• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 4


Status
Not open for further replies.
But do all Westerners have 'babbling minds'? I don't, and most of my friends don't. My sister, however, does. Whenever she has quiet time her mind fills up with apprehension and needless, pointless, worrying. She even had a friend who taught meditation, but she wasn't interested in trying it. I know you have a meditation practice and that you've found it rewarding in a number of ways. I have to confess that I've never felt the need to shut the outer world down. But I do think it must be beneficial for those who desire that to be able to attain it..

I was thinking of it in terms of your interest in the subconscious ... it was interesting to me the idea Watts had that the subconscious wouldn't let the conscious mind in peace until it had made contact. It was interesting that he felt this was more common in the East, but he didn't expand on it.
 
Is attention sufficient for consciousness?

Paying Attention to Consciousness | rik hine - Academia.edu

I look at a series of well-known, blindsight experiments, which conclude that attention occurs in the absence of awareness. Based on a widely accepted neurophysiological model of attention, I argue that the experiments are
not as compelling as they initially appear. Indeed, there are good philosophical grounds for thinking that the research results are, in fact, fully compatible with the claim that attention is a minimally sufficient condition for consciousness. I conclude by showing that this argument generalizes to cover other purported, non-pathological cases of dissociation between attention and awareness.
 
Steve, would you be a peach and tell me what Weinberger thinks "the new digital disorder" is? That way I can listen to music instead of listening to him. ;)

You could play music in the background? ;-)
 
This is fascinating to me ... that people are working on their own home-brew TOES - there seem to be some parallels with your efforts and even with your background, @Pharoah, didn't your ideas for HCT also start in the mid 90s?

Kent D. Palmer | Advanced Systems Theory, Philosophy, Especially Metaphysics

I work as a Systems and Software Engineer, but have had an active research life
outside academia working in subjects like Philosophy (especially Ontology), Systems
Theory, Systems and Software Engineering Foundations including Architectural Design and
Process Engineering. I have written several books which are made available here in a
printable form.


This paper is from 2000:

"Reflexive Autopoietic Dissipative Special Systems Theory" by Kent D. Palmer

Reflexive Autopoietic Dissipative Special Systems Theory
Kent D. Palmer
Abstract
A newly discovered approach to extending General Systems Theory as defined by George Klir through a set of Special Systems is described. General Systems Theory is distinguished from the theory of Meta-systems. Then, a hinge of three special systems is identified between systems and meta-systems. These special systems are defined by algebraic analogies. Anomalous physical phenomena are specified that exemplify the structures defined by the algebraic analogies. The extraordinary efficacious properties of these special systems are explained. These include ultra-efficiency and ultra-effectiveness. These three special systems are called dissipative, autopoietic, and reflexive. They are anomalous within general systems theory and provide a bridge between the theory of systems and the theory of recursive meta-systems. This extension of Systems Theory allows us to move step by step through a series of emergent levels up to a comprehensive Meta-systems Theory. In that theory the different special systems fit together to produce the inverse of General Systems Theory which is called Emergent Meta-systems Theory. Emergent Meta-systems are composed of the meta-operations which appear at each level of algebraic emergence from the system through the three levels of special systems. Each level can be seen as a meta-operator within the overall structure of the Emergent Meta-system. Together these operations produce a theoretical model of the meta-system. Historical examples of artifacts with the structure of the Emergent Meta-system are pointed out. Four different series of anomalous physical, logical and mathematical structures are related which give different views of the special systems. Besides the series of solitons and the various other physical phenomena that exemplify ultra-efficiency we also look at the series of topological structures of which the mobius strip and kleinian bottles are the best known examples. These other mathematical and physical phenomena which indicate the nature of the special systems elaborate on the structures established through the algebraic analogies. In general we are indicating a new set of anomalous systems that may be used to extend and enrich general systems theory and build a bridge to a complete meta-systems theory. The special systems form the underlying basis of Meta-systems theory because it is through their interaction that they form the Emergent Meta-system. By recognizing this peculiar state of affairs we both found the General Meta-systems Theory and a Holonomics that deals with the Special Systems Theory at the same time.
 
I think the theories above could be described as

Idiosyncratic Autodidact Theories of Everything (IATs)

... the grandaddy of all which would be the CTMU:

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

commenting on the biocentric model by Lanza, Daniel "Daddy-O" Dennett said he didn't think it met the criteria of a philosophical theory ...

*what is the criteria of a philosophical theory?

