Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[Constance]

I have firefox as my browser. The brackets I was trying to use were these square brackets: [ ].

 

[Randall]

What other than physicalist, objectivist science would you accept as "evidence" to support what Tyger was talking about? . . . or to identify what she was talking about as "an actual state of affairs" as opposed to a "hypothetical" or "mythological" one?

Why limit the response to non-scientifically valid evidence? Perhaps there is some. If there is I'd like to know what it is. Also, to what limits should we be expected to accept evidence as valid? Are mere proclamations evidence? Maybe. Maybe not. So how do we determine what is or isn't reasonable? I've mentioned before that the process I use is called critical thinking as outlined by the Foundation For Critical Thinking. Most simply, critical thinking allows for the use of any evidence, and it's purpose is to give us a solid foundation on which to base our beliefs about what is or isn't true. Here's the link to their standards: http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/learn-the-elements-and-standards/861

I'm not perfect at critical thinking, but I make an effort to employ the basic principles in discussions where it can be helpful. I hope this helps answer your question .

 

[Randall]

I have firefox as my browser. The brackets I was trying to use were these square brackets: [ ].

Ah ... that's because square brackets are used for inserting what's called BB Code ( Bulletin Board Code ) and signals the system to do things other than simply display those brackets. I don't know if there is a way you can insert them to display as inserted. Perhaps: [ Abra Cadabra ] ... Try leaving a leading and trailing space for the inner content.

 

[Constance]

Why limit the response to non-scientifically valid evidence?

Ignoring scientific evidence where it exists and is applicable is not Tyger's or my intent. That's of course the first place (I often think the only place) you look for grounds for your theories of consciousness (but I don't think you find any for the virtual universe theories). Emergence, which you take for granted as an explanation for consciousness, is only a theory, questionably applied to consciousness; there's no scientific evidence that it can or does account for consciousness. In general, an enormous amount of progress in thinking and theorizing in science, philosophy, and other disciplines of knowledge has been accomplished and continues to be accomplished without being premised on what is taken at the time to be 'scientifically valid evidence'. Thinking could not flourish if it had to be premised only on what the majority of physical scientists agree is 'scientifically valid evidence'. The ideas Tyger is referring to spring from reason, exercised by thinkers, well-educated thinkers in a variety of disciplines, including some scientists and philosophers. Reason exceeds strict logic (which always rests on what we think we can prove so far about the nature of reality), and it operates out of human experience itself.

Perhaps there is some. If there is I'd like to know what it is. Also, to what limits should we be expected to accept evidence as valid? Are mere proclamations evidence? Maybe. Maybe not. So how do we determine what is or isn't reasonable?

I see some often repeated statements of yours as mere proclamations for which I have not yet seen a basis in scientific evidence or reason.

I've mentioned before that the process I use is called critical thinking as outlined by the Foundation For Critical Thinking. Most simply, critical thinking allows for the use of any evidence, and it's purpose is to give us a solid foundation on which to base our beliefs about what is or isn't true.

Very little about the nature of 'reality' or the nature of consciousness as apprehended in our time rests on theories that we can declare to be 'true', i.e., established truth from which all else follows. That's our condition in our species' short existence on this planet.

 

[Constance]

I'm a nighthawk, and a fast enough reader to see that the Stanford Encyclopedia entry doesn't contradict the Wikipedia entry with respect to what I said, so it must be something in our respective interpretations. See you tomorrow Constance .

Maybe not to your apparent understanding, yet, of phenomenology. I suggest that having read the Stanford article on phenomenology and the wiki article on Merleau-Ponty you now go back to the statements you made characterizing your understanding of the phenomenological approach to consciousness and see whether you now see the differences.

 

[Constance]

Also, I'd like to comment on this statement you made in response to Steve's identification of your approach as epiphenomenological:

Ah. I see what you mean, and it's not the least bit selfish. It's required if we're going to remain coherent. As for standard definitions: That can get somewhat contentious. There are different contexts in which a single word can mean different things. If we insist that "our interpretation" is the "standard version" when the person we're discussing an issue with isn't using the word in the same context, then problems arise.

