Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[smcder]

First glance at panpsychism suggests it's logically flawed. Simply because some particular organization of material produces a phenomenon doesn't mean that that phenomenon is also a fundamental part of everything else composed of the same material. But then again the paper gets into Hegelian philosophy, which also has problems.

Simply because some particular organization of material produces a phenomenon doesn't mean that that phenomenon is also a fundamental part of everything else composed of the same material.

First glance, maybe - maybe not - but it's not so easily dismissed in my opinion - worth setting aside prior commitments to materialism to have a closer look - And he doesn't just make that simple statement, he spends this article and Facing Up To the Problem of Consciousness making an argument for the position. If we take everything off the table at first glance . . . what will we talk about?? ;-)

It's also worth noting that he acknowledges early on that he is by no means confident that it is true (and he is also not confident it isn't). Section Two goes through Materialism, Dualism - argument and counter-argument, and I think provides a pretty good map specific for the arguments in this thread - we should all be able to find ourselves somewhere on or around this map or . . . Here Be Dragons

And, as for Hegel:

I call my argument the Hegelian argument for panpsychism. . . . Rather, my argument takes the dialectical form often attributed to Hegel: the form of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I gather that in fact this dialectical form comes from Fichte, and that Hegel dismissed it as simplistic. Still, I will stay with the popular attribution.

So, maybe it's Fichte-ian philosophy that has the problems.

 

[smcder]

It was actually me that Used the computer analogy. I think it was frowned on by TO initially.

"Reception" is not the right word to define our participation with consciousness, even though, that is precisely the word I used here loosely among friends . I really consider this an attraction based electrical phenomenon that actuates in conjunction with optically induced photonic exchange.

Really, to underline my suspicions, I believe that we achieve what we refer to as universal relativity, via consciousness. I see consciousness as an environmentally relevant interface that we as a species have adapted to specifically via evolution.

Consciousness, as Ufology pointed out, is achieved in a waking state, but more precisely, it occurs when we self reflect, or when we search for information relevant to our past experiences. I apologize, but I do not believe that consciousness is synonymous with experience because experience can and does often reflect actions that we are not conscious of. The brain is a computer, and computers are analogously designed to replicate/mimic the most basic architecture of the brain itself, but is the computer *ever* aware of itself? The computer will sit there until it decays to dust if we don't supply it with electricity and information with which to process. This is like the brain and the many states that it can linger in minus consciousness.

Consciousness does not supply software to the brain computer. However it does seem to provide the language of sentient relevant experiential possibility that the software of experience is comprised of. So in this sense, consciousness is what provides the executable language of experiential data to the primary memory which cognition retrieves in the linear process of experiential determination. Consciousness ultimately equals the language and platform (field?) needed to initialize sentience, and further, to supplicate cognition with experiential information that the meat computer known as the brain cognitively formulates/translates to known/understood experience.

This is why when we remember events relative to direct experience we do not remember the direct experience. We see ourselves performing as much. This *is* sentient relevant experience via the secondary memory.

Consciousness = (as a result) Non Localized Self Relevant Experience

It will take some time to work through this - you seem to have developed your own vocabulary around these issues and that actually creates a barrier to understanding what you are saying.

One of the reasons I keep going back to Chalmers work is that he is working within an academic tradition of philosophy with defined terms. Now, obviously academic tradition has many problems but you can at least find good consensus (or extensive discussion where there is not consensus) on the terms used.

Another reason I like Chalmers is his rigor. You do have to dig a bit into the philosophical methods, and I'm no expert - but my sense is he is using time honored (again, at least among academics) methods of argument and it's worth it to me to understand those arguments.

Finally, for me - there is this whole background of materialist assumptions that almost come with the culture - this includes brain/computer analogies and probably a lot of misconceptions/lack of rigor around words I take for granted like "materialism" - Chalmers seems to know the materialist position well and yet to be open to other possibilities and I feel like I need to be pushed a little on my current understanding and also on other possibilities - in this case "irreducible mind" or consciousness as fundamental - even if I ultimately reject such a position I should have my own views better in hand as a result or at least be better able to argue for them.

