Consciousness

[Legion]

Chef, with all due respect, I think you are falling into the false dualism of mechanism vs. vitalism. I've been called a vitalist before, but accusations don't make it so.

[NotBlinded]

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 Phogiston 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.

Chef, consciousness is meaningless without matter much the same way that soundwaves are meaningless without an eardrum. It takes both. I'm not sure that anyone is postulating consciousness existing without matter (well, aside from LNC anyway).

[Antlerman]

I'm not sure that anyone is postulating consciousness existing without matter.

Unless one argues for God. Then you would have consciousness without matter. But then that is not talking about the manifest world, now is it? I don't think anyone in this discussion is arguing for little ghost minds floating around looking for physical bodies to inhabit. That would be some other conversation, somewhere else, with someone else.

 

Besides, we all know that bodily possession can only occur in the few moments after a sneeze while your spirit is trying to leave your body. Fortunately I have enough people around me to invoke the blessing to put it back in me when I sneeze! Otherwise, the next words you'd see might be coming from an 18,000 year old hobbit!

[Shyone]

Chef, consciousness is meaningless without matter much the same way that soundwaves are meaningless without an eardrum. It takes both. I'm not sure that anyone is postulating consciousness existing without matter.

I know what the chef means though.

 

As AM has stated over and over, consciousness requires matter (damn, I might get this wrong, but I think he has stated at least that much).

 

BUT there is a tendency to make the product of the organization somehow of a very different "nature" than the organization or matter itself.

 

Kind of like music versus instruments perhaps. Like the music was of a different level or something.

 

For music, I see harmony as being related to the mathematical relationships of the frequencies of the notes. I see rhythm as measures of time and reflective of our mood (and hence stimulating that mood). I see keys and chords as echoing our response to those kinds of combinations of frequencies.

 

So music is more than instruments or even the people that play them, but it is not "a thing unto itself" independent of people or instruments or sounds.

 

I mean, really, we can't have music meet consciousness, screw all night long and make little conscious music babies. That only happens in fantasy.

[Legion]

I don't think anyone in this discussion is arguing for little ghost minds floating around looking for physical bodies to inhabit.

The essence of vitalism in my opinion.

 

That would be some other conversation, somewhere else, with someone else.

Preferably after a big fat joint.

[NotBlinded]

I'm not sure that anyone is postulating consciousness existing without matter.

Unless one argues for God. Then you would have consciousness without matter. But then that is not talking about the manifest world, now is it? I don't think anyone in this discussion is arguing for little ghost minds floating around looking for physical bodies to inhabit. That would be some other conversation, somewhere else, with someone else.

 

Besides, we all know that bodily possession can only occur in the few moments after a sneeze while your spirit is trying to leave your body. Fortunately I have enough people around me to invoke the blessing to put it back in me when I sneeze! Otherwise, the next words you'd see might be coming from an 18,000 year old hobbit!

[chefranden]

...Instead, and this would seem to run contrary to the theology of LNC (unless he has more sophisticated understanding of the Divine than a literal interpretation of Genesis), our Development as a species, is part of that whole unfolding of the Universe in forms, and that consciousness, is not a product of the machine, but integrated into it as its elemental, functional Heart. It is one thing to look at the machine and recognize its components, but there is the whole interior space of its 'being' that is overlooked. Our brains, are simply the tools we are using that opens that to us, that opens that vast, endless, interior depth of the unfolding universe within us! The brain doesn't create it, it exposes it!! We are the Universe coming to know itself. (That's inspiring to me, can you tell)..?

 

This is the sort of thing I'm labeling double talk. This is the sort of thing that my old hero Watts would say.

 

I'll give you this. The brain doesn't create the universe, but it does create the awareness of the universe. No brain no awareness. Or perhaps it would be better said no brain like apparatus no awareness -- just in case something like a computer becomes aware or some alien species thinks with their livers.

 

The universe is not "Universe" save in a romantic novel. It is not trying to become aware. It is not trying to stick in it's thumb and pull out a plum so it can say, "Oh what a good boy am I".

