How do YOU define consciousness?

[Michael Allen]

I think we might even be on the same page now . In your opinion does the following statement seem to correspond with what you said above? Dualism doesn't explain the nature of existence itself, it's merely a state of affairs that takes place within the context of an individual consciousness relating to realities beyond itself.

If the above is in synch, then we're on solid and common ground, and can move on to the bigger picture ( whatever that is ). At present I'm tempted to consider the possibility that our spacetime continuum ( what would be observable to astronomers if they only had telescopes powerful enough to see everything there is ), is some sort of generated construct and that whatever is responsible for generating it is only an intermediary between us and The One.

In all seriousness, I think that's probably an extremely sane way to look at the universe. There are several individuals who have pursued this line of inquiry and have generated some fascinating (and sometimes compelling) results.

Omega Point - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Digital physics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And I guess you already mentioned simulism

Also some time ago I was reading an article about ECC (error correcting codes) found in the supersymmetric string theory--work by James Gates and others* referenced in this article.

http://www.onbeing.org/sites/onbeing.org/files/gates-symbolsofpower.pdf

There's not much I can say about the SST/ECC stuff, its over my head (at this point)--but the above article seemed to do a good enough job to bring it down a notch. However I do know a little bit about hamming and error correction. Of course in all of this we may be just looking at our own mental content trying to push ECC onto the universe with the idea of keeping our theories in check (this is pure speculation on my part)--a potential post-hoc fallacy, but still interesting nevertheless.

The actual paper (which is dense) is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.0051v1

Important to note that to date there is no experimental evidence of supersymmetry.

* C.F. Dorana, M.G. Faux, S.J. Gates, Jr., T. Hubsch, K.M. Igae and G.D. Landweber

 

[Randall]

In all seriousness, I think that's probably an extremely sane way to look at the universe. There are several individuals who have pursued this line of inquiry and have generated some fascinating (and sometimes compelling) results.

I remember that when I first started taking the idea seriously ( around 1979 ), it wasn't even on most people's radar. Then Talbot's 1991 book Holographic Universe made it more popular ( that's a bit of a weird story in itself ). Then Then The Matrix ( 1999 ) put the idea of a generated universe on the big screen in a big way. Since then, it's moved out of mysticism and sci-fi and is gaining traction with mainstream academic thinkers. But is it true? I think that some variation of it is the best explanation yet, but I remain non-committal pending further evidence.

 

[boomerang]

How do we know that these supposed experiences aren't some sort of confabulation? Or for that matter how do we know they're not fabrications for the sake of promoting lectures and articles and books based on her supposed experience?

Just got back from a trip to the cath lab. Versed will indeed enable a kind of out of body experience, albeit one not well remembered.

It is a very good point indeed, especially given her vocation. I'm tempted to see Bolte's experience, whether accurate in real time or not, as a kind of postulation of the duality vs non-duality argument. Either Bolte's consciousness is indeed a subset of a larger "cosmic" consciousness of which individuated self-awareness is a time-limited subset. Or--the experience she reports, whether true in real time or retroactively confabulated, is simply emergent specific to manipulation of a consciousness producing algorithm.
The subjective factor is not objectified by measurable cause and effect. The measuring instrument in this case is ultimately Bolte herself, who must choose (or publicly chooses) a specific explanation or viewpoint for her experience in light of neurological correlates.

It's also possible that the "either or" question is somehow invalid and we are looking at one of Edgar Mitchell's dyads. I have a feeling this point has already been covered here.

In any case, I don't see how her stroke can tell us much about continuation of consciousness after biological death. Although the non-dualistic view might suggest consciousness as conserved in nature, albeit in non-individuated form.

 

[Randall]

It's also possible that the "either or" question is somehow invalid and we are looking at one of Edgar Mitchell's dyads. I have a feeling this point has already been covered here.

That was a good response because even though Jill received a standing ovation, and we ( or at least I ) want to believe her, the question of accuracy is still valid. It took her many months to come back to coherency and much longer to get back to "normal". Given the nature of the damage and the time that passed, can she be sure she's remembering what really happened? For the sake of argument let's suppose that she is remembering what really happened. I'm no neuroscientist, but I would be tempted to propose that the reason she could see clearly within her inner self was at least in part because it wasn't her memory center that was damaged. So she was able to recall the image of her business card out of an undamaged part of her brain and view it using the undamaged part of her brain.

On the other hand, being able to internally process language, but not be able to express it is more of a challenge. Language seems to be associated with the left brain, particularly a region called Broca's Area that appears to be close and perhaps even part of the area where Jill's stroke happened. Interestingly however, there are cases where Broca's Area has been destroyed leaving language intact. I haven't found the explanation for that, but for now, it's reasonable to assume that some other area of Jill's brain was also involved in the internal processing of language.

In any case, I don't see how her stroke can tell us much about continuation of consciousness after biological death. Although the non-dualistic view might suggest consciousness as conserved in nature, albeit in non-individuated form.

Well, a large part of Harris' counterpoint to continuity of consciousness is dependent on the point he made with respect to awareness and brain damage. If that assumption has holes in it, then Harris' rationale may be faulty, and Jill's experience, at least on the surface, seems to blow a couple of rather large holes in Harris' assumptions. I don't think those holes are sufficient to destroy Harris' entire argument, but I felt that for the sake of discussion, it was worth mentioning.

 

[Burnt State]

In any case, I don't see how her stroke can tell us much about continuation of consciousness after biological death. Although the non-dualistic view might suggest consciousness as conserved in nature, albeit in non-individuated form.

