Consciousness

[Legion]

Chef I am somewhat surprised by your tone. You speak as if you already understood both life and mind. That's the impression I get. I claim no such thing for myself. I am only trying to argue that a reductionistic approach won't take us to understandings of either, but I suspect a relational approach (a study of organization) will.

[Ouroboros]

Anyone discussed the temporal aspect of consciousness yet? It's hard to imagine that consciousness could exist in a non-temporal state, or in other words, it requires time. And if time is dependent on space and matter, then consciousness obviously would too.

[Guest end3]

So life came from the staggering odds of just the right pieces of "stuff" coming together to make parts, and then those parts coming together.....thus creating life from no life? How is this different from God formed man from dust of the ground? I got it...it requires no faith. Sorry, I can't control myself

[NotBlinded]

>snip<

 

I suspect the design we intuitively see in organisms is a design created by the organism itself. I think organisms manufacture themselves.

As do I.

[Legion]

So life came from the staggering odds of just the right pieces of "stuff" coming together to make parts, and then those parts coming together.....thus creating life from no life? How is this different from God formed man from dust of the ground? I got it...it requires no faith. Sorry, I can't control myself

End we are in the Coliseum, and I'll have you note that I am restraining myself.

 

I think "nature did it" is to "God did it" as "inquiry" is to "willful ignorance".

[NotBlinded]

So life came from the staggering odds of just the right pieces of "stuff" coming together to make parts, and then those parts coming together.....thus creating life from no life? How is this different from God formed man from dust of the ground? I got it...it requires no faith. Sorry, I can't control myself

It's no different at all. Both the theist and the materialist see matter as dead. One has a controller or programmer and the other one doesn't. It runs by itself. I'll say what I think again...all matter has the potential for life, down to the intial atom. Life is a part of it all. I too can't see how life can come from non-life or how intelligence can come from non-intelligent matter.

[Antlerman]

6. The lower sets the possibility of the higher; the higher sets the probabilities of the lower. "It cannot be reduced to the lower level; it cannot be determined by the lower level; but neither can it ignore the lower level." pg. 61

 

I can't see that this sort of thing is anything but double talk. Bring us out some this higher order stuff that actually does the thinking.

You may wish to read a brief synopsis of this "double talk" from the general systems theorists from whom this comes, just so you have a greater context for discussion about the topic. Here's a couple brief summaries I posted:

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/35362-consciousness/page__view__findpost__p__522819

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/35362-consciousness/page__view__findpost__p__525060

 

Also look over some of the summary of these "double talk" specialists here:

 

"James Grier Miller (1978) wrote a 1,102-page volume to present his living systems theory. He constructed a general theory of living systems by focusing on concrete systems—nonrandom accumulations of matter-energy in physical space-time organized into interacting, interrelated subsystems or components. Slightly revising the original model a dozen years later,

he distinguished eight "nested" hierarchical levels in such complex structures. Each level is "nested" in the sense that each higher level contains the next lower level in a nested fashion

."

 

 

 

One thought I'm having about this discussion, is that this section of it is becoming much more a debate about scientific paradigms, which is really a part of this topic here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/33617-reductionism-and-materialism-are-not-scientific-givens/ Part of me is considering moving many of these posts into that discussion thread, is it is more about the merits of the scientific approach specifically, on the other hand though I do see how it can connect to this discussion.

 

My point, is that using this legitimate scientific approach (which clearly those subscribing to the reductionist paradigm will resist), that it lays to me, IMO, a better foundation for understanding consciousness. It is clear that those who subscribe to reductionist materialism are saying that consciousness can be reduced to product of the machine, is created by, and limited to biology (whether its the human brain specifically, or a rudimentary nervous system, i.e., a tapeworm with no brain can be said to have consciousness). Those who subscribe to systems theory will see that to look at things like consciousness, we must treat it as something in itself, influenced by the machine, but not 100% determined by it, "in every sense".

 

In my position, I will say that this emergence of consciousness is in degrees of increasing complexity, and increasing depth. Even Shyone, at one point, was saying this as well. Whereas he sees that the machine creates it, I would say that the increasing complexity of the machine (in our cases in particular) exposes it. But because we can see 'awareness', rudimentary in some level, we can see that it too, as an 'inner', "subjective" reality (as opposed to the outer, surface, "objective" reality), exists in one form or another everywhere in nature, from at the least any living organism, such as a plant, that as Wilber points out the progression: "irritability, sensation, perception, impulse, image, symbol, concept.... We might believe that cells show protoplasmic irritability, that plants show rudimentary sensation, that reptiles show perception, paleomammals show images, primates show symbols, and humans show concepts."

