gastrointestinal union with the tiger as well. And I come back to relatively recent research in real time brain imaging that seems to indicate anatomical structures dedicated to defining boundaries of 'self'. Another clue is the cross-cultural universality of 'self' throughout history. Behaviors universally observed in the human family, especially before the age of global communication, are more likely to be attributable to biological expression than to learned conditioning. Although, we must keep in mind that the expression of biologically based behaviors (instincts) are always shaped and moderated by learning (especially during critical developmental periods in childhood) and by the larger cultural context.

 

[smcder]

@smcder Since we have no idea what consciousness is, then where it is (or if that question even makes sense) ... is open.

I wonder what this belief does for you.

While we certainly don't have complete understanding of consciousness, I disagree that "we have no idea what it is." Phenomenal consciousness in particular seems to elude understanding, but even it can be understood to a degree by way of understanding our sensory systems. But how/why "green" in the visual cortex becomes "Greenish" in our stream of phenomenal consciousness is indeed a mystery.

But our admitted lack of understanding of the brain/body itself should serve as a note of caution that perhaps we better hold off on crediting the supernatural.

I think understanding phenomenal consciousness will continue to for a very long time, if only because even if it is ever achieved artificially, due to its subjective, 1st person perspective nature, certain humans will deny its presence in non-organic entities - despite what these entities may claim about possessing phenomenal consciousness. (Same with alien life should we ever encounter it.)

One thing I find fascinating about phenomenal consciousness is that I can experience it simply by recalling memories and also in my dreams. Now, they're not nearly as rich as the phenomenal stream I experience when interacting with the environment, but they are there nonetheless.

How am I able to have phenomenal consciousness in the absence of sensory information? And why do blind people not experience Greenish in their phenomenal stream of consciousness... or their dreams?

@smcder I guess I didn't know we where having an argument!? ;-) Are we? Should we?

No, absolutely not. It's just that in an effort to "prune my own tree" I crave the ideas of others. While you, Constance, and others have shared a tremendous amount of ideas and resources, I suppose I'm still baffled as to why you reject monism and the body/brain as the origin of consciousness. Neither of you owe me anything, and I'm not asking you to explain your views, I'm just stating that I don't understand why you have them. I'm sure you've both had experiences which cause you to hold the beliefs that you do.

@smcder I don't particularly care if Constance can reconcile [disembodied consciousness] with phenomenology, it's also conceivable to me that both could be true- that consciousness in human beings works in an embodied fashion and these other phenomena are . . . well, other phenomena.

I don't care either - in the sense that I feel she needs to share my view - but I do in the sense that if she knows something I don't, I want to know it too!

Since we have no idea what consciousness is, then where it is (or if that question even makes sense) ... is open.

I wonder what this belief does for you.

While we certainly don't have complete understanding of consciousness, I disagree that "we have no idea what it is." Phenomenal consciousness in particular seems to elude understanding, but even it can be understood to a degree by way of understanding our sensory systems. But how/why "green" in the visual cortex becomes "Greenish" in our stream of phenomenal consciousness is indeed a mystery.
...

Since we have no idea what consciousness is, then where it is (or if that question even makes sense) ... is open.

I wonder what this belief does for you.

What it does for me is bring me back to how little we know. I think it's very difficult (but very important) to keep the mind from making assumptions. I've quoted Chalmers and I think several others, most recently Peterson pretty much saying the same thing about not knowing what consciousness is ... here is Peterson again:

"Scientific presuppositions or what pass for scientific presuppositions are generally extremely reductionistic and they assume that consciousness is in some manner that has not yet been determined a secondary byproduct of fundamentally material processes and its a perfectly reasonable hypothesis but i wouldn't say there is any real evidence for it. Its hard to overstate how mysterious consciousness is - as a phenomena …"

Nagel's most recent book also tackles this problem. They are pretty clear in saying we don't know very much at all . . . so what answer would you give to these statements?

But our admitted lack of understanding of the brain/body itself should serve as a note of caution that perhaps we better hold off on crediting the supernatural.

I didn't know any of us were crediting the supernatural?

No, absolutely not. It's just that in an effort to "prune my own tree" I crave the ideas of others. While you, Constance, and others have shared a tremendous amount of ideas and resources, I suppose I'm still baffled as to why you reject monism and the body/brain as the origin of consciousness.

I don't reject it - but, as far as I know - it hasn't been proven, so we need to keep looking?

Neither of you owe me anything, and I'm not asking you to explain your views, I'm just stating that I don't understand why you have them. I'm sure you've both had experiences which cause you to hold the beliefs that you do.

What views do you think I hold?

 

[smcder]

@smcder Since we have no idea what consciousness is, then where it is (or if that question even makes sense) ... is open.

I wonder what this belief does for you.

