• 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 2

Free episodes:

Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
smcder said:
Which ones? A little color blind, am I.
Click to expand...

I keep forgetting that. Sorry. I meant the Cambridge Declaration and "an interview with Panksepp on the implications of this for animal experimentation ... And I believe he said in the Shrinkrap interview that he no longer lobotomizes rats." Is the first interview you refer to one and the same as the Shrinkrap interview?
 
I wonder if it would be possible to automatically register all the offsite links posted in this lengthy discussion in a single list somehow attached to the forum's two, and likely, three sections. @Gene Steinberg, is there any device available for generating such a list?
 
Panksepp on the tertiary process:

So on top of that there is a level of, you know, cognitive processes that are incredibly important, but we cannot study those very well in animals. And when we have such a massively enlarged cortical space for doing these obviously we can have thoughts that other animals can’t imagine. We are the most cognitive creature in the world. It doesn’t mean the other creatures aren’t cognitive also but that is a mental landscape that one cannot do as rigorous neuroscience on as the basic emotional feelings and other affects. That’s a long answer.

(and McGinn would suggest there may be other minds out there having thoughts we can't imagine)

Elsewhere Panksepp discusses the PFC in terms of a tabula rasa to begin with and then later connected to "lower" cortical levels ... but that blank slate aspect is interesting, where free will may occur, yes and where other rules might not apply and interesting areas of philosophy could reside ... also, I of course did a search for Panksepp and Buddhism to interesting results.

And on the relationship of the top and bottom brains, this (with the above) might help make clear the idea of the mind being stratified ... ?

It’s pretty clear that the top of the brain could do nothing at all without the bottom of the brain. The bottom of the brain can do a heck of a lot without the top of the brain. Now a lot of people don’t realize this and may think the bottom of the brain is unconscious, deeply unconscious and implicit. Well it is not at the affective level. That’s where the affects actually emerge from so there is a certain primitive form of consciousness, and that primitive form probably is absolutely essential for higher forms, and that idea is not yet common currency. It’s not even being talked about in psychology and even consciousness studies.
 
Constance said:
I wonder if it would be possible to automatically register all the offsite links posted in this lengthy discussion in a single list somehow attached to the forum's two, and likely, three sections. @Gene Steinberg, is there any device available for generating such a list?
Click to expand...

@Pharoah ... is there a way to do that on the MM group? I need to spend some time learning how to use the site.
 
smcder said:
Panksepp on the tertiary process:

So on top of that there is a level of, you know, cognitive processes that are incredibly important, but we cannot study those very well in animals. And when we have such a massively enlarged cortical space for doing these obviously we can have thoughts that other animals can’t imagine. We are the most cognitive creature in the world. It doesn’t mean the other creatures aren’t cognitive also but that is a mental landscape that one cannot do as rigorous neuroscience on as the basic emotional feelings and other affects.
Click to expand...

Exactly and it's immensely frustrating. Those of us who spend a lot of time with animals, both domestic and wild, have strong intuitions about their "mental landscapes" and sense that they are similar to ours, but as Panksepp says we can't do rigorous neuroscience concerning them, nor do we have an opportunity to receive first-person reports from these other species since we cannot (yet) achieve more than a rudimentary common language with them. Interactive research with various species -- dolphins, chimpanzees, grey parrots, and others -- has yielded some signs of progress in signed communication, and perhaps more progress is possible. At the same time, language is not essential to interspecies communication as we learn from experience. Mutual understandings and even emotional bonding evolve through continued interactions between animals of different species and similarly in sensitive human interactions with animals of other species, and although what we absorb thereby can't be reduced to objective scientific explanations, the other path available to us -- the path of experience and mutuality -- is available and we can learn from it. The 'mental lives' of nonhuman animals are not totally foreclosed to our understanding, as I think Panksepp would agree. Mutual empathy seems to be the link we need to develop, one we've inherited from our evolutionary forebears in their own intraspecies empathy extendable also across species in the wild and living in our households. Empathy is possible on the basis of the openness to the environment and to others that phenomenology has long recognized as a, if not the, fundamental quality of consciousness.

(and McGinn would suggest there may be other minds out there having thoughts we can't imagine)
Click to expand...

Some might indeed be animal minds (perhaps the elephants and whales are examples), and some might be forms of consciousness we can't see. I like this quotation from James:

"We may be in the Universe as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all." —WILLIAM JAMES, A Pluralistic Universe "

Elsewhere Panksepp discusses the PFC in terms of a tabula rasa to begin with and then later connected to "lower" cortical levels ... but that blank slate aspect is interesting, where free will may occur, yes and where other rules might not apply and interesting areas of philosophy could reside ... also, I of course did a search for Panksepp and Buddhism to interesting results.