 

[Randall]

And, as for Hegel:

I call my argument the Hegelian argument for panpsychism. . . . Rather, my argument takes the dialectical form often attributed to Hegel: the form of thesis, antithesis, synthesis. I gather that in fact this dialectical form comes from Fichte, and that Hegel dismissed it as simplistic. Still, I will stay with the popular attribution.

So, maybe it's Fichte-ian philosophy that has the problems.

I think @Michael Allen would be better at discussing Hegellian philosophy here. He's actually taken courses on it and is almost completely barainwashed ... ( strike that ). I mean fluent in it .

 

[smcder]

I think @Michael Allen would be better at discussing Hegellian philosophy here. He's actually taken courses on it and is almost completely barainwashed ... ( strike that ). I mean fluent in it .

we might all be a little brain-washed . . . one of the ways I try to think about my own thinking (and this relates to your visualization ideas/examples) is to picture the whole tangled mass un-ravelling itself (I literally hold a picture of this "in" my head) and another way is to constantly visualize going "under and out" my own assumptions - I always try to dig away at them . . .

as for the method of synthesis here - any tool has its limitations and I'm sure there is plenty of criticism, but I'm going to have see something more specific and there are still parts of the paper not dependent on the synthesis - the examination of materialism/dualism before he sets up the synthesis

 

[trainedobserver]

All of these analogies are insufficient because we are talking about an organism that has developed over millions of years of evolution. The length of time and complexity of these processes which formed and perfected (a subjective term) the human organism are several orders above any human effort that might be made in deconstructing them or their products.

I disagree with your definition of consciousness Jeff. Yes, I know it's shocking. How is it that consciousness is not localized to an individual's skull? Rather than self relevant, self-referencing might be a better term to describe the mirror effect, if that was what you were going for.

I would define consciousness as the individualized and unsharable experience of being aware of ones-self and the environment. It is not a separate "program" running in a meat machine (aka organ), but rather the organ itself experiencing its own operation. Instead of a "software program" in a general purpose computer, it is more like a "hardwired device" constructed so that the programmatic operations are inherent in the physical structure of the organ, the consciousness organ we call the brain. It "experiences" its own operation as awareness. Also, I'll just add that "consciousness" is only one aspect of the brain's function. I don't know if I'm communicating that as well as I'd like.

 

[smcder]

All of these analogies are insufficient because we are talking about an organism that has developed over millions of years of evolution. The length of time and complexity of these processes which formed and perfected (a subjective term) the human organism are several orders above any human effort that might be made in deconstructing them or their products.

I disagree with your definition of consciousness Jeff. Yes, I know it's shocking. How is it that consciousness is not localized to an individual's skull? Rather than self relevant, self-referencing might be a better term to describe the mirror effect, if that was what you were going for.

I would define consciousness as the individualized and unsharable experience of being aware of ones-self and the environment. It is not a separate "program" running in a meat machine (aka organ), but rather the organ itself experiencing its own operation. Instead of a "software program" in a general purpose computer, it is more like a "hardwired device" constructed so that the programmatic operations are inherent in the physical structure of the organ, the consciousness organ we call the brain. It "experiences" its own operation as awareness. Also, I'll just add that "consciousness" is only one aspect of the brain's function. I don't know if I'm communicating that as well as I'd like.

I like what I take to be your appreciation for the insufficiency of any analogy (and maybe "reason" itself - and this:

The length of time and complexity of these processes which formed and perfected (a subjective term) the human organism are several orders above any human effort that might be made in deconstructing them or their products.

. . . fits my intuition that reason/what we can think - is a little campfire in the dark - and we have stayed close to its confines - but, it gives us something to do . . . and the hard problem is as much about why we have consciousness as what it is, how it springs from matter (or maybe it is as fundamental as matter) - why there is any such thing as consciousness, as self-awareness in the first place? Why not an unconscious universe? (and maybe there is one in an adjacent dimension . . . ) fun to play with and also, I still think it's kind of a puzzle, a koan, maybe . . . that can reveal a lot about a lot of different assumptions -

 

[Jeff Davis]

All of these analogies are insufficient because we are talking about an organism that has developed over millions of years of evolution. The length of time and complexity of these processes which formed and perfected (a subjective term) the human organism are several orders above any human effort that might be made in deconstructing them or their products.