While we certainly don't have complete understanding of consciousness, I disagree that "we have no idea what it is." Phenomenal consciousness in particular seems to elude understanding, but even it can be understood to a degree by way of understanding our sensory systems. But how/why "green" in the visual cortex becomes "Greenish" in our stream of phenomenal consciousness is indeed a mystery.

But our admitted lack of understanding of the brain/body itself should serve as a note of caution that perhaps we better hold off on crediting the supernatural.

I think understanding phenomenal consciousness will continue to for a very long time, if only because even if it is ever achieved artificially, due to its subjective, 1st person perspective nature, certain humans will deny its presence in non-organic entities - despite what these entities may claim about possessing phenomenal consciousness. (Same with alien life should we ever encounter it.)

One thing I find fascinating about phenomenal consciousness is that I can experience it simply by recalling memories and also in my dreams. Now, they're not nearly as rich as the phenomenal stream I experience when interacting with the environment, but they are there nonetheless.

How am I able to have phenomenal consciousness in the absence of sensory information? And why do blind people not experience Greenish in their phenomenal stream of consciousness... or their dreams?



@smcder I guess I didn't know we where having an argument!? ;-) Are we? Should we?

No, absolutely not. It's just that in an effort to "prune my own tree" I crave the ideas of others. While you, Constance, and others have shared a tremendous amount of ideas and resources, I suppose I'm still baffled as to why you reject monism and the body/brain as the origin of consciousness. Neither of you owe me anything, and I'm not asking you to explain your views, I'm just stating that I don't understand why you have them. I'm sure you've both had experiences which cause you to hold the beliefs that you do.

@smcder I don't particularly care if Constance can reconcile [disembodied consciousness] with phenomenology, it's also conceivable to me that both could be true- that consciousness in human beings works in an embodied fashion and these other phenomena are . . . well, other phenomena.

I don't care either - in the sense that I feel she needs to share my view - but I do in the sense that if she knows something I don't, I want to know it too!

did you pursue the philosophy wheel/personality type connection ... ?

 

[Constance]

. . . Phenomenal consciousness in particular seems to elude understanding, but even it can be understood to a degree by way of understanding our sensory systems.

MP showed how sense-data alone could not explain consciousness. If the phenomenology of perception 'seems to elude understanding', it's because what it discloses is the nexus {better, the confluence} of subjectivity and objectivity in conscious experience. The phenomenological philosophers who developed this insight and its significance required many years and many books to do so, which is why I (and Steve) cite their books.

But how/why "green" in the visual cortex becomes "Greenish" in our stream of phenomenal consciousness is indeed a mystery.

Yes. [edit to add] Except to those who believe that we have direct contact with the visible world we live in.

But our admitted lack of understanding of the brain/body itself should serve as a note of caution that perhaps we better hold off on crediting the supernatural.

The supernatural is a large order; we do better by approaching the different types of paranormal experience and abilities that have been with our species throughout our history. One day we may have an understanding of how these occur and perhaps even of their origin (if their origin is in fact the same). We can't afford to ignore these types of experiences, especially in investigating consciousness.

I think understanding phenomenal consciousness will continue to for a very long time, if only because even if it is ever achieved artificially, due to its subjective, 1st person perspective nature, certain humans will deny its presence in non-organic entities - despite what these entities may claim about possessing phenomenal consciousness. (Same with alien life should we ever encounter it.)

One thing I find fascinating about phenomenal consciousness is that I can experience it simply by recalling memories and also in my dreams. Now, they're not nearly as rich as the phenomenal stream I experience when interacting with the environment, but they are there nonetheless.

How am I able to have phenomenal consciousness in the absence of sensory information? And why do blind people not experience Greenish in their phenomenal stream of consciousness... or their dreams?

Probably because they are not seeing colors. People blind from birth who have experienced NDEs have reported being able to see (for example, the hospital room or operating room in which their consciousnesses leave their bodies) and they later report exactly what was said and done by doctors, nurses, family members during that OBE state. (In many cases, they move about in the hospital and also outside it, even far away from it, overhearing what relatives, friends, and strangers are saying in the hallways and waiting rooms.) Also interesting, people experiencing NDEs who have become blind during their previous lifetimes also report being able to see again in the NDE state. These people do see colors, btw, and they report having 360-degree vision, seeing around themselves on all sides. What does it all mean? It seems you're interested in this, so I suggest reading some of the NDE research.

@smcder I guess I didn't know we where having an argument!? ;-) Are we? Should we?[/quote]

No, absolutely not. It's just that in an effort to "prune my own tree" I crave the ideas of others. While you, Constance, and others have shared a tremendous amount of ideas and resources, I suppose I'm still baffled as to why you reject monism and the body/brain as the origin of consciousness. Neither of you owe me anything, and I'm not asking you to explain your views, I'm just stating that I don't understand why you have them. I'm sure you've both had experiences which cause you to hold the beliefs that you do.