I think in a field as complex and multifaceted as Consciousness Studies has become these last 20 years, where many issues have been extensively analyzed and positions on them clarified, I think we do need to stick with standard, generally accepted, terms for those positions. If we are not using them in the generally recognized sense, we should not use them. Or, if we insist on using them, we should immediately define the differences between the way we are using them and the way in which they are usually used.

 

[Randall]

Maybe not to your apparent understanding, yet, of phenomenology. I suggest that having read the Stanford article on phenomenology and the wiki article on Merleau-Ponty you now go back to the statements you made characterizing your understanding of the phenomenological approach to consciousness and see whether you now see the differences.

At this point it's your responsibility to point out the specifics of where you think my understanding is in error and explain why, not give vague answers and suggest I sift through volumes of information. I've already reviewed two sources, and still see no reason to think what I stated is not accurate or applicable.

 

[Randall]

Also, I'd like to comment on this statement you made in response to Steve's identification of your approach as epiphenomenological:

I think in a field as complex and multifaceted as Consciousness Studies has become these last 20 years, where many issues have been extensively analyzed and positions on them clarified, I think we do need to stick with standard, generally accepted, terms for those positions. If we are not using them in the generally recognized sense, we should not use them. Or, if we insist on using them, we should immediately define the differences between the way we are using them and the way in which they are usually used.

My response to that is here: https://www.theparacast.com/forum/threads/philosophy-science-and-the-unexplained.14196/page-39#post-177056

 

[smcder]

This is a much broader critique than Nagel made - an interesting questioning of the limits of science itself - though turning on consciousness (because it's the biggest thing going) we rarely examine the assumptions that lie behind the empirical sciences, though I think they come from historical contingencies as much as from attempts to be objective - there is an often unexamined a priori commitment to materialism in science - one of my favorite sites for this is:

Science is a Method, Not a Position:
Science is a method, not a position

and it's one I'd forgotten about until this discussion -

. . . in epiphenomenalism, the idea that consciousness is causally inert, is merely a by-product of brain functions . . . I see a real issue of parsimony - Occam would want to cut away the enormously rich inner life we enjoy (and suffer from) why would subjectivity "emerge" if it has no effect?

From the Wikipedia article: Maurice Merleau-Ponty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science[edit]
In his essay "Cézanne's Doubt", in which he identifies Cézanne's impressionistic theory of painting as analogous to his own concept of radical reflection, the attempt to return to, and reflect on, prereflective consciousness, Merleau-Ponty identifies science as the opposite of art. In Merleau-Ponty's account, whereas art is an attempt to capture an individual's perception, science is anti-individualistic. In the preface to his Phenomenology of Perception, Merleau-Ponty presents a phenomenological objection to positivism: that it can tell us nothing about human subjectivity. All that a scientific text can explain is the particular individual experience of that scientist, which cannot be transcended. For Merleau-Ponty, science neglects the depth and profundity of the phenomena that it endeavors to explain.

Merleau-Ponty understood science to be an ex post facto abstraction. Causal and physiological accounts of perception, for example, explain perception in terms that are only arrived at after abstracting from the phenomenon itself. Merleau-Ponty chastised science for taking itself to be the area in which a complete account of nature may be given. The subjective depth of phenomena cannot be given in science as it is. Thus characterizes Merleau-Ponty's attempt to ground science in phenomenological objectivity and, in essence, institute a "return to the phenomena."

 

[smcder]

Hi, Constance - I don't intend to be a participant in the way you guys here are, just an occasional contributor as time allows (you know how that is). I don't even expect to be responded to.

The basic division is whether - in very broad terms - one accepts that Consciousness precedes 'life' in the physical universe, and (therefore) continues after 'life' in the physical universe has ceased.

The word 'accepts' can be interpreted to mean a 'belief' - or, as in scientific debate, it is taken as a 'premise' for the sake of debate.

One may 'accept' the idea of a sustained a priori Consciousness as a premise, or as a belief, or as a condition out of one's 'lived experience'.

To me, this is very much like where this thread started with Alvin Plantinga's argument that belief in God is properly warranted. Commitments to materialism or empiricism are built up in a similar way from premises, beliefs or experience - or from axioms - things held to be self-evident. And there is a broader use of the word science:

However, "science" has also continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable, teachable knowledge about a topic, as in modern terms like library science or computer science. This is also reflected in the names of some areas of academic study such as "social science" or "political science".

reliable, teachable knowledge about a topic . . .

