Total Posts:58|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

I think I understand consciousness!

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 4:40:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
***As much as I hate to make back to back threads, looking a few things up made me come across an idea that might be significant - so here it is.

For every "be" there is a "what it is like to be." This principle stands unfalsifiable as it escapes the scrutiny of empirical research and all other exogenous investigations (as it is an inherently endogenous fact). And while this seclusion would not allow any concrete assertions of truth either, the assumption of truth is motivated by the elegant symmetry with which we physically describe nature and her laws. It should follow then that all beings are potential subjects. The consequentiality of the concept "to be", however, is intimately linked to the informational coherence of the being. Therefore that being which is a continuously changing integration of vast and complex information into a cogent whole must yield the most consequentially subjective state.

The difficulty of consciousness, hitherto, has stemmed from the intuitional segregation of man and thing. When we consider our conscious state, it then becomes this anomaly that defies the nature of nature that we have been able to access thus far. It is not that the mind is a new and separate substance from its physical counterparts. Rather, the mind is an aspect of physics on the order of what it is like to be. This should not be taken to mean that a rock has a mind as we presently understand it, but that it does have an inherent subjective state by virtue of its being - but is so informationally incoherent that it bears no resemblance to what we understand as consciousness.

So, it is on this foundation that I can point to cemi field theory as a robust explanation of the long held problem of human consciousness. It posits that the electromagnetic field generated by the passage of ions and the electrical activity of neurons is, in Johnjoe McFadden's words "the seat of consciousness." He explains that this em field yields complex information more coherent than that expressed in the firing of neurons - that neuronal information is "digital, discrete, and spacially localized" whereas information in an em field is "analogue, integrated, and distributed" and that this superior level of coherence arises from the superposition of individual neural em fields. He further states that the brain's em field strongly correlates with conscious activity and that the field, in turn, can influence neuronal activity, thus providing consciousness with a method with which to affect the external world. I would need a background in neuroscience and biology to understand the specifics of this, so I'll just extract the consequences of this general idea. The mind-blowing conclusion that follows, the wording of which led me to conceive of the first two paragraphs of this post, reads thus:

"To put it another way, awareness is what it is like (Nagel,1974) to integrate complex information into a physically unified field" (pg 21)[1]

The only emendation I make in my interpretation of this statement is that consciousness is what it is like to be this physically unified field. And because nothing else we humans have discovered or know of exists on par with this kind of phenomenon of information, it can be the factor that distinguishes us to such a severe degree that we believe we have exalted status from some other-worldly animistic constitutions, even though that is not so.

Conclusion: So, keep in mind that the principle asserted at the beginning of this post is a staggeringly simple concept, but its meaning belies that simplicity. It universalizes the idea of subjectivity and weaves it with the world of the material in a manner that does not contradict anything we know as fact. It further disarms the perplexing power invested in the idea of consciousness by making it only a sophisticated application of a more fundamental truth about nature. The addition of cemi field theory provides the distinguishing factor that justifies why nothing else knows what it is like to be us. So with that, I think this qualifies as a successful explanation of consciousness.

[1] http://www.scribd.com...
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 7:13:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
bump
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 8:46:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been debunked.

Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Brain and mind Operational Architectonics and man-made "machine" consciousness. Cognitive Processing (2009) 10(2):105-111.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 8:54:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 8:46:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been debunked.

Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Brain and mind Operational Architectonics and man-made "machine" consciousness. Cognitive Processing (2009) 10(2):105-111.

If you could answer just a couple of points:

1) debunked or objected to? The former implies a consensus that 1 reference doesn't provide.

2) What exactly was debunked? The existence of the field, it's relevance to conscious activity, etc?

3) How does the objection address the binding problem?

thanks in advance.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:05:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 8:54:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 8:46:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been debunked.

Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Brain and mind Operational Architectonics and man-made "machine" consciousness. Cognitive Processing (2009) 10(2):105-111.

If you could answer just a couple of points:

1) debunked or objected to? The former implies a consensus that 1 reference doesn't provide.

"No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness." - Bernard Baars

This theory of consciousness is falsifiable. If you read Jeffrey Gray's book "Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem", he explains that all tests done that should have picked up an interaction; came up negative.


2) What exactly was debunked? The existence of the field, it's relevance to conscious activity, etc?

The latter.


3) How does the objection address the binding problem?

It doesn't. It just rules out this theory.


thanks in advance.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:17:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I could be dead wrong, as I got my information from Wikipedia, but they information is sourced.