No, it doesn't but it does point towards the path of unique individual experience that falls under the category of NDE's and helps to explain the euphoria some may experience in life after death situations. Her feelings of oneness and wonder parallel for me those brilliantly intense experiences of seeing the light, being at one with the universe etc.. While those experiences used to speak to me about the beginning of the continuity of consciousness her descriptions along with Harris help to identify how alterations in brain hardware can cause profoundly fierce events that might get mistaken by the individual as proof of continuity of consciousness. Those NDE's may just be the random firings of life along a distressed corpus callosum where normal time passage and perceptions of reality are dramatically altered.

 

[Michael Allen]

But is it true? I think that some variation of it is the best explanation yet, but I remain non-committal pending further evidence.

Ah, now you're getting me to start thinking about our own theories of truth. What does it mean to say that something is true? Regarding the notion of the universe as some kind of computational entity--I hardly think I have to mention that, according to Dennett, algorithmic processes under the rubric of natural selection brought us into being which was the basis for our technology along with it. One might even re-write the history of humanity using technology as a history of technology using humanity. Once you dismiss humans (or even what we consider to be carbon-based biological intelligence) as the sole container for intentionality, then you are free to consider the possibilities of an entire universe that by its very nature breeds intelligence, intentionality and consciousness.

"A scholar is just a library's way of making another library"
Dennett, "Evolution of Consciousness" from Consciousness Explained

 

[Randall]

Ah, now you're getting me to start thinking about our own theories of truth.

I've been using a version of correspondence theory that takes into account the various contexts of reality we've been discussing. I still have to listen to the lecture segment on truth you posted earlier. This reminds me that I should do that !

BTW: Here's a related thread to this one: Can You Say Weltanschauung? | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Michael Allen]

I've been using a version of correspondence theory that takes into account the various contexts of reality we've been discussing. I still have to listen to the lecture segment on truth you posted earlier. This reminds me that I should do that !

BTW: Here's a related thread to this one: Can You Say Weltanschauung? | The Paracast Community Forums

Well I went there and went off on some kind of tangent

Weirdly enough, CToT (correspondence theory of truth) seems to lack a good succinct formulation in the literature that I read. Instead I get "walls of text" telling me the history of the thing

Like this one: The Correspondence Theory of Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

(Funny little icon in the corner of the browser is supposed to look like the "thinker"--instead it looks like someone sitting on an invisible "john")

Wikipedia definition: The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world.

I guess the "world" here is at least neutral to the OR or SR categories we've been discussing earlier in this thread, so unless we end up raising the spectre of dualism again, I think it's possible to flesh out a better definition ( not trying to pick a fight here ) . I, for one, see many problems with definitions and explanations given so far.

I guess the problem is the arbitrary limitation applied to statements. One would not like a theory of truth that only made claims about the symbol strings sounded out of beings that could use language. "Truth" in this case would only exist if there was some kind of statement-maker running around spouting out coded noises and acoustic blasts out of their meaning factories.

Lets say I just pointed to an object and said "Red Ferrari, there!"
You might come by and say, "No Red Ferrari there!" if in fact there wasn't one. We'd both be assuming the other saw (or didn't see) the thing and would continue our discourse accordingly, either one thinking the other as insane, or speaking trolling nonsense at best. But in this instance, truth is shown either in the event or object corresponding to the grunt of the asserter without regard to the background assumptions already made in the mutually intelligibility of the language used, the objects referenced (or not!) and the wider situation that may or may not make the "statement" relevant to other purposes. Truth correspondence here seems to mean a referential totality of things that are already assumed in place before the truth investigation even arises. Almost as if "truth" itself is a construct that is not primordial to human existence at all.

It would seem that the notion of "truth" came about when the first human being (or animal like humanoid) realized he took some "sign" as something that signified something that didn't work very well...e.g. when they mistook a predator for an empty unoccupied space. Or perhaps they learned "truth" when they realized they could foil others plans by simply saying something that didn't have anything to do with their current situation. In both instances, the notion of "truth" appears to grow out of a breakdown of something that was never primarily visible to them. It turns out that the ground of our theory of correspondence of truth may lie in the ashes of something that simply stopped them dead in their tracks.

So to say something is true...? That's even better, because now we're talking about statements about statements which are supposed to be either corresponding to reality or not. Its a funny thing when we ask ourselves about the notion of truth and ask simultaneously whether that notion of truth is true. Even better when we construct artifacts and change the world around, truth (and un-truth) shimmers in the distance like a little rag-doll tied to the bow of a ship blasting its way through waves in a massive storm of being.

Overall I think the CToT is a useful thing to think about when we realize our own abstractions and theorizing have gotten ahead of ourselves. Of all the theories of science and in philosophy I've never heard one that was so banal as to be destroyed by the CToT. Funny thing when our most discussed tools in the philosopher's shed are all polished and shined up and yet continue to lie in the shed or -- better -- in our mental museums.

 

[Randall]

... So to say something is true...? That's even better, because now we're talking about statements about statements which are supposed to be either corresponding to reality or not ...

When we say "corresponding to reality" in a deterministic manner, we need to include the context SR or OR. There are other contexts for truth as well of course ( religious and mystical ), but in terms of determining whether some state of affairs is as proposed, correspondence theory seems to work just fine, provided we keep things in context. Even the experience of truth in a phenomenological context requires some preexisting expectation that overlaps correspondence.

 

[SLVA]

I think the complexity has been exaggerated so often that the notion of incomprehensibility has become an accepted belief. I lean more toward Kurzweil's view in his book "The Age of Spiritual Machines". If we allow it to happen, it's just a matter of time before someone puts the right parts and programming together, and after that it's only a matter of time before our own consciousness pales in comparison to that of machines. It's probably the most frightening of possible futures, while at the same time holding the most promise.

Are you sure you don't mean Gary Numan? Because listening to too much of that could conceivably have unforeseen consequences .

Ray Kurzweil & The Brain - Ray Kurzweil: Your Thoughts Create Your Brain [Video]