I like that!

 

[Constance]

At this point it's your responsibility to point out the specifics of where you think my understanding is in error and explain why, not give vague answers and suggest I sift through volumes of information. I've already reviewed two sources, and still see no reason to think what I stated is not accurate or applicable.

It's too bad you won't read the wiki article on MP too because I think it's there you would begin to appreciate the differences between phenomenology and epiphenomenalism. I'd have to write a lengthy essay to accomplish what's already clearly expressed in that third essay. Give it a try.

 

[smcder]

There is Consciousness with a capital 'C' - the umbrella term. There is consciousness with a small 'c' referring to consciousness as distinct from un-consciousness and what is currently called the sub-consciousness. [In all of this awareness is key - where one is aware.]

Consciousness is related to that which we observe as being 'life' [in the physical universe]. Consciousness requires a living physical body to perceive the physical universe. One must have a concept of what 'life' is - but for the purposes of this discussion, we will call this life a 'force'. Consciousness gathers and directs the life-forces to form the human body, in order to have perceptual access to this physical universe.

The above is not a matter for belief. For those who do not yet know, it will be a heuristic devise, as good as any other, more or less. If the above is close to an accurate description it will resonate and it will, as well, 'tie up loose ends'. Most explorations in this realm are on the order of thought-experiments to begin with anyway.

We also touched on this early in the thread, just a little bit - with a discussion of mystical language, of how difficult it is to speak about mystical experience (in fact, it is impossible - and this brought up a discussion of apophatic theology) and when we try and compress it into our language (and as a result, into our logic) the results are awkward and inadequate but distinctive.

To me, Tyger's posts have highlighted that this is not something that can be discussed, it can be pointed to - language can be used (for example, Koans) to try and push the mind toward a particular state, but language can't convey that state from one mind to the next - no matter how eloquently I describe a mystical experience, it won't induce a mystical experience in me - but it also points up the primacy of written language in our culture and the prejudice that if we can't put it into words, it doesn't exist. This goes back to what Nagel said about the continuum of objective and subjective, what can be pushed toward the objective can be handled by science, what cannot, must remain subjective and out of the reach of science.

But, there are millions of pages written about mystical and spiritual experiences and it can be talked about and there are broad swathes of agreement among people about these experiences, so I think that establishes for me that there is reliable, teachable knowledge about the topic . . . if there weren't it wouldn't be the perennial philosophy but an idiosyncratic experience that "dies" with the individual . . . (but how much is lost this way?)

 

[Constance]

The questions I asked weren't restricted to the physical sciences. I didn't ask for scientific evidence, or use the word "scientific" or "physical" even once. Perhaps you might try reading my post again without making your own presumptions. For your convenience, here's the link: Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained | Page 39 | The Paracast Community Forums

At the end of that post you wrote:

The phenomena ( perceptual experiences ) seem to have a direct causal effect on the underlying neural network. What I was referring to is the underlying cause that gives rise to consciousness in the first place, what constructs our "theatre of the mind" before the show even begins. What phenomenology focuses on is what happens after the show begins.

That paragraph lets us start with your embedded beliefs. You seem totally committed to the belief that experience is merely perceptual and not physical, and that what happens in a being's developing consciousness is the direct transmission of computable information to the neural networks in the brain (through EM waves) which is then somehow sorted out by the neural networks into categories of meaningfulness. Phenomenology recognizes that in primordial consciousness -- such as that of the infant and of humans or humanoids at an early evolutionary stage -- whole-body experience is required to acquire information about the environment, learning how different things feel, learning what to expect from others and how to react to them, developing physical skills for negotiating the terrain and accomplishing goals in it. Experiencing the world is the basis for understanding it, 'making sense' of it. The "theatre of the mind" is built from physical experience in the world, assisted by gradually increasing understanding of the world and of ourselves. It is not a ready-made computer that knows the world indirectly by sorting out perceptions and contextualizing them as abstract information. We and the world around us are the show, and phenomenology describes how we, in our living consciously, take place in a world that precedes us and of which we are already a part.