"Jeffrey Gray states in his book Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem, that tests looking for the influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been universally negative in their result." http://en.wikipedia.org...
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:19:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:05:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 8:54:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 8:46:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been debunked.

Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Brain and mind Operational Architectonics and man-made "machine" consciousness. Cognitive Processing (2009) 10(2):105-111.

If you could answer just a couple of points:

1) debunked or objected to? The former implies a consensus that 1 reference doesn't provide.

"No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness." - Bernard Baars

This theory of consciousness is falsifiable. If you read Jeffrey Gray's book "Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem", he explains that all tests done that should have picked up an interaction; came up negative.

I suppose I'll have to look for another theory that will fit with my own interpretation of consciousness. But the theory notwithstanding, have any objections to the actual quality of consciousness I suggested? because it can be attached to just about any theory as long as that theory involves a coherent union of something to form an emergent entity that can be ascribed the quality of being.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:22:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:19:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:05:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 8:54:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 8:46:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been debunked.

Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Brain and mind Operational Architectonics and man-made "machine" consciousness. Cognitive Processing (2009) 10(2):105-111.

If you could answer just a couple of points:

1) debunked or objected to? The former implies a consensus that 1 reference doesn't provide.

"No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness." - Bernard Baars

This theory of consciousness is falsifiable. If you read Jeffrey Gray's book "Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem", he explains that all tests done that should have picked up an interaction; came up negative.

I suppose I'll have to look for another theory that will fit with my own interpretation of consciousness. But the theory notwithstanding, have any objections to the actual quality of consciousness I suggested? because it can be attached to just about any theory as long as that theory involves a coherent union of something to form an emergent entity that can be ascribed the quality of being.

Like I said, I could be wrong, but the information seems credible that the theory has been discredited. However, it is also likely that a rebuttal has been revised that I just have not seen. People claim experiments debunk people's views all the time, but usually, there are loop holes.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:25:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:19:51 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:05:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 8:54:38 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 8:46:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Influence of electromagnetic fields on brain function have been debunked.

Andrew A. Fingelkurts, Alexander A. Fingelkurts, Brain and mind Operational Architectonics and man-made "machine" consciousness. Cognitive Processing (2009) 10(2):105-111.

If you could answer just a couple of points:

1) debunked or objected to? The former implies a consensus that 1 reference doesn't provide.

"No serious researcher I know believes in an electromagnetic theory of consciousness." - Bernard Baars

This theory of consciousness is falsifiable. If you read Jeffrey Gray's book "Consciousness: Creeping up on the Hard Problem", he explains that all tests done that should have picked up an interaction; came up negative.

I suppose I'll have to look for another theory that will fit with my own interpretation of consciousness. But the theory notwithstanding, have any objections to the actual quality of consciousness I suggested? because it can be attached to just about any theory as long as that theory involves a coherent union of something to form an emergent entity that can be ascribed the quality of being.

I like it ike, this is pretty much my view, and I haven't seen any successful debunking of it. The electric field theory unfortunately doesn't meet the requirements, but there may well be others. I like thinking about self-hosting compilers and making analogies to the consciousness function investigating itself simultaneously as program and data.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:25:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:05:01 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
So consciousness is "to be?"

It is really what it is like to be. And I'm arguing that subjectivity is an inherent attribute of all entities. And because such an attribute cannot be physically investigated, it is intrinsic to the entity, hence we only know what it is like to be us whatever it is it turns out that we are. There must be a what it is like to be a rock, but on an infinitely less sophisticated level.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:26:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
You really did go and Google it, good one.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:31:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:26:39 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
You really did go and Google it, good one.

It's a little upsetting thought that the thing I attached my idea to (it fit so well!) is not all that compelling in itself. I wish I didn't include cemi field theory.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:42:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:31:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:26:39 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
You really did go and Google it, good one.

It's a little upsetting thought that the thing I attached my idea to (it fit so well!) is not all that compelling in itself. I wish I didn't include cemi field theory.

It may be saved after all.

CEMI Vindicated?

"JohnJoe McFadden claims his conscious electromagnetic field information (CEMI) theory " which says that consciousness lies in the brain"s electromagnetic field " has now been borne out [substantiated] by a number of recent research findings." http://www.consciousentities.com...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:44:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:31:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:26:39 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
You really did go and Google it, good one.

It's a little upsetting thought that the thing I attached my idea to (it fit so well!) is not all that compelling in itself. I wish I didn't include cemi field theory.