A Biotech Provocateur Takes On Physics - Forbes

In common speech, the word “theory” is often used to refer to ideas that have not been proven, but to scientists and philosophers it has a completely different meaning. A theory is a rigid intellectual construction that builds a way of thinking about the universe.

To scientists, a theory must make clear predictions of how things work. Einstein’s theory of special relativity predicts how light behaves; Darwin’s theory of evolution predicts how different species evolve. Researchers can design experiments to test whether these predictions are true.

But it seems to me the standard criteria might not apply to IATs ... perhaps we need to spawn a new field of study: Allology?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What' do you anticipate is the most likely reason they would reject the paper?

When do you expect an answer?
1. I have always been surprised by reactions to my work.
When someone practises a musical instrument, they nearly always practise what they are good at; because they fail to hear what they actually need to practise. I don't really understand the criteria for philosophy publications. Who was it who said philosophy is the art of speculation: from what I can gather, one can write absolute tosh, but if it is written in the right way it will be accepted.

2. August
 
1. I have always been surprised by reactions to my work.
When someone practises a musical instrument, they nearly always practise what they are good at; because they fail to hear what they actually need to practise. I don't really understand the criteria for philosophy publications. Who was it who said philosophy is the art of speculation: from what I can gather, one can write absolute tosh, but if it is written in the right way it will be accepted.

2. August

Tish-tosh ... or pish-tosh? Posh-tosh always sells.

Surprised good? Surprised bad ... or surprised, surprised?

There should be a submission guide ... and then the best thing is to read lots of articles from that journal? Also, if you can fit in an equation or 2.25 but not too many! that always helps these days. Probably referencing other works of philosophy, showing where your view came from, and using the preferred terminology of the journal - which again takes a familiarity with it.

There was another ... journal or repository I came across, meant to post it for you ... one of the IATs I reference above placed his work there ... I will try to find it.
 
1. I have always been surprised by reactions to my work.
When someone practises a musical instrument, they nearly always practise what they are good at; because they fail to hear what they actually need to practise. I don't really understand the criteria for philosophy publications. Who was it who said philosophy is the art of speculation: from what I can gather, one can write absolute tosh, but if it is written in the right way it will be accepted.

2. August

Sokal affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Toronto Manifesto

The Law of the Diagonal

... in any problem the actual solution lies in a diagonal conceptual relationship to what has been targeted as the apparent solution.
I propose that the problem of human consciousness, which is at present focused on the brain, might be better ‘diagonally’ directed to the hand -- that extremedy, which so often is ahead of the brain in daily life. In the hand lies a bodily lens through which consciousness can be directly glimpsed and productively studied. Where better to find immediate consciousness than in hands.

The hand is fertile metaphor and model for the study of consciousness.
To emphasize the notion of the inherent physiological synergies of consciousness, it is important to note: the forward positioning of the eyes, upright walking (freeing of the hands), the opposed thumb and the evolution of the cerebral cortex, as well as the development of cranial physiology -- all present themselves in an integrated matrix from which hominid ‘consciousness’ takes on luster and blooms.
Touch is the primordial base of consciousness – all consciousness is based on contact. Touch is primary and underlies all other sensory development. The senses evolve or branch from the base sensation of touch or contact, and, in particular, the hand is a focal organ in the broadly distributed sense of touch spread out in the vast organism of the skin which I think of as a whole and unique organ.
It is the world touching us and we touching the world that is basic to consciousness. It is the ever-changing contact with the environment or other, caused by the event of living, which finally synergized human consciousness. Reciprocally, it is this everchangingness that redefines the inner consciousness of our organism laying the basis for reflexivity of consciousness, i.e., when we find a tool to shape something new in the world we also shape something new in ourselves, in our consciousness.What inward consciousness do new tools engender?
In the ‘poetic’ dialogue of the hand is a basic analogue to being, revealed in becoming, motivated by unconscious and conscious intention, gloved with contextual culture. Not only does the hand touch but it acts upon the world: it does, makes and forms. It is the primary poetic or forming instrument.Consciousness is integrative in its fundamental reality and process. The hand integrates, mingles, connects and hinges consciousness. It is a catechism of logics. It expresses: antithesis, deduction, induction, symmetry, asymmetry, metaphor, analogy, etc. So many aspects meet in the hand and in its wholeness and unity. In a certain way, it is an independent phenomenological entity.
To understand an integrated entity it is illogical to think that it can be understood by a process of isolating dissection and dismemberment when the very form and principle of its reality is synergetic, dynamic and holistic.
 
Tish-tosh ... or pish-tosh? Posh-tosh always sells.