 

[Constance]

To me, Tyger's posts have highlighted that this is not something that can be discussed, it can be pointed to - language can be used (for example, Koans) to try and push the mind toward a particular state, but language can't convey that state from one mind to the next - no matter how eloquently I describe a mystical experience, it won't induce a mystical experience in me - but it also points up the primacy of written language in our culture and the prejudice that if we can't put it into words, it doesn't exist. This goes back to what Nagel said about the continuum of objective and subjective, what can be pushed toward the objective can be handled by science, what cannot, must remain subjective and out of the reach of science.

A very good analysis. And it points to the expansiveness of consciousness, the overflow of consciousness, that extends beyond fulfillment of material needs and beyond practical attention restricted to the demands of immediate, day to day living. Experiences involving the extensiveness of consciousness can come to us unbidden, and of course they also are sought in societies in which such insight is valued. All ontological thinking in itself reveals a universal human concern with the world beyond our local horizons, reveals our desire to understand the world, the universe, the cosmos, Being itself as a whole.

And mystical experience reveals to us that our consciousness itself is a path to that understanding.

 

[Randall]

It's too bad you won't read the wiki article on MP too because I think it's there you would begin to appreciate the differences between phenomenology and epiphenomalism. I'd have to write a lengthy essay to accomplish what's already clearly expressed in that third essay. Give it a try.

It's not that I'm opposed to, or am refusing to check out information. It's that it's not up to me to substantiate other people's positions for them, and expecting someone else to sift through volumes of information to find relevant points to support your position for you is the same as asking them to do your homework for you. That isn't a reasonable way to participate in a discussion. If there are volumes of information that supports your position, then it shouldn't be that hard to find a few relevant quotes someplace and quote them with a reference or link.

 

[Tyger]

So many posts with interesting content - where to begin!

I hope you will stick around in this thread, Tyger, because you present a perspective on consciousness that none of the rest of us is well informed about. I personally do think that consciousness survives the death of the body, but it's not necessary to entertain the accumulating evidence for that point of view in order to discuss consciousness in larger terms as a phenomenon in nature itself that develops from what some scientists and philosphers see as 'protoconsciousness'. If human consciousness is a further evolution of protoconsciousness in nature, we can't understand our own level of consciousness without reference to it. To investigate what protoconsciousness means is to lift the roof off the room in which we sit here, trying to understand our own consciousness by analyzing the brain, and to illuminate consciousness as a property of nature (thereby also illuminating our understanding of nature to a vast degree). I realize that I am not talking about consciousness from the same perspective you are but one that might support your view, which is why I want, need, you to stay in the discussion.

To me, this is very much like where this thread started with Alvin Plantinga's argument that belief in God is properly warranted. Commitments to materialism or empiricism are built up in a similar way from premises, beliefs or experience - or from axioms - things held to be self-evident.

I am an outlier in this conversation mainly because of fundamental differences in ontology. As much as I have been influenced by various occult and esoteric streams, and 'use' certain approaches more comprehensive (imo) than others I have come across - better at 'tying up the loose ends' - I am not here to advocate any point of view (or teacher or stream) or try to persuade in any direction - though I will be forthright in my view regarding the purely materialistic approach: as a premise the approach is woefully lacking in 'tying up the loose ends' - in sum, the approach lacks 'elegance'.

At most I am here to share with those interested - with a difference. I would like to hear what works for others - what 'ties up' their 'loose ends', too.

So saying, no matter what I say will never do justice to some very sophisticated models out there, that are - for lack of a better phrase - the 'alternative science' stream (like 'alternative medicine' - we must live with the 'politics' of the dominant paradigm), because make no mistake, it is as much a science, subject to exploration and experimentation, as any mainstream science.

I would say that there are about five to eight modalities that inform my grasp of the 'heuristic structure' I make internal reference to. The modalities ('schools' or 'streams') have been studied over decades. They all differ - sometimes significantly - but they also have an interesting consistency in their internal structures. What is more - as I have used certain ideas - they have been verified by personal experience (others have been set aside as not useful or were not verified). There remain great mysteries - the greatest mystery of all - a consistent experience that I had across my childhood and into my adulthood - remains a mystery. However, because of that experience I know that there are worlds and universes which the mental equation simply cannot grasp - the mind (as it exists at this time) is just too 'insufficient'. We are truly fledglings in this journey. It is why the hubris of the materialist scientist is so glaring. We are fledglings.