I don't reject monism, and I don't think Steve does either. Same for "the body/brain as the origin of consciousness." The 'body/brain' is a pretty vague term, however, and most of the researchers we've cited are at work on clarifying the relationship of the body to consciousness, mind, and brain (terms that require further clarification and distinction rather than being collapsed into one another as I see happening in much reported neuroscience, where we should especially expect to find precision in language, but don't).

@smcder I don't particularly care if Constance can reconcile [disembodied consciousness] with phenomenology, it's also conceivable to me that both could be true- that consciousness in human beings works in an embodied fashion and these other phenomena are . . . well, other phenomena.[/quote]

I don't care either - in the sense that I feel she needs to share my view - but I do in the sense that if she knows something I don't, I want to know it too!

I can refer you to the sources I've read and found persuasive, but nothing compares with the conviction that follows personal experiences of contact from the 'other side'. And I'm sorry to say I won't share those experiences on a public forum, at least not at this point, because they are too personal. Again, sorry.

 

[smcder]

Since we have no idea what consciousness is, then where it is (or if that question even makes sense) ... is open.

I wonder what this belief does for you.

I'm curious now as to what you think this belief does for me? You have something in mind.

 

[smcder]

But our admitted lack of understanding of the brain/body itself should serve as a note of caution that perhaps we better hold off on crediting the supernatural.

The supernatural is a large order; we do better by approaching the different types of paranormal experience and abilities that have been with our species throughout our history. One day we may have an understanding of how these occur and perhaps even of their origin (if their origin is in fact the same). We can't afford to ignore these types of experiences, especially in investigating consciousness.

This is very well put - the word "supernatural" is loaded (and defined in terms of another word) - ... your approach above puts it on much better grounds for discussion.

 

[smcder]

@smcder Since we have no idea what consciousness is, then where it is (or if that question even makes sense) ... is open.

I wonder what this belief does for you.

While we certainly don't have complete understanding of consciousness, I disagree that "we have no idea what it is." Phenomenal consciousness in particular seems to elude understanding, but even it can be understood to a degree by way of understanding our sensory systems. But how/why "green" in the visual cortex becomes "Greenish" in our stream of phenomenal consciousness is indeed a mystery.

But our admitted lack of understanding of the brain/body itself should serve as a note of caution that perhaps we better hold off on crediting the supernatural.

I think understanding phenomenal consciousness will continue to for a very long time, if only because even if it is ever achieved artificially, due to its subjective, 1st person perspective nature, certain humans will deny its presence in non-organic entities - despite what these entities may claim about possessing phenomenal consciousness. (Same with alien life should we ever encounter it.)

One thing I find fascinating about phenomenal consciousness is that I can experience it simply by recalling memories and also in my dreams. Now, they're not nearly as rich as the phenomenal stream I experience when interacting with the environment, but they are there nonetheless.

How am I able to have phenomenal consciousness in the absence of sensory information? And why do blind people not experience Greenish in their phenomenal stream of consciousness... or their dreams?



@smcder I guess I didn't know we where having an argument!? ;-) Are we? Should we?

No, absolutely not. It's just that in an effort to "prune my own tree" I crave the ideas of others. While you, Constance, and others have shared a tremendous amount of ideas and resources, I suppose I'm still baffled as to why you reject monism and the body/brain as the origin of consciousness. Neither of you owe me anything, and I'm not asking you to explain your views, I'm just stating that I don't understand why you have them. I'm sure you've both had experiences which cause you to hold the beliefs that you do.

@smcder I don't particularly care if Constance can reconcile [disembodied consciousness] with phenomenology, it's also conceivable to me that both could be true- that consciousness in human beings works in an embodied fashion and these other phenomena are . . . well, other phenomena.

I don't care either - in the sense that I feel she needs to share my view - but I do in the sense that if she knows something I don't, I want to know it too!

This actually seems to be a good online forum, I've browsed through it in the past and get email updates on new topics as they come up ...

Philosophy Discussion Forums

I did a search and reflexive monism does not show up, but neutral monism shows up a lot ...

Another possibility is the Partially Examined Life online groups - including the not school option, this allows you to start a study group. It does cost $5 a month for this membership option.

Membership Options | The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast | A Philosophy Podcast and Blog

 

[flipper]

Scientists discover plants that can learn and remember
The scientists are unclear on the exact biology of what makes Mimosa pundica plants learn and remember, but they suspect it has something to do with the plants’ calcium-based signally network in their cells. This sophisticated system works not unlike animals’ memory processes, giving the researchers cause to reconsider the difference between plants and animals. It just makes you wonder: Just how smart can plants get? Maybe Lord of the Rings isn’t such a fantasy after all.
Scientists discover plants that can learn and remember
The Mind Unleashed | Uncover Your True Potential