Surprised good? Surprised bad ... or surprised, surprised?

There should be a submission guide ... and then the best thing is to read lots of articles from that journal? Also, if you can fit in an equation or 2.25 but not too many! that always helps these days. Probably referencing other works of philosophy, showing where your view came from, and using the preferred terminology of the journal - which again takes a familiarity with it.

There was another ... journal or repository I came across, meant to post it for you ... one of the IATs I reference above placed his work there ... I will try to find it.
There is always a submission guide and journal style etc.
Surprise = oh... I didn't think of that. Good bad and ugly too.

I watched "Ex Machina" last night. Anyone else seen it? Very good artificial consciousness film... lots of philosophy snd psychology
 
There is always a submission guide and journal style etc.
Surprise = oh... I didn't think of that. Good bad and ugly too.

I watched "Ex Machina" last night. Anyone else seen it? Very good artificial consciousness film... lots of philosophy snd psychology

The Philosophy of Philosophical Institutions | Daily Nous

Questions the effect of the discipline and housing of Philosophy, it's professionalization - on doing philosophy. May be of interest to you working outside the academy:

. Like Moliere’s Bourgeois Gentleman, who did not know that he had been speaking prose, philosophers seem innocent of the fact that they have been doing disciplinary philosophy, or that one might have reasons to object to this fact. And so even when their subject matter consists of something of real significance to the wider world, philosophers typically discuss the topic in a way that precludes the active interest of and involvement by non-philosophers.

Why is peer-reviewed scholarship the sole standard for judging philosophic work, rather than also the effects that such work has on the larger world? And why is there only one social role for those with Ph.D.s in philosophy – namely, to talk to other Ph.D.s in philosophy
 
One finds no exploration of the effects that disciplining might have had on philosophical theorizing, or of where else philosophers could be housed, or of how philosophers, by being located elsewhere, might have developed alternative accounts of the world or have come up with new ways of philosophizing.

In fact, the epistemic implications of the current institutional housing of philosophy are profound….
 
One finds no exploration of the effects that disciplining might have had on philosophical theorizing, or of where else philosophers could be housed, or of how philosophers, by being located elsewhere, might have developed alternative accounts of the world or have come up with new ways of philosophizing.

In fact, the epistemic implications of the current institutional housing of philosophy are profound….
Imagine a group of blind highly intelligent creatures living at the bottom of an ocean. They reason that, were they to travel 'upwards', the ocean would not go on forever; it must have a boundary. But what is the nature of the world that lies beyond that boundary? Each creature speculates and presents arguments as to what lies beyond. It is the quality of the arguments rather than the truth that they are interested in. The more intelligent the creature, the more sophistcated the argument. And so they continue with claim versus counter claim about something of which they know nothing.
That is my rather negative impression of what philosophising is.
Whilst the institute is a clumsy inefficient beast, it does serve a function; it keeps people like me out... lol.
 
Imagine a group of blind highly intelligent creatures living at the bottom of an ocean. They reason that, were they to travel 'upwards', the ocean would not go on forever; it must have a boundary. But what is the nature of the world that lies beyond that boundary? Each creature speculates and presents arguments as to what lies beyond. It is the quality of the arguments rather than the truth that they are interested in. The more intelligent the creature, the more sophistcated the argument. And so they continue with claim versus counter claim about something of which they know nothing.
That is my rather negative impression of what philosophising is.
Whilst the institute is a clumsy inefficient beast, it does serve a function; it keeps people like me out... lol.

Yes, philosophizing or "sophistry" - the Greeks recognized this - it's always been there. But philosophizing isn't philosophy. There is something like this in almost every field - philosophy isn't unique. I do think there is a tendency to underestimate the history and methods of philosophy and so a tendency to jump in and re-invent the wheel. This is more obvious in something like physics where there are very formal requirements and a progressive structure to the subject - at least as its taught. It's also obvious in branches of philosophy like logic. But that structure is there in general philosophy too.

You would know this I think from your discussion of Scriabin - I think it was or Schoenberg - in order to break rules, you have to master them.

This article represents to me, something good - which is self-criticism. The article talks about "field philosophy" - which makes me think of the Greeks too.

I think you also keep yourself out. Any field, any group of people - has social norms, has agreed on terminology - this does serve a conservative purpose, of course - but that's not without value either - such a group has suffered a lot of mistakes in the past and is trying not to repeat them or re-invent the wheel. Having agreed on terminology facilitates communication but it also make the new thought much more visible - it can be a limitation though, I agree.