"But one thing McFadden"s theory cannot be is a solution to the "Hard Problem" of subjective experience"

Does the above bother you at all? Or, do you not agree that this theory does not solve the hard problem?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:45:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:42:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:31:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:26:39 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
You really did go and Google it, good one.

It's a little upsetting thought that the thing I attached my idea to (it fit so well!) is not all that compelling in itself. I wish I didn't include cemi field theory.

It may be saved after all.

CEMI Vindicated?

"JohnJoe McFadden claims his conscious electromagnetic field information (CEMI) theory " which says that consciousness lies in the brain"s electromagnetic field " has now been borne out [substantiated] by a number of recent research findings." http://www.consciousentities.com...

That's nature of academic crap. They never agree on anything. But the good thing about science is that eventually the trial comes to an end and the verdict is reached and we all move on. Philosophy,...it just,...it just keeps going, it makes me cringe just thinking about it. I guess I'll do my own research on whether or not the theory's credible so that I can defend it myself if it proves credible enough.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:46:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:44:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:31:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:26:39 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
You really did go and Google it, good one.

It's a little upsetting thought that the thing I attached my idea to (it fit so well!) is not all that compelling in itself. I wish I didn't include cemi field theory.

"But one thing McFadden"s theory cannot be is a solution to the "Hard Problem" of subjective experience"

Does the above bother you at all? Or, do you not agree that this theory does not solve the hard problem?

by itself, no. With the first 2 paragraphs of the OP, yes it solves the hard problem.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:47:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:44:46 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:31:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:26:39 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
You really did go and Google it, good one.

It's a little upsetting thought that the thing I attached my idea to (it fit so well!) is not all that compelling in itself. I wish I didn't include cemi field theory.

"But one thing McFadden"s theory cannot be is a solution to the "Hard Problem" of subjective experience"

Does the above bother you at all? Or, do you not agree that this theory does not solve the hard problem?
I don't. I believe that any conception of the hard problem which this way of looking at consciousness does not resolve either assumes anti-physicalism (dualism or other such theories) or is equivalent to the hard problem of existence (why is the universe here).
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:48:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:45:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:42:37 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:31:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:26:39 PM, Sidewalker wrote:
You really did go and Google it, good one.

It's a little upsetting thought that the thing I attached my idea to (it fit so well!) is not all that compelling in itself. I wish I didn't include cemi field theory.

It may be saved after all.

CEMI Vindicated?

"JohnJoe McFadden claims his conscious electromagnetic field information (CEMI) theory " which says that consciousness lies in the brain"s electromagnetic field " has now been borne out [substantiated] by a number of recent research findings." http://www.consciousentities.com...

That's nature of academic crap. They never agree on anything. But the good thing about science is that eventually the trial comes to an end and the verdict is reached and we all move on. Philosophy,...it just,...it just keeps going, it makes me cringe just thinking about it. I guess I'll do my own research on whether or not the theory's credible so that I can defend it myself if it proves credible enough.

The experiments cited within it seem credible though.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 9:59:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmm...perhaps our consciousness is contained within or a portion of the awareness of "what it's like to be the universe" (everything that exists).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:02:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The hard problem is the scientific community's confusion at the existence of subjects in a world they only understand to have objects. But the crucial point here is that you wouldn't know what it is like to be any other subject but yourself! What if all beings are inherently subjective, but that subjectivity is only consequential with increasing complexity/coherence of information & function? It's an unfalsifiable idea that accounts for experience while also being in keep with the continuous thread of principles with which we define the universe.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:06:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 9:59:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Hmm...perhaps our consciousness is contained within or a portion of the awareness of "what it's like to be the universe" (everything that exists).

well the universe would have to amount to an informationally coherent whole with the kind of unity we recognize in the human brain. I'd rather submit that the universe is the substrate of pure mathematics and evolution is the inevitable process of growing complexity, growing possibilities (growing chaos) and we are at the nearest tip of that evolutionary arrow. This just seems more sober a perspective
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:09:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Again, you're aware that this isn't really a physicalist/materialist theory of the mind like you want it to be, right? It's more like panpsychism or protopanpsychism and both of those suffer from the difficult combination problem.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:16:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 10:09:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Again, you're aware that this isn't really a physicalist/materialist theory of the mind like you want it to be, right? It's more like panpsychism or protopanpsychism and both of those suffer from the difficult combination problem.