Two slight mentions for context: the experience I refer to above would be classified as mystical, because it is not (yet) in the realm of (my) knowledge. As an Occultist I am on the Path of Knowledge. I am not on the Mystical Path, nor the Path of the Heart, nor any number of other paths. This means I am going through the Head Chakra. Most people are going through that Chakra (because that's what our culture foments) - and it is a dangerous path. Every path has it's cautions, however.

Also, it must be said - language can be deceptive. To speak of these things is not always wise - but I do think there is receptivity and I think we can have a good conversation. What I am not interested in is contention - and I sense no one else is interested in that, either. Nothing of value proceeds from that. Also, a healthy dose of 'not taking oneself and one's views too seriously' is good on this journey. Bottom line, we are looking through a glass darkly - and we all do our best - not so?

 

[Tyger]

[...] language can be used (for example, Koans) to try and push the mind toward a particular state, but language can't convey that state from one mind to the next - no matter how eloquently I describe a mystical experience, it won't induce a mystical experience in me [...]

It can be perceived, however. I have had the fortune in my life to be in the presence of individuals who were in a different state of being. One is altered in the presence of such an individual. They can actually stimulate higher awareness - one may not be able to maintain it out of their presence - but one has 'seen', one has 'been there', as far as one could go under the stimulation of the other, and the road ahead is lighted 'a bit'.

but it also points up the primacy of written language in our culture and the prejudice that if we can't put it into words, it doesn't exist.

I would suggest that it can be put into words - and has been. The problem lies in an unwillingness to follow the words to their conclusions.

But, there are millions of pages written about mystical and spiritual experiences and it can be talked about and there are broad swathes of agreement among people about these experiences, so I think that establishes for me that there is reliable, teachable knowledge about the topic . . . if there weren't it wouldn't be the perennial philosophy but an idiosyncratic experience that "dies" with the individual . . . (but how much is lost this way?)

There is. The primary task is to identify where it lies. That is the first test - of discernment.

 

[Randall]

You seem totally committed to the belief that experience is merely perceptual and not physical, and that what happens in a being's developing consciousness is the direct transmission of computable information to the neural networks in the brain (through EM waves) which is then somehow sorted out by the neural networks into categories of meaningfulness.

Not exactly. First of all, I'm not "committed to the belief that experience is ...". If you had reviewed and understood the link on critical thinking that I gave you, you would know that. The actual situation is quite the reverse. Rather than being committed to believing things, I'm committed to not believing things unless there is sufficient reason for doing so.

Phenomenology recognizes that in primordial consciousness -- such as that of the infant and of humans or humanoids at an early evolutionary stage -- whole-body experience is required to acquire information about the environment, learning how different things feel, learning what to expect from others and how to react to them, developing physical skills for negotiating the terrain and accomplishing goals in it. Experiencing the world is the basis for understanding it, 'making sense' of it. The "theatre of the mind" is built from physical experience in the world, assisted by gradually increasing understanding of the world and of ourselves.

When you are talking about Primordial Consciousness is this what you're talking about:

"While the relative vacuum of the substrate can be ascertained by means of the cultivation of meditative quiescence, the absolute vacuum of the dharmadhātu can be realized only through the cultivation of contemplative insight.10 The mode of awareness with which one ascertains this absolute space is called primordial consciousness (jñāna), which is the ultimate nature of all individual continua of consciousness." Source: Vacuum States of Consciousness: A Tibetan Buddhist View” B. Alan Wallace ( p 8 ). http://www.alanwallace.org/Vacuum States Essay.pdf
​

Or are you talking about something else? Please clarify with some reference to your source.

It is not a ready-made computer that knows the world indirectly by sorting out perceptions and contextualizing them as abstract information. We and the world around us are the show, and phenomenology describes how we, in our living consciously, take place in a world that precedes us and of which we are already a part.