Finally, there is something of a myth about people like Einstein and Feynmann - they weren't so much outsiders as the legends portray ... Einstein's struggle with math was relative - he read Critique of Pure Reason at 11 or 13 - he knew a lot of physics, so he came out of a tradition and superseded it by building on it, not out of nowhere with sheer genius. I'm not saying you don't know all of this ...

And philosophy may still lend itself, maybe more than other disciplines, to the single thinker making a contribution - but that's a little misleading too - because they almost always are steeped in the background of the area they are working in - or the discipline they are coming from turns out to be highly relevant to a breakthrough in another discipline - ...

Whatever the case may be - it's very hard to bring ideas in from the outside - and I'm sure there's been something lost in this - Ramanjuan was a good example of a natural talent in mathematics that didn't get an opportunity to create ...but it's also been pointed out that Darwin for example or Einstein - that there was a cusp there and if they hadn't done the work, Evolution and Relativity would still have come along in time.

Finally, (finally) - there are more of you, people being kept out, than you might think and with enough in common, that maybe it forms an institution of its own. In other words, rebels are dependent on a system to oppose, but less recognized is that the system is also dependent on those rebels - they, you - help form and firm the walls of the institution.

What I posted on IATs above - they show a lot in common, outsiders - in Lanza's case - he crosses over from success in bio-tech to philosophy and physics - he may be a case where his expertise is relevant to a revoltion in another field - or he may be wrong. But from Chris Langan's CMTU to Multi-Sense Realism, to HCT there are some commonalities - one of the most striking is an attempt to explain everything according to one or a very small set of principles - the goal in general of Western science of course, but the difference is that they are saying - "mainstream has it wrong, yes te world is guided by principles, but not those principles but these principles" and that seems to me what you are doing with HCT (and that doesn't mean its wrong) but also, these theories to me are strikingly similar to early attempts in philosphy at "systematic philosophy" - you don't generally see that form much ... it's a throw-back, or its coming back ... but there are known problems with it - and that's where a history of philosophy comes in handy.

Now, all that said - it comes down to something very simple which is that both the mainstream, the institution and those who "are kept out" as you put it - are regulated by the same forces ... so in the end they are all part of the same system. Further evidence of this is that the desire of those kept out is recognition (a bringing in) of their ideas - so that they become mainstream.

And I don't think the outlook is that bleak - historically we get the high points, the "success" story as defined by the culture at the time - when the culture changes, history is re-written and minor figures may gain status while major figures are criticized - the stream of ideas is edited so that revolution was inevitable, was obvious.

It may be that in ten years, HCT is a dominant paradigm and somwhere, someone working in isolation, outside the institution - is struggling to prove it wrong.
 
Imagine a group of blind highly intelligent creatures living at the bottom of an ocean. They reason that, were they to travel 'upwards', the ocean would not go on forever; it must have a boundary. But what is the nature of the world that lies beyond that boundary? Each creature speculates and presents arguments as to what lies beyond. It is the quality of the arguments rather than the truth that they are interested in. The more intelligent the creature, the more sophistcated the argument. And so they continue with claim versus counter claim about something of which they know nothing.
That is my rather negative impression of what philosophising is.


That's pretty much the classic metaphor of the elephant and the blind men, but it also portrays what Kuhn calls "ordinary science" - some of it is pedantic, that's ordinary, but some of it is legitimate efforts to figure out what's going on - and something may be learned even in the service of sophistry, one blind man learned a lot about trunks - even if it was in service to coming up with a really good argument to make himself look good, the knowledge was acquired - ego drives a lot of science - but it doesn't make the science itself bad ... then, one day, a genius comes along and talks to all the blind men and figures it out, that's revolutionary science. But that genius was indebted to the pedantic blind men for what they did find out.
 
The Philosophy of Philosophical Institutions | Daily Nous

Questions the effect of the discipline and housing of Philosophy, it's professionalization - on doing philosophy. May be of interest to you working outside the academy:

. Like Moliere’s Bourgeois Gentleman, who did not know that he had been speaking prose, philosophers seem innocent of the fact that they have been doing disciplinary philosophy, or that one might have reasons to object to this fact. And so even when their subject matter consists of something of real significance to the wider world, philosophers typically discuss the topic in a way that precludes the active interest of and involvement by non-philosophers.