And on the relationship of the top and bottom brains, this (with the above) might help make clear the idea of the mind being stratified ... ?

It’s pretty clear that the top of the brain could do nothing at all without the bottom of the brain. The bottom of the brain can do a heck of a lot without the top of the brain. Now a lot of people don’t realize this and may think the bottom of the brain is unconscious, deeply unconscious and implicit. Well it is not at the affective level. That’s where the affects actually emerge from so there is a certain primitive form of consciousness, and that primitive form probably is absolutely essential for higher forms, and that idea is not yet common currency. It’s not even being talked about in psychology and even consciousness studies.
Click to expand...

It’s pretty clear that the top of the brain could do nothing at all without the bottom of the brain. The bottom of the brain can do a heck of a lot without the top of the brain. Now a lot of people don’t realize this and may think the bottom of the brain is unconscious, deeply unconscious and implicit. Well it is not at the affective level. That’s where the affects actually emerge from so there is a certain primitive form of consciousness, and that primitive form probably is absolutely essential for higher forms, and that idea is not yet common currency. It’s not even being talked about in psychology and even consciousness studies.

The man is brilliant. I think he'll have a place alongside Darwin in future science.
 
Last edited:
Constance said:
Exactly and it's immensely frustrating. Those of us who spend a lot of time with animals, both domestic and wild, have strong intuitions about their "mental landscapes" and sense that they are similar to ours, but as Panksepp says we can't do rigorous neuroscience concerning them, nor do we have an opportunity to receive first-person reports from these other species since we cannot (yet) achieve more than a rudimentary common language with them. Interactive research with various species -- dolphins, chimpanzees, grey parrots, and others -- has yielded some signs of progress in signed communication, and perhaps more progress is possible. At the same time, language is not essential to interspecies communication as we learn from experience. Mutual understandings and even emotional bonding evolve through continued interactions between animals of different species and similarly in sensitive human interactions with animals of other species, and although what we absorb thereby can't be reduced to objective scientific explanations, the other path available to us -- the path of experience and mutuality -- is available and we can learn from it. The 'mental lives' of nonhuman animals are not totally foreclosed to our understanding, as I think Panksepp would agree. Mutual empathy seems to be the link we need to develop, one we've inherited from our evolutionary forebears in their own intraspecies empathy extendable also across species in the wild and living in our households. Empathy is possible on the basis of the openness to the environment and to others that phenomenology has long recognized as a, if not the, fundamental quality of consciousness.



Some might indeed be animal minds (perhaps the elephants and whales are examples), and some might be forms of consciousness we can't see. I like this quotation from James:

"We may be in the Universe as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all." —WILLIAM JAMES, A Pluralistic Universe "



It’s pretty clear that the top of the brain could do nothing at all without the bottom of the brain. The bottom of the brain can do a heck of a lot without the top of the brain. Now a lot of people don’t realize this and may think the bottom of the brain is unconscious, deeply unconscious and implicit. Well it is not at the affective level. That’s where the affects actually emerge from so there is a certain primitive form of consciousness, and that primitive form probably is absolutely essential for higher forms, and that idea is not yet common currency. It’s not even being talked about in psychology and even consciousness studies.

The man is brilliant. I think he'll have a place alongside Darwin in future science.
Click to expand...
Constance said:
Exactly and it's immensely frustrating. Those of us who spend a lot of time with animals, both domestic and wild, have strong intuitions about their "mental landscapes" and sense that they are similar to ours, but as Panksepp says we can't do rigorous neuroscience concerning them, nor do we have an opportunity to receive first-person reports from these other species since we cannot (yet) achieve more than a rudimentary common language with them. Interactive research with various species -- dolphins, chimpanzees, grey parrots, and others -- has yielded some signs of progress in signed communication, and perhaps more progress is possible. At the same time, language is not essential to interspecies communication as we learn from experience. Mutual understandings and even emotional bonding evolve through continued interactions between animals of different species and similarly in sensitive human interactions with animals of other species, and although what we absorb thereby can't be reduced to objective scientific explanations, the other path available to us -- the path of experience and mutuality -- is available and we can learn from it. The 'mental lives' of nonhuman animals are not totally foreclosed to our understanding, as I think Panksepp would agree. Mutual empathy seems to be the link we need to develop, one we've inherited from our evolutionary forebears in their own intraspecies empathy extendable also across species in the wild and living in our households. Empathy is possible on the basis of the openness to the environment and to others that phenomenology has long recognized as a, if not the, fundamental quality of consciousness.