I disagree with your definition of consciousness Jeff. Yes, I know it's shocking. How is it that consciousness is not localized to an individual's skull? Rather than self relevant, self-referencing might be a better term to describe the mirror effect, if that was what you were going for.

I would define consciousness as the individualized and unsharable experience of being aware of ones-self and the environment. It is not a separate "program" running in a meat machine (aka organ), but rather the organ itself experiencing its own operation. Instead of a "software program" in a general purpose computer, it is more like a "hardwired device" constructed so that the programmatic operations are inherent in the physical structure of the organ, the consciousness organ we call the brain. It "experiences" its own operation as awareness. Also, I'll just add that "consciousness" is only one aspect of the brain's function. I don't know if I'm communicating that as well as I'd like.

How do explain the myriad of cases wherein a patient, or accident victim, awakens to see themselves lucidly demonstrated on the ground below, or in a bed in a hospital room if consciousness is isolated to that individual's head? These are not hallucinations as there have been countless cases where the individual remembers facts from the imagery that confirm what they they could not have known otherwise.

 

[Randall]

we might all be a little brain-washed . . . one of the ways I try to think about my own thinking (and this relates to your visualization ideas/examples) is to picture the whole tangled mass un-ravelling itself (I literally hold a picture of this "in" my head) and another way is to constantly visualize going "under and out" my own assumptions - I always try to dig away at them . . .

as for the method of synthesis here - any tool has its limitations and I'm sure there is plenty of criticism, but I'm going to have see something more specific and there are still parts of the paper not dependent on the synthesis - the examination of materialism/dualism before he sets up the synthesis

I was just being facetious ... Michael has a lot to offer in these discussions if you look at his posts. I wonder where he is these days?

 

[Randall]

How do explain the myriad of cases wherein a patient, or accident victim, awakens to see themselves lucidly demonstrated on the ground below, or in a bed in a hospital room if consciousness is isolated to that individual's head? These are not hallucinations as there have been countless cases where the individual remembers facts from the imagery that confirm what they they could not have known otherwise.

We've already been through the discussions on OOBEs and NDEs and there's no verifiable evidence that the phenomena represents non-locality of consciousness.

 

[trainedobserver]

How do explain the myriad of cases wherein a patient, or accident victim, awakens to see themselves lucidly demonstrated on the ground below, or in a bed in a hospital room if consciousness is isolated to that individual's head? These are not hallucinations as there have been countless cases where the individual remembers facts from the imagery that confirm what they they could not have known otherwise.

What does it say that these things can be recreated experimentally? Through some simple trickery a person can come to think there consciousness is outside of their bodies or that things are part of their body that aren't. When you operate outside of your design specs expect anomalous and unusual behaviors and results.

 

[Jeff Davis]

It will take some time to work through this - you seem to have developed your own vocabulary around these issues and that actually creates a barrier to understanding what you are saying.

One of the reasons I keep going back to Chalmers work is that he is working within an academic tradition of philosophy with defined terms. Now, obviously academic tradition has many problems but you can at least find good consensus (or extensive discussion where there is not consensus) on the terms used.

Another reason I like Chalmers is his rigor. You do have to dig a bit into the philosophical methods, and I'm no expert - but my sense is he is using time honored (again, at least among academics) methods of argument and it's worth it to me to understand those arguments.

Finally, for me - there is this whole background of materialist assumptions that almost come with the culture - this includes brain/computer analogies and probably a lot of misconceptions/lack of rigor around words I take for granted like "materialism" - Chalmers seems to know the materialist position well and yet to be open to other possibilities and I feel like I need to be pushed a little on my current understanding and also on other possibilities - in this case "irreducible mind" or consciousness as fundamental - even if I ultimately reject such a position I should have my own views better in hand as a result or at least be better able to argue for them.