Know the perspective in the OP IS physicalism. It's more subtle than panpsychism. I'm not just claiming that all physical things have minds (mind is a loaded term that carries too many intuitional biases based on our experience). I'm saying that they bear subjectivity that has more graduated consequential meaning with greater complexity and coherence of information. It isn't just "mind" in any sense that we think of it. And I'm not familiar with "the difficult combination problem" but if it's unique to panpsychism, then it doesn't apply here.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:16:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 10:16:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 10:09:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Again, you're aware that this isn't really a physicalist/materialist theory of the mind like you want it to be, right? It's more like panpsychism or protopanpsychism and both of those suffer from the difficult combination problem.

Know the perspective in the OP IS physicalism. It's more subtle than panpsychism. I'm not just claiming that all physical things have minds (mind is a loaded term that carries too many intuitional biases based on our experience). I'm saying that they bear subjectivity that has more graduated consequential meaning with greater complexity and coherence of information. It isn't just "mind" in any sense that we think of it. And I'm not familiar with "the difficult combination problem" but if it's unique to panpsychism, then it doesn't apply here.

lol did I seriously misspell no?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:20:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 10:09:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Again, you're aware that this isn't really a physicalist/materialist theory of the mind like you want it to be, right?

It's a naturalistic theory, regardless of whether it is not a materialistic theory.

It's more like panpsychism or protopanpsychism and both of those suffer from the difficult combination problem.

Only under Susan Pockett's version, not McFadden's.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:29:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 10:06:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:59:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Hmm...perhaps our consciousness is contained within or a portion of the awareness of "what it's like to be the universe" (everything that exists).

well the universe would have to amount to an informationally coherent whole with the kind of unity we recognize in the human brain. I'd rather submit that the universe is the substrate of pure mathematics and evolution is the inevitable process of growing complexity, growing possibilities (growing chaos) and we are at the nearest tip of that evolutionary arrow. This just seems more sober a perspective

I see no reason to draw the line anywhere, though (space-wise). It seems to me that our unique perspective of consciousness is an illusion. It's sort of like: why aren't 'we' conscious of someone else's brain...well, it's because they already are!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:35:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 10:29:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/25/2013 10:06:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:59:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Hmm...perhaps our consciousness is contained within or a portion of the awareness of "what it's like to be the universe" (everything that exists).

well the universe would have to amount to an informationally coherent whole with the kind of unity we recognize in the human brain. I'd rather submit that the universe is the substrate of pure mathematics and evolution is the inevitable process of growing complexity, growing possibilities (growing chaos) and we are at the nearest tip of that evolutionary arrow. This just seems more sober a perspective

I see no reason to draw the line anywhere, though (space-wise). It seems to me that our unique perspective of consciousness is an illusion. It's sort of like: why aren't 'we' conscious of someone else's brain...well, it's because they already are!

I'm not doing a very good job communicating this idea lol.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 10:47:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 10:29:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/25/2013 10:06:47 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 9:59:01 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Hmm...perhaps our consciousness is contained within or a portion of the awareness of "what it's like to be the universe" (everything that exists).

well the universe would have to amount to an informationally coherent whole with the kind of unity we recognize in the human brain. I'd rather submit that the universe is the substrate of pure mathematics and evolution is the inevitable process of growing complexity, growing possibilities (growing chaos) and we are at the nearest tip of that evolutionary arrow. This just seems more sober a perspective

I see no reason to draw the line anywhere, though (space-wise). It seems to me that our unique perspective of consciousness is an illusion. It's sort of like: why aren't 'we' conscious of someone else's brain...well, it's because they already are!

I'll try to find the words to express this concept in coherent form when I'm not as tired.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2013 11:17:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/25/2013 10:16:16 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/25/2013 10:09:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Again, you're aware that this isn't really a physicalist/materialist theory of the mind like you want it to be, right? It's more like panpsychism or protopanpsychism and both of those suffer from the difficult combination problem.

Know the perspective in the OP IS physicalism.

No it's not.

It's more subtle than panpsychism. I'm not just claiming that all physical things have minds (mind is a loaded term that carries too many intuitional biases based on our experience).

No it's not. Some versions of Proto/panpyschism posit the same thing.
I'm saying that they bear subjectivity that has more graduated consequential meaning with greater complexity and coherence of information. It isn't just "mind" in any sense that we think of it. And I'm not familiar with "the difficult combination problem" but if it's unique to panpsychism, then it doesn't apply here.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!