 

Now I'm not saying don't wax all poetic about it. But poetry is about the feeling, not about what is really going on. I may feel that I'm on a Grand Universal Adventure, but that doesn't mean I am. Certainly "The Grand Universal Adventure" makes a better video game, but it won't put food on the table if I spend all day playing it.

[Legion]

BUT there is a tendency to make the product of the organization somehow of a very different "nature" than the organization or matter itself.

A computer (an organized material system) can be manifested via vaccuum tubes, or transistors, or tinker toys (I've seen one.) This suggests to me that organization can be examined (not manifested) entirely independently of matter.

[Shyone]

BUT there is a tendency to make the product of the organization somehow of a very different "nature" than the organization or matter itself.

A computer (an organized material system) can be manifested via vaccuum tubes, or transistors, or tinker toys (I've seen one.) This suggests to me that organization can be examined (not manifested) entirely independently of matter.

My brain is having a flat tire thinking about all this. I'll say that what the chef wrote above echoes my sentiments.

 

Otherwise I'll be seeing myself seeing myself seeing myself seeing myself seeing myself...

[Legion]

My brain is having a flat tire thinking about all this. I'll say that what the chef wrote above echoes my sentiments.

 

Otherwise I'll be seeing myself seeing myself seeing myself seeing myself seeing myself...

I believe I understand what you mean Shyone. I was speaking with Rodney (Rev R) in the shoutbox. And he asked what we are trying to understand when we attempt to understand consciousness. I said that I thought we were trying to understand ourselves. Freepagan said that there are many ways to see one's self. I would go further and say there are many understandings one can have of one's self, and they would all be accurate within their prescribed limits. And I think this is a result of the inherent complexity of organisms. I think complexity means (among other things) that there is no largest understanding.

[chefranden]

IMHO we humans make way too much out of consciousness.

 

This is perhaps because it seems to encompass everything. That is the experience that we or at least I (for all I know the rest of you might be zombies) have. Consciousness often seems whole or complete, but even when it feels like that, it is not. That is there is butt loads of stuff going on even in its own body that it doesn't know about.

 

One of the important functions if not the most important function of consciousness is exclusion. Somebody figured out that we can juggle about 7 items in conscious awareness. Everything else one could be consciously aware of is excluded including memories that are important self identifiers. Consciousness can focus on just one item of interest to the exclusion of all others while the rest of you continues to drive safely to work.

 

I contend that we spend a large portion if not most of each day unconscious. I notice that if my self awareness is not needed it will often go to idle and there will just be what ever the rest of me is doing. My self awareness is more keen when there is some stranger in the room, or when my big toe hurts.

 

Consciousness is a very course grained situation detector within a rather limited spectrum of phenomena. It detects things that are rather close to human scale. If something is too small it is out of range of direct I experience. If something is too large it is out of range of direct I experience.

 

If human consciousness is the Universe trying to see itself, the Universe has a long way to go.

[Legion]

I agree Chef. I think humans have a consciousness with training wheels.

[NotBlinded]

IMHO we humans make way too much out of consciousness.

 

This is perhaps because it seems to encompass everything. That is the experience that we or at least I (for all I know the rest of you might be zombies) have. Consciousness often seems whole or complete, but even when it feels like that, it is not. That is there is butt loads of stuff going on even in its own body that it doesn't know about.

 

One of the important functions if not the most important function of consciousness is exclusion. Somebody figured out that we can juggle about 7 items in conscious awareness. Everything else one could be consciously aware of is excluded including memories that are important self identifiers. Consciousness can focus on just one item of interest to the exclusion of all others while the rest of you continues to drive safely to work.

 

I contend that we spend a large portion if not most of each day unconscious. I notice that if my self awareness is not needed it will often go to idle and there will just be what ever the rest of me is doing. My self awareness is more keen when there is some stranger in the room, or when my big toe hurts.

 

Consciousness is a very course grained situation detector within a rather limited spectrum of phenomena. It detects things that are rather close to human scale. If something is too small it is out of range of direct I experience. If something is too large it is out of range of direct I experience.

 

If human consciousness is the Universe trying to see itself, the Universe has a long way to go.