For me, the consideration of consciousness is an exercise in intuitive thinking. Nothing more. I do not intend to pursue the matter beyond just that.

Whereas I do not believe that I made up any words in my last post, I would be happy to clarify anything that I wrote that you find unclear.

To me, the single greatest problem in science is the type of familiarity that you are lauding here. I understand the need for continuity, but I also understand the value of improvisation. I find it extremely disturbing, and indeed, akin to looking into the rear view mirror in an effort to move forward.

I am not important enough to be so proper. I am not important enough, academically tainted more so accurately, to hang my hat on that faux tree, no matter how sophisticated it might seem.

I would much rather have to struggle and stretch to understand new concepts rather than to limit my progressive understanding by way of a need to be familiar with the language of what is IMO clearly an unknown at this time.

We need a most unfamiliar vocabulary IMO. One that isn't stomping around knee deep in the muck of conformity. Namely, because we are certainly most unfamiliar with what we are attempting to better understand here.

 

[Jeff Davis]

What does it say that these things can be recreated experimentally? Through some simple trickery a person can come to think there consciousness is outside of their bodies or that things are part of their body that aren't. When you operate outside of your design specs expect anomalous and unusual behaviors and results.

It states that you are inducing the non-local aspect of consciousness.

 

[trainedobserver]

It states that you are inducing the non-local aspect of consciousness.

What makes it not say that OBEs are an illusion caused by stress or injury circumventing normal operation?

Are there any documented and verifiable cases where someone on an OBE read a chalk board in another room or whatever? I've heard of it, read about a couple of cases, but these weren't that convincing and required some amount of faith to believe. It has been my experience that folks who claim to be able to do this on demand refuse to give any proof that it is happening. I'm thinking Tom Campbell. If this were occurring as you think, someone would be able to demonstrate it irrefutably with a very simple experiment or two. It would revolutionize science, espionage, and commerce.

 

[smcder]

I was just being facetious ... Michael has a lot to offer in these discussions if you look at his posts. I wonder where he is these days?

I'll have a look and would love to have him jump in here.

 

[Jeff Davis]

We've already been through the discussions on OOBEs and NDEs and there's no verifiable evidence that the phenomena represents non-locality of consciousness.

I reject that evidence.

 

[Jeff Davis]

What makes it not say that OBEs are an illusion caused by stress or injury circumventing normal operation?

Are there any documented and verifiable cases where someone on an OBE read a chalk board in another room or whatever? I've heard of it, read about a couple of cases, but these weren't that convincing and required some amount of faith to believe. It has been my experience that folks who claim to be able to do this on demand refuse to give any proof that it is happening. I'm thinking Tom Campbell. If there were occurring as you think, someone would be able to demonstrate it irrefutably with a very simple experiment or two.

I have already answered this question several posts ago. Illusions, or more properly hallucinations, do not contain memories documenting procedures and factual information that those experiencing such states of non local consciousness could not have possibly known otherwise.

 

[smcder]

What makes it not say that OBEs are an illusion caused by stress or injury circumventing normal operation?

Are there any documented and verifiable cases where someone on an OBE read a chalk board in another room or whatever? I've heard of it, read about a couple of cases, but these weren't that convincing and required some amount of faith to believe. It has been my experience that folks who claim to be able to do this on demand refuse to give any proof that it is happening. I'm thinking Tom Campbell. If there were occurring as you think, someone would be able to demonstrate it irrefutably with a very simple experiment or two.

I know there is an ongoing experiment conducted by a physician, comes to a close pretty soon I think and then evaluation - will have to look up . . . and Skeptiko podcast/frorums seems to be all about this - NDEs haven't been a major interest for me but I have listened to a number of episodes - they just re-did their forums and I've just not had time to delve into it, but I will see what I can find over there - and this is not neccessarily on NDEs but Radin's interview is impressive on Skeptiko and I've read The Conscious Universe - he has a good analysis of science and how paradigms shift (see also Thomas Kuhn) and he does talk about issues of getting research published, there is a sociological side to all this - there was the Sheldrake flap on TED and then the issues raised around Wikipedia - so I don't know, it gets polarized fast . . .