 

All of these are an inner dimension present in all forms. This 'awareness' is present all the way down and all the way up in nature, in everything, to one level or another. It is my response to LNC, that consciousness, not on a human level of cognition, language, symbols, reason, etc, but the core of that forms essence (just as our bodies are comprised of atoms), that inner reality is comprised of evolving consciousness, the interior half as opposed to exterior half of all reality. It is woven in to the fabric of the Universe itself.

 

The reductionist has to say that the inner reality, the subjective, is 100% created by and determined in its essence by the material. That any inner, subjective realm, is completely governed by, owned by the material, not intrinsically integrated into it with a mutual exchange of influence (even though we have clear demonstration of that). "Self" must therefore, not be a part of the universe in its essence, but in essence, an illusion. Consciousness is a byproduct of a machine, but the essence of our "being" is, machine. Consciousness is therefore not a core component of existence, but a created form of the machine like a toenail, and an illusionary one at that.

[NotBlinded]

 

The reductionist has to say that the inner reality, the subjective, is 100% created by and determined in its essence by the material. That any inner, subjective realm, is completely governed by, owned by the material, not intrinsically integrated into it with a mutual exchange of influence (even though we have clear demonstration of that). "Self" must therefore, not be a part of the universe in its essence, but in essence, an illusion. Consciousness is a byproduct of a machine, but the essence of our "being" is, machine. Consciousness is therefore not a core component of existence, but a created form of the machine like a toenail, and an illusionary one at that.

That bolded part should make one go:

[agnosticator]

Both the theist and the materialist see matter as dead.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't see matter as "dead", since without it there can be no life. I think our definitions and angles of approach are vague enough to cause disagreement where ultimately, there probably is none. Human language doesn't convey enough clarity for this complex subject.

 

 

I'll say what I think again...all matter has the potential for life, down to the intial atom. Life is a part of it all. I too can't see how life can come from non-life or how intelligence can come from non-intelligent matter.

 

Amen, sista'! Metaphorically speaking.

[NotBlinded]

Both the theist and the materialist see matter as dead.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't see matter as "dead", since without it there can be no life. I think our definitions and angles of approach are vague enough to cause disagreement where ultimately, there probably is none. Human language doesn't convey enough clarity for this complex subject.

 

 

I'll say what I think again...all matter has the potential for life, down to the intial atom. Life is a part of it all. I too can't see how life can come from non-life or how intelligence can come from non-intelligent matter.

 

Amen, sista'! Metaphorically speaking.

You know, I've noticed that several times myself. Damn language...gotta love it!

[Shyone]

So life came from the staggering odds of just the right pieces of "stuff" coming together to make parts, and then those parts coming together.....thus creating life from no life? How is this different from God formed man from dust of the ground? I got it...it requires no faith. Sorry, I can't control myself

It's no different at all. Both the theist and the materialist see matter as dead. One has a controller or programmer and the other one doesn't. It runs by itself. I'll say what I think again...all matter has the potential for life, down to the intial atom. Life is a part of it all. I too can't see how life can come from non-life or how intelligence can come from non-intelligent matter.

 

I am reminded of a probably apocryphal tale of Gallileo when he had been censured for espousing the heretical theory of Copernicus. He reportedly said, "And yet it moves."

 

People of his day couldn't imagine that the earth moved. But it does.

 

And life from non-life? Intelligence from matter?

 

Shit happens.

[Shyone]

 

The reductionist has to say that the inner reality, the subjective, is 100% created by and determined in its essence by the material. That any inner, subjective realm, is completely governed by, owned by the material, not intrinsically integrated into it with a mutual exchange of influence (even though we have clear demonstration of that). "Self" must therefore, not be a part of the universe in its essence, but in essence, an illusion. Consciousness is a byproduct of a machine, but the essence of our "being" is, machine. Consciousness is therefore not a core component of existence, but a created form of the machine like a toenail, and an illusionary one at that.

That bolded part should make one go:

Except for the toenail part, AMs summary here is pretty close to what I find to be the case.

 

I think that the description of consciousness as an illusion is an inaccurate and biased way of describing the phenomenon, but even so not necessarily incorrect.

 

Also, the assumption that consciousness is "not intrinsically integrated into it with a mutual exchange of influence" is probably incorrect. Consciousness as a phenomenon is related to the constant monitoring of the physical, integration of information, assessment, and ultimately actions dictated by the circumstances, so that there is "feedback" which I call "intrinsic integration" and "mutual exchange".

 

Other than those minor points, and a few others, it's pretty close.