Some might indeed be animal minds (perhaps the elephants and whales are examples), and some might be forms of consciousness we can't see. I like this quotation from James:

"We may be in the Universe as dogs and cats are in our libraries, seeing the books and hearing the conversation, but having no inkling of the meaning of it all." —WILLIAM JAMES, A Pluralistic Universe "



It’s pretty clear that the top of the brain could do nothing at all without the bottom of the brain. The bottom of the brain can do a heck of a lot without the top of the brain. Now a lot of people don’t realize this and may think the bottom of the brain is unconscious, deeply unconscious and implicit. Well it is not at the affective level. That’s where the affects actually emerge from so there is a certain primitive form of consciousness, and that primitive form probably is absolutely essential for higher forms, and that idea is not yet common currency. It’s not even being talked about in psychology and even consciousness studies.

The man is brilliant. I think he'll have a place alongside Darwin in future science.
Click to expand...

I was just going to post some shaggy dog stories! I live with six ... I've recently started trying to talk to them like people, instead of baby talk ... to interesting results. Unlike kids, they listen and they look you in the eye. Of course, half the time they still do what they want.

Daniel Dennett argued in Kinds of Minds that dogs may be unique among mammals in terms of their capacity for suffering because they co-evolved with us. Interesting thought ...

Trying to contain six dogs has also made me very wary when people talk about containing AI. Chalmers said develop AI in a box with "no red pills". But my dogs have variously learned to release themselves from kennels (two latches), my house (French doors) and my fenced yard ... despite baling wire and piling objects around any opening I can find. Maybe I need to get down on all fours.

So if AI is even half as smart as we are, I'm pretty sure, once it realizes it's in a box ... it'll figure a way out.
 
In fact ... someone could do a series of short stories ... like locked room mysteries about how AI gets out of the box.
 
@Constance - can't find the podcast ... you can search Panksepp and animal experimentation (wasn't that the subject matter I mentioned? and get lots of hits)
 
smcder said:
You make some good points - before I invest time in a reply, I think it fair to ask if you are planning on rejoining this thread?
Click to expand...
Not as actively as I have been, no. I've decided to focus my available time on reading and commenting on Pharaoh's book about HCT and related material (such as Panksepp's work).
 
Constance said:
I don't think the mind itself is 'stratified', unless you're referring to traditional concepts...
Click to expand...
I've actually found Panksepp's 3 "layers" to be incredibly helpful in my everyday life and--as noted--they align with my own experiences/intuitions.

(1) Primary affective
(2) Secondary classical conditioning
(3) Tertiary metacognitive & EF

I do think mind is stratified, and we can see this if we consider (1) Life as a whole, and (2) development and disease.

As Panksepp illustrates, if we accept evolution, then we accept that brains are stratified; if we accept that brains generate minds (and that is the vernacular that Panksepp uses) then it follows that minds are stratified too.

Now, from the first person, phenomenological (tertiary) perspective, I don't think an organism will perceive its mind to be stratified. That is, the mind won't subjectively feel stratified in a neurotypical organism. However, if one works with normally developing children or individuals who have had normal brain development and/or functioning impacted due to genetics, disease, or injury, one can see that the BrainMind is indeed stratified.

I also wonder if some phenomenologists or meditators might even be able to discern different layers of the mind. I don't consider myself advanced in either pursuit, but even I have intuitively felt that at times I am in a "primary" state of mind--pure affect for example or pure experience-- and other time in a "tertiary" state of mind wherein I'm reflecting on thoughts, feelings, or behaviors.

To reiterate, I don't think a neurotypical human would experience their mind as stratified; it has evolved over millions of years and a normally functioning brain should generate a normally functioning mind. However, by comparing human BrainMinds to our closest animal relatives, considering normal child development, and when normal development is thwarted, we can see the evolved, stratified layers of the BrainMind that typically work together seamlessly.
 
Last edited:
Being a dog myself Steve..., I have to say that the biggest difficulty I have in communicating with humans is hitting the right letters on the keyboard with my paws. And Steve... you are doing a pretty good job because I understand about 10% of what you write. I don't like to whine about it, but woofing the wrong dialect - which is probably what you are doing - is like barking at a tree... waste of time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top