Why is peer-reviewed scholarship the sole standard for judging philosophic work, rather than also the effects that such work has on the larger world? And why is there only one social role for those with Ph.D.s in philosophy – namely, to talk to other Ph.D.s in philosophy

The book you cite should be of interest to broad segments of modern society not 'housed' in academic institutions. I followed links to this discussion page that connects the range of issues and problems involved in the thesis and subject matter of the book -- Sustainable Knowledge: An Exchange, Davis, Dieleman, Frodeman, Remedios, Riggio, Simbürger, Suomela « Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective
 
Last edited:
@Pharoah - Let me clarify, none of the above is a critique of your ideas - or a defense of the status quo - I am saying that maybe the status quo is broader than I originally thought - that it encompasses rebels as well as true insiders - and with the internet, the wall around the Ivory Towers is more permeable ... I'm sure insiders borrow from outsiders and of course outsiders are working off the accepted wisdom, off the insider's ideas ... so both need one another, I don't think there is any advantage that doesn't carry a disadvantage, the trick is to be a smart insider or outsider and take advantage of the advantages of wherever you are ...

Maybe even true crackpots have been a source of ideas and inspirations - some like Tesla seems to straddle both sides of the inside/outside line.

But there appear to be some rules, some structure to the game ... ridicule by either side points up what is missing in the other ... the advantage to originality may lie outside the confines of the institution (IF they person has done their homework) but the advantage of documenting, assembling and recording the history of ideas so that those breakthroughs can happen, seems to be more of an inside job ... with exceptions in both cases, of course, and remember, when a breakthrough happens, the outsider man of genius is often then surrounded and becomes the center of a new inside, a new status quo - rebels become beuracrats of the new order, that then looks a lot like the old - as I said about the pedantic, blind man - say what you will, he or she knows a LOT about trunks. And if a genius comes along and takes all the blind men's reports and puts them together, he owes a lot to the blind pedantry of his predeccessors, his position outside the room, receiving those reports gave him an advantage ... if he'd been in the room groping around, he wouldn't have been able to put it all together.

But all this changing rapidly - 20 years ago, working on an independent theory in philosophy might be unusual, and might be under your control, but now your work is on the internet, you have a blog, you've essentially published it in a bigger way than getting in a journal - smart, young thinkers are all over the web, key word searches, pre-defined searches, they get whats new on the internet every day - that was part of Weinberger's talk I posted above - more is more, not less, we seem to be swimming well in an ocean of information - your ideas are out there, may have been evaluated and even used as inspiration or subliminally, who knows the impact - ? You don't have control and you can't really measure where those ideas are any more. Publishing in a journal gives some legitimacy I suppose, but HCT is already in the wild, the psychosphere and part of the conversation - if it's out there at all, so I don't know if all my analysis is really relevant or if the instituion is already thouroughly permeated by the internet - the blood/brain barrier of the university ... thats at least taken for granted by 20 somethings for which this is all a great big "duh" and a better measure is maybe how many people have linked back to your blog or commented on it, or maybe you won't know at all, I think both sides just have to be really, really open and move really fast ... I don't expect revolutions to come the way they did - like Darwin's work or Einstein's but to come all the time, every day - popping here and there, faster and faster - so asking the state of the art in a field, especially like philosophy, I think it's all big enough now to sustaina Copernican revolution every Thursday.
 
The book you cite should be of interest to broad segments of modern society not 'housed' in academic institutions. I followed links to this discussion page that connects the range of issues and problems involved in the thesis and subject matter of the book -- Sustainable Knowledge: An Exchange, Davis, Dieleman, Frodeman, Remedios, Riggio, Simbürger, Suomela « Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective

Some of this is along the lines of what I said about "outsiders":

AR, in reply: Here’s a few more ideas for research critiquing the modern structure of universities. Corporate capital investment, the collateralization of student tuition, the shouldering of excessive debt on student populations, the wild overproduction of academic labour relative to the job market size.

As well, I think it’s likely that the next generation of genuinely progressive works in philosophy will come from the underemployed.

Those who devote themselves entirely to the conservative aspects of institutions may not ever produce anything but what, in Kuhnian language, would be safe, normal work.

Trying to survive rough economic times in institutions encourages keeping your head down, and most of those who have achieved prestigious places in conservative institutions tend to rest on their laurels instead of using their security to produce challenging work at last. If Chomsky’s late-career political boisterousness is no longer the model, it seems the abuses of power in the cases of Colin McGinn and Peter Ludlow constitute the new paradigm of academic decadence. But the work that’s actually remembered is the work that tries to shift problems and frameworks of thinking and disciplinary engagement. So it’s more likely that genuinely inventive work will come not from those who have achieved it all, but those who don’t have much to lose.

VIVA la revolution!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top