[Antlerman]

 

The reductionist has to say that the inner reality, the subjective, is 100% created by and determined in its essence by the material. That any inner, subjective realm, is completely governed by, owned by the material, not intrinsically integrated into it with a mutual exchange of influence (even though we have clear demonstration of that). "Self" must therefore, not be a part of the universe in its essence, but in essence, an illusion. Consciousness is a byproduct of a machine, but the essence of our "being" is, machine. Consciousness is therefore not a core component of existence, but a created form of the machine like a toenail, and an illusionary one at that.

That bolded part should make one go:

Except for the toenail part, AMs summary here is pretty close to what I find to be the case.

 

I think that the description of consciousness as an illusion is an inaccurate and biased way of describing the phenomenon, but even so not necessarily incorrect.

I think its a good idea in a conversation of this length and detail to step back every now and then and summarize what we see as each others position. I'm seeing you accept in essence what I've summarized, save for some subtle word choices. It would be valuable if I could hear a summary of how you perceive what I am saying.

 

To be honest, there are time it sounds like you're saying very much what I say, but then you appear to contradict yourself at later points. I've cited a few examples of this so far, and I'll offer another here. Example:

 

Also, the assumption that consciousness is "not intrinsically integrated into it with a mutual exchange of influence" is probably incorrect. Consciousness as a phenomenon is related to the constant monitoring of the physical, integration of information, assessment, and ultimately actions dictated by the circumstances, so that there is "feedback" which I call "intrinsic integration" and "mutual exchange".

 

So you appear here to be agreeing with me when I spoke of things like Biolcultural feedback, yet earlier when I said this very thing you stated the following:

 

It affects, but does not determine

.

No, it determines -

in every respect

.

[Emphasis mine]

 

Which is it? Consciousness is fully determined "in every respect", or a mutual exchange of influence? This time you are saying the latter, earlier the former.

 

I will contend that if it is determined "in every respect", then it is a slave to the machine, and cannot be understood to have any nature of its own. It is the flip side of those who say mind is all there is, and matter is an illusion. There is no need for psychology, just shove a pill in the mouth if it is all reduced to the machine, "in every respect".

[Shyone]

Which is it? Consciousness is fully determined "in every respect", or a mutual exchange of influence? This time you are saying the latter, earlier the former.

I don't mean to oversimplify or overcomplicate the issue.

 

but the answer to the question above is "Both."

 

Consciousness is a purely physical phenomenon that derives from the use of the brain as the point of organization of senses and the subsequent processes that ultimately provide a means of satisfying basic biologic needs (some of which are emotional - the brain has its own needs).

 

"Mutual exchage of influence" is a phrase that I may have misinterpreted, but I see it as meaning analytical processing versus sensory input and motor/hormonal/autonomic output.

 

Say your eyes see a man with a gun. Visual. Analysis shows danger by experience. Autonomic and hormonal changes result from fear. Motor responses from activation of coordinated circuits of movement to avoid the danger. Look again, reasses. Safe? Yes, say put. No, keep moving.

 

Kind of like a computer program where there is a feedback loop.

 

Fully determined = physical

Mutual exchange = feedback processing of information between nervous system and other systems.

 

IOW, a brain that has never had sensory input or control over anything ever would remain effectively "unconscious" like a baby in the womb. Consciousness "matures" as the brain is exposed to sensory input and feeedback from motor activity (along with physical growth of the brain and some development of physical connections that reinforce the sensory/motor loops).

 

Consciousness is to the brain what digestion is to the gastrointestinal system.

[NotBlinded]

Shit happens.

Well shit, why didn't I think of that? That's the answer right there. We can all stop wondering now.

[Legion]

Consciousness is to the brain what digestion is to the gastrointestinal system.

I think this assertion may not be far from the mark Shyone.

 

I've kind of given up on this thread though. I've very much enjoyed interacting with you Antlerman, NotBlinded and Shyone.

 

I would very much like to understand life and mind. I can only guess what path to follow to acquire these understandings. I've been down the road of reductionism, and I think it's a dead end. I am going to pursue a relational approach now.

[NotBlinded]

Consciousness is to the brain what digestion is to the gastrointestinal system.

I think this assertion may not be far from the mark Shyone.

 

I've kind of given up on this thread though. I've very much enjoyed interacting with you Antlerman, NotBlinded and Shyone.

 

I would very much like to understand life and mind. I can only guess what path to follow to acquire these understandings. I've been down the road of reductionism, and I think it's a dead end. I am going to pursue a relational approach now.