Now, see...dang it! I don't see consciousness as being that small little center of awareness only. It includes what you are calling "unconscious", IMO. How the heck else can you continue to drive safely to work without awareness? Just because I'm not aware of what my liver is doing doesn't mean that there isn't something in my consciousness that isn't aware.

[oddbird1963]

Twenty-one pages and I still don't know what the hell consciousness is!

 

Anybody want to put a quick paragraph down in quick, Cliff's Notes fashion?

 

But though I haven't commented much, I do appreciate this entire dialog!

[Antlerman]

But poetry is about the feeling, not about what is really going on.

I rest my case. You dismiss the internal. It's not real. It's not "what is really going on". Only the external, material world, is real. (the flip side of those that say only mind is real). Or in your world, the only one that you can "trust".

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. One half of what is going on, is in there.

 

I may feel that I'm on a Grand Universal Adventure, but that doesn't mean I am.

You may surmise that there is nothing special about existence, but that doesn't mean that's true either.

 

Certainly "The Grand Universal Adventure" makes a better video game, but it won't put food on the table if I spend all day playing it.

One would argue that to ignore that internal reality, to dismiss and set it aside, diminishes us. I would argue that. In fact, the food on the table is more bountiful when you "play the game", so to speak. Many would argue that. Unless of course you're just looking for material goods. Then by all means, forget about it.

 

It's a philosophical choice. And, not one that requires a divorce from reason. Which by the way, is part of what I am saying. We don't base our "living" on "objective evidences". We base it on internal choices.

[NotBlinded]

Twenty-one pages and I still don't know what the hell consciousness is!

 

Anybody want to put a quick paragraph down in quick, Cliff's Notes fashion?

 

But though I haven't commented much, I do appreciate this entire dialog!

Okay, here ya go OB:

 

Consciousness Is.

[Ouroboros]

What about tapeworms with no brain, I have asked several times so far?

The scolex?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cestoda#Body_Systems

[agnosticator]

Now, see...dang it! I don't see consciousness as being that small little center of awareness only. It includes what you are calling "unconscious", IMO. How the heck else can you continue to drive safely to work without awareness? Just because I'm not aware of what my liver is doing doesn't mean that there isn't something in my consciousness that isn't aware.

 

I think the "I" that seems to us to be fully aware/conscious is that "smaller part" of awareness. Yet it isn't as fully aware as our unconscious self is, which is outside of conscious awareness. Unconsciousness is still awareness, but at a different level. At least that's how I understand it. Or I have thoroughly confused myself! You are using "consciousness" as a general term, while they are using it as a more specific thing, which is how it is presented by what I have read so far on the subject.

[Shyone]

What about tapeworms with no brain, I have asked several times so far?

The scolex?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cestoda#Body_Systems

Tapeworms have a brain. Who would have thunk it? (except for another tapeworm).

[Shyone]

I think that every living thing that can be described as conscious is a small island of consciousness - independently aware, experienced with its own nervous system and environment, coordinated in ways that fit its capabilities and needs for survival and reproduction.

 

Cosmic consciousness is a reification of our own perceptions - an unjustified extrapolation from our own sense of "I".

 

You are you, and I am I. Even "we" is just a me and a you, especially if we don't cooperate, are enemies or are in competition.

 

Perhaps multiple "I"s can become something of a higher order than a single "I" in the way that multiple cells can become more than a single celled organism, but first we have to agree to work together.

 

Most animals choose not to work with humans, are incapable of working with humans, don't care to work with humans, or even work against them. We can't even communicate with most living things in any understandable way that is meaningful for either species. The living world has some cooperation, and some competition. There is no universal cooperation.

 

The closest thing to some kind of commonality is the Biosphere (and I'll even throw in the surface of the Earth). It works because of the chemistry that is common to all life forms which, in turn, is probably specific to this planet and its history.

 

It's called the Food Chain.

[oddbird1963]

Twenty-one pages and I still don't know what the hell consciousness is!

 

Anybody want to put a quick paragraph down in quick, Cliff's Notes fashion?

 

But though I haven't commented much, I do appreciate this entire dialog!

Okay, here ya go OB:

 

Consciousness Is.