I'm not suggesting that consciousness is a ready made computer. When I mentioned the theatre of the mind, I was alluding to the Cartesian Theatre in an effort to differentiate between the phenomena that phenomenology is concerned with as opposed to the state of consciousness itself by comparing consciousness itself to the state of being aware in the darkened theatre before the show begins, and the show, which constitutes the phenomena that phenomenology concerns itself with. As this relates to the point in our discussion where I said that phenomenology doesn't appear to deal with the causal factors that give rise to consciousness, I don't see where phenomenology addresses the issue of what built the theatre in the first place ( where consciousness comes from in the first place ). Rather it seems to simply accept that it exists, and proceeds from there. Does that help clarify what I was trying to convey? Or did you get that the first time?

 

[Constance]

It's not that I'm opposed to, or am refusing to check out information. It's that it's not up to me to substantiate other people's positions for them, and expecting someone else to sift through volumes of information to find relevant points to support your position for you is the same as asking them to do your homework for you.

Are you joking?

 

[Tyger]

What follows is Occult knowledge of the organization of the human being. It can be found in countless treatises across millennia. This is the result of centuries of research. I give it here in very simple form based on my understanding and experience. Any mistakes are mine.

I think the question must be considered: what is consciousness and what is life?

Life is an event or condition in the physical world - and it is the first indication of a condition beyond the physical universe. Life appears for the first time in the plant kingdom. A plant is alive and it can die. Something appears into the physical universe - that has an inner vitality. This is new - this is the life-force - this is called the etheric in several streams (and I will call it that in my conversation here). The etheric is present in all living things - plants, animals and human beings.

The physical body is made up of the material from the physical universe. In the same way the etheric 'body' of a living thing is drawn from the 'material' of the etheric realm. The physical body and the etheric together make a living body. The etheric is what keeps the physical in the form of a rose, a cat, or a human. [It is also the first layer of the 'aura' that someone 'sees' when they are able to perceive with their subtle senses.] Separate the etheric from the physical body and the physical dissipates into its constituent physical elements [decays] - the body 'dies'. The etheric is the governing 'blueprint' that coheres the physical into its observable physical form. If there is just a physical body with an etheric - there is life - but there is not consciousness. The physical with the etheric is the condition we are in during sleep. It is during sleep that our consciousness removes itself from our two lower bodies - and the etheric repairs our physical body. [The Immune System - identified in the early 1980's as a result of HIV - is mainstream medicine identifying an aspect of the etheric.]

Where are we aware? Generally we are not aware in our physical. That puppy purrs along on its own. To be aware physically something is amiss - and means we are probably in pain. We have no awareness of our kidney functioning, or our blood flowing - this all happens below the threshold of awareness, and good, too. We are also generally not aware etherically - but it can happen. 'Waking up' in the etheric body can have unusual effects.

[As an aside: a friend who is a fairly advanced student of these matters has suggested that the 'abduction experience' that has been reported sounds suspiciously like an etheric 'awake' experience - meaning that the consciousness withdrew from the physical but stayed with the etheric body and actively watched the etheric forces 'repairing' the body - though these forces would have been anthropomorphized. This is an exceedingly complicated area as a whole raft of things could be happening in such an experience - since to be 'conscious' means that the astral has to be involved and so that means emotions afoot - it gets complicated.]

Anyway, we don't even approach consciousness until we come to the astral body - which the animals have (as do we) - they (and we) have feelings. So this is something added - something new. Now there is an internal feeling life alongside the internal vitality. With the added astral 'body' formed from the 'material' of the astral realm, there is now inner feeling and the animal/human moves across the earth. Now arises desire - and will. Now arises the first sensations that are felt - the first stirrings of consciousness, of an inner 'life' of 'soul'. None of it is retained in any way - it is pure sensation that comes and goes. It is with the arising of the mental 'body' formed from the 'material' of the mental realm that the perceptions of the human translate into 'inner pictures' - concepts - that are remembered. Consciousness is born. The animal has consciousness but is not aware. Humans are aware to the point of self-awareness.

How is all this occurring? It is being directed by 'spiritual forces'. There is a vast and remarkable orchestra of forces being directed by beings whose task it is to engage in this great on-going creation. It is also being directed by our higher selves [for lack of a better word at the moment] - an Individuality that is descending into the prepared 'sheaths' of physical, etheric, astral and mental. It is in the mental body that the ka-boom happens and consciousness cum awareness begins.