 

[smcder]

For me, the consideration of consciousness is an exercise in intuitive thinking. Nothing more. I do not intend to pursue the matter beyond just that.

Whereas I do not believe that I made up any words in my last post, I would be happy to clarify anything that I wrote that you find unclear.

To me, the single greatest problem in science is the type of familiarity that you are lauding here. I understand the need for continuity, but I also understand the value of improvisation. I find it extremely disturbing, and indeed, akin to looking into the rear view mirror in an effort to move forward.

I am not important enough to be so proper. I am not important enough, academically tainted more so accurately, to hang my hat on that faux tree, no matter how sophisticated it might seem.

I would much rather have to struggle and stretch to understand new concepts rather than to limit my progressive understanding by way of a need to be familiar with the language of what is IMO clearly an unknown at this time.

We need a most unfamiliar vocabulary IMO. One that isn't stomping around knee deep in the muck of conformity. Namely, because we are certainly most unfamiliar with what we are attempting to better understand here.

To me, the single greatest problem in science is the type of familiarity that you are lauding here. I understand the need for continuity, but I also understand the value of improvisation. I find it extremely disturbing, and indeed, akin to looking into the rear view mirror in an effort to move forward.

What familiarity am I lauding? I'm pointing to academic philosophy because part of what we are talking about is a problem in academic philosophy, so it seems appropriate . . . there is a history there and terminology is agreed on or openly discussed, so we know what we're talking about. And I think it's important to know where we've been so we don't mistake familiar ground for the unknown.. Beyond that, I acknowledged that academics is not the be all, end all - so, in its place, it's not disturbing to me.

I would much rather have to struggle and stretch to understand new concepts rather than to limit my progressive understanding by way of a need to be familiar with the language of what is IMO clearly an unknown at this time.

I agree and I don't think I said anything in conflict with this - I don't see why we wouldn't want to know what others have thought about the subject, otherwise we re-invent the wheel . . . but yes, it's very clearly, to me, almost a complete unknown and that's why it's called the "hard" problem. Chalmers is on YouTube and he's a pretty lively, clever guy - (within the confines of academia - of course!)

We need a most unfamiliar vocabulary IMO. One that isn't stomping around knee deep in the muck of conformity. Namely, because we are certainly most unfamiliar with what we are attempting to better understand here.

Well, I think you certainly have that! The problem is, I can't really seem to understand it and I'm sorry for that - as I said, my lack of understand is a real barrier to communicating about your ideas.

 

[trainedobserver]

I have already answered this question several posts ago. Illusions, or more properly hallucinations, do not contain memories documenting procedures and factual information that those experiencing such states of non local consciousness could not have possibly known otherwise.

I guess I have yet to run across scientifically documented cases of this occurring that satisfies my B.S. meter. It is one thing to say that it appeared that you left your body and its another thing entirely to have actually done so.

If you could project your consciousness outside of the confines of the brain facilitating it wouldn't your consciousness still be localized to an individualized and unique perspective? That is to say you wouldn't be a loose bit of awareness floating about without context.

 

[smcder]

I have already answered this question several posts ago. Illusions, or more properly hallucinations, do not contain memories documenting procedures and factual information that those experiencing such states of non local consciousness could not have possibly known otherwise.

This is from Radin's blog: Entangled Minds

So I've created a SHOW ME page with downloadable articles on psi and psi-related topics, all published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of these papers were published after the year 2000. Most report experimental studies or meta-analyses of classes of experiments. I will continue to add to this page and flesh it out, including links to recent or to especially useful ebooks. This page may eventually become annotated, then multithreaded and hyperlinked, and then morph into a Wiki.

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

(there's a section on survival of consciousness)

and he gives this link too: Sites with Links to Parapsychology Articles: I. | Parapsychology

and no, I haven't reviewed this, but there are 123 comments to his original blogpost . . .