 

That is an easy to remember definition! And, it's a good start!

[NotBlinded]

Now, see...dang it! I don't see consciousness as being that small little center of awareness only. It includes what you are calling "unconscious", IMO. How the heck else can you continue to drive safely to work without awareness? Just because I'm not aware of what my liver is doing doesn't mean that there isn't something in my consciousness that isn't aware.

 

I think the "I" that seems to us to be fully aware/conscious is that "smaller part" of awareness. Yet it isn't as fully aware as our unconscious self is, which is outside of conscious awareness. Unconsciousness is still awareness, but at a different level. At least that's how I understand it. Or I have thoroughly confused myself! You are using "consciousness" as a general term, while they are using it as a more specific thing, which is how it is presented by what I have read so far on the subject.

Thanks agnosticator. I think that is a good way to put it.

 

I was reading a little more on this yesterday and they do break it down into categories, which is fine when we have to make comparisons and the only way we can measure things is by saying how something is different from something else. This I can understand, but I think when it is taken deeper, it can't be pulled apart as if one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Am I making sense? I would much rather see it classified as different parts/levels of consciousness instead of something such as "unconscious". That makes is sound like it's not related to it at all, but completely without awareness. Maybe call it ultraconscious and then classify aspects of this ultraconsciousness below it. This may bring a better unity to it.

[agnosticator]

...but I think when it is taken deeper, it can't be pulled apart as if one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Am I making sense? I would much rather see it classified as different parts/levels of consciousness instead of something such as "unconscious" That makes is sound like it's not related to it at all, but completely without awareness. Maybe call it ultraconscious and then classify aspects of this ultraconsciousness below it. This may bring a better unity to it.

 

 

I tend to think of everything as a level or form of awareness, rather than consciousness/unconsciousness. So, I myself would plug in "different levels of awareness" to your bolded sentence. But that's just how my consciousness sees it!

[NotBlinded]

...but I think when it is taken deeper, it can't be pulled apart as if one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Am I making sense? I would much rather see it classified as different parts/levels of consciousness instead of something such as "unconscious" That makes is sound like it's not related to it at all, but completely without awareness. Maybe call it ultraconscious and then classify aspects of this ultraconsciousness below it. This may bring a better unity to it.

 

 

I tend to think of everything as a level or form of awareness, rather than consciousness/unconsciousness. So, I myself would plug in "different levels of awareness" to your bolded sentence. But that's just how my consciousness sees it!

That's awesome. Yes, that I can handle.

[oddbird1963]

...but I think when it is taken deeper, it can't be pulled apart as if one doesn't have anything to do with the other. Am I making sense? I would much rather see it classified as different parts/levels of consciousness instead of something such as "unconscious" That makes is sound like it's not related to it at all, but completely without awareness. Maybe call it ultraconscious and then classify aspects of this ultraconsciousness below it. This may bring a better unity to it.

 

I tend to think of everything as a level or form of awareness, rather than consciousness/unconsciousness. So, I myself would plug in "different levels of awareness" to your bolded sentence. But that's just how my consciousness sees it!

That's awesome. Yes, that I can handle.

 

I had an experience last night (and many other times too) that , to me, seems to correspond with what you are describing.

 

I may be a freak and this never happens to anyone but me, but last night it was a wee bit late and I was trying to read a book I have been trying to finish for weeks now. I kept drifting off intermittently. Each time I drifted off there was waiting for me a "imaginary" presentation. A dream-like display of people, voices, realities of which I am not aware in the waking world. It's like I immediately launched into dreaming.

 

This happens all the time when I am tired and drifting. It is almost if there are layers of awareness. Dynamic systems of thought in which activity is taking place simultaneously. It seemed as if when I drifted from the waking "conscious" system of input, interpretation and reaction - - the more literal of the forms, there was another layer - one operating on a symbolic level of representation. Maybe these systems even use the same systems in the brain that allow us to form patterns, engage in reasoning and utilize language.

 

My point is that it does seem like there are levels or layers of awareness operating at the same time. OR, at least another layer stands ready to take over the systems of the brain not being used by the "conscious" mind as soon as the conscious mind shuts down for sleep.