I think I might come with you (although sometimes I can't help myself). There are questions in my mind as to why anything that would be considered unaware would be considered unconscious. I know how the materialist and the reductionist would answer, but to me that is not an answer. There is something innate in the smallest cell that causes it to behave the way it does. Consciousness on a larger scale is given to the end only. Some don't want to look at consciousness as being in the cell to begin with. Is a cell aware of it's surroundings? I would think it is. I can't even begin to think about something that operates of itself with no sort of intelligence.

[Legion]

Some don't want to look at consciousness as being in the cell to begin with. Is a cell aware of it's surroundings? I would think it is.

I suspect that every living thing is anticipatory. If so then this entails that they sense, they reason (or some analog thereof) and they predict. Every cell of every organism.

[NotBlinded]

I suspect that every living thing is anticipatory. If so then this entails that they sense, they reason (or some analog thereof) and they predict. Every cell of every organism.

Yes, just like that video! Well, some of it may come from my lack of self-control, but it's funner to blame others.

 

And what you said above...

[Antlerman]

Some don't want to look at consciousness as being in the cell to begin with. Is a cell aware of it's surroundings? I would think it is.

I suspect that every living thing is anticipatory. If so then this entails that they sense, they reason (or some analog thereof) and they predict. Every cell of every organism.

This is something I have not heard Shyone address. He keeps repeating "brain, brain, brain". What about tapeworms with no brain, I have asked several times so far?

 

To underscore what you both say above, I will repeat the progression: "irritability, sensation, perception, impulse, image, symbol, concept.... We might believe that cells show protoplasmic irritability, that plants show rudimentary sensation, that reptiles show perception, paleomammals show images, primates show symbols, and humans show concepts."

 

If consciousness is what "digestion is to the gastrointestinal system", then the entire Universe essentially is a massive, functioning, GI Tract! So therefore, "Consciousness is to the UNIVERSE, what 'digestion is to the gastrointestinal system'".

 

 

[Legion]

I don't believe in pan-psychism (I don't know the term).

 

Just wanted to say that real quick.

[Antlerman]

I don't believe in pan-psychism (I don't know the term).

 

Just wanted to say that real quick.

I know you don't. Neither do I, exactly.

 

Do you believe plants have what could be called 'awareness'? You did say, "I suspect that every living thing is anticipatory. If so then this entails that they sense, they reason (or some analog thereof) and they predict. Every cell of every organism." Some would say that puts you more towards that panpsychism side, but like me, not necessarily "exactly". I like the term panprotoexperimentalism, if for no other reason, it sounds cool.

[Legion]

Do you believe plants have what could be called 'awareness'?

Yes I certainly do distinguished Antlerman.

 

But rocks and atoms and so forth have no awareness, as I understand the term. I think what awareness the universe may have, is manifested through organisms.

[Antlerman]

Do you believe plants have what could be called 'awareness'?

Yes I certainly do distinguished Antlerman.

 

But rocks and atoms and so forth have no awareness, as I understand the term. I think what awareness the universe may have, is manifested through organisms.

Alright... we're still coming to the same place though, regardless if one sees it in inorganic matter or not.

[chefranden]

Chef I am somewhat surprised by your tone. You speak as if you already understood both life and mind. That's the impression I get. I claim no such thing for myself. I am only trying to argue that a reductionistic approach won't take us to understandings of either, but I suspect a relational approach (a study of organization) will.

 

Have you read Hofstadter?

 

 

This need to have something other than matter doing the thinking and being conscious reminds me of the old chemical Phlogiston Theory which some say delayed the understanding of chemistry for 100 years. Scientists spent a lot of time trying to prove something that wasn't there.

 

I'm quite astounded that freethinkers try to preserve soul in some sense after having gotten rid of gods and spirits etc. Why? We know about matter/energy or energy/matter i.e. the stuff that is real, the stuff that does certain stuff when certain mixtures of it come about. We know about evolution. We have some good clues about abiogenesis. We know that certain personality traits and abilities to be conscious of this or that go away when the material organization of bits of brain are damaged. No one to my knowledge has ever shown the existence of soulishness or consciousness with out matter. Why continue to postulate something extra?

 

We continue to postulate something extra because we are afraid of providing an argument for inequality, afraid of not being able to perfect ourselves, afraid of being determined by forces that are not conscious, and we are afraid of meaninglessness. How can one preserve human dignity and morality unless there is something extra? If that something extra is not a god or gods or soul then what? A holon?

 

The questions and fears are legitimate, but looking for the answers in pretend places won't produce anything except more delusions along the same paths religion has taken.

 

It is obvious, to me anyway, that matter can be conscious under certain organizational circumstances. I don't have to know exactly how that works. Someone will figure it out someday. Someone who isn't chasing holons or what ever.