Philosophy, Science, & The Unexplained - Main Thread

[smcder]

Phenomenological phenomena are states of mind in and of themselves rather than causal factors. The phenomenological method relies on the description of phenomena as they are given to consciousness, in their immediacy ( Wikipedia ), so in either instance ( physical or mystical ), phenomenology plays a role in the examination of what is taking place within our consciousness ( our waking experience ) rather than what gives rise to it in the first place.

For convenience sake I often refer simply to the brain, but if you review my posts, you'll also see multiple instances where I refer to consciousness as an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state. I hope that clarifies somewhat.

Phenomenological phenomena are states of mind in and of themselves rather than causal factors.

If I understand you correctly - this is the position of epiphenomenalism?

1. Epiphenomenalism is a doctrine first formulated by Thomas Henry Huxley.[39] It consists of the view that mental phenomena are causally ineffectual, where one or more mental states do not have any influence on physical states. Physical events can cause other physical events and physical events can cause mental events, but mental events cannot cause anything, since they are just causally inert by-products (i.e. epiphenomena) of the physical world.[35] This view has been defended most strongly in recent times by Frank Jackson.[40]
   
   
   
   For convenience sake I often refer simply to the brain, but if you review my posts, you'll also see multiple instances where I refer to consciousness as an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state. I hope that clarifies somewhat.
   
   It does clarify - thank you. I would not have equated "the brain" and "normally functioning brain/body system" across the various contexts in your posts - not with multiple posters to keep track of (and not sleeping having slept in-between! ;-) generally, I'm not sure we can assume that readers can or will keep track of how each participant uses language across all of their previous posts (or even that our language always forms a coherent whole, I know mine does not) - it might be good practice for all participants to concisely re-state key positions from time to time - this could also make reviewing the thread easier in the future or for new participants.
   
   
   

 

[Randall]

Phenomenological phenomena are states of mind in and of themselves rather than causal factors.

If I understand you correctly - this is the position of epiphenomenalism?

From what I've read so far, consciousness appears to be built into the foundation of phenomenology at it's base level, so I would assume that its derivatives would include the same assumption. I don't see anywhere so far that phenomenology is considered to be the underlying cause of consciousness. Rather it appears to be the study of the phenomena that take place within consciousness ( hence phenomenology ), however if you should run across some text someplace that states otherwise, then please let me know.
----------------------

For convenience sake I often refer simply to the brain, but if you review my posts, you'll also see multiple instances where I refer to consciousness as an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state. I hope that clarifies somewhat.

----------------------

It does clarify - thank you. I would not have equated "the brain" and "normally functioning brain/body system" across the various contexts in your posts - not with multiple posters to keep track of (and not sleeping having slept in-between! ;-) generally, I'm not sure we can assume that readers can or will keep track of how each participant uses language across all of their previous posts (or even that our language always forms a coherent whole, I know mine does not) - it might be good practice for all participants to concisely re-state key positions from time to time - this could also make reviewing the thread easier in the future or for new participants.

It's quite a mouthful to say "Consciousness ( in humans ) is an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state" every time I want to refer to how I view consciousness ( and even that doesn't get everything across in a single sentence ). But for the sake of convenience just saying "the brain" still gets the essential idea across. After all, it's reasonable to assume that most of the time we're talking about the human brain while it's alive, functioning normally, undamaged, connected to the various sensors in the body, and aware, but some people get really picky about the details ( imagine that ) It's not like anyone I know would ever be like that ... lol.

 

[smcder]

From what I've read so far, consciousness appears to be built into the foundation of phenomenology at it's base level, so I would assume that its derivatives would include the same assumption. I don't see anywhere so far that phenomenology is considered to be the underlying cause of consciousness. Rather it appears to be the study of the phenomena that take place within consciousness ( hence phenomenology ), however if you should run across some text someplace that states otherwise, then please let me know.
----------------------

----------------------


It's quite a mouthful to say "Consciousness ( in humans ) is an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state" every time I want to refer to how I view consciousness ( and even that doesn't get everything across in a single sentence ). But for the sake of convenience just saying "the brain" still gets the essential idea across. After all, it's reasonable to assume that most of the time we're talking about the human brain while it's alive, functioning normally, undamaged, connected to the various sensors in the body, and aware, but some people get really picky about the details ( imagine that ) It's not like anyone I know would ever be like that ... lol.

I'm asking if the statement:

Phenomenological phenomena are states of mind in and of themselves rather than causal factors.

corresponds to epiphenomenalism as defined here?

Epiphenomenalism is a doctrine first formulated by Thomas Henry Huxley.[39] It consists of the view that mental phenomena are causally ineffectual, where one or more mental states do not have any influence on physical states. Physical events can cause other physical events and physical events can cause mental events, but mental events cannot cause anything, since they are just causally inert by-products (i.e. epiphenomena) of the physical world.[35] This view has been defended most strongly in recent times by Frank Jackson.[40]
I think we need to minimize assumptions. My opinion is that, for clarity, we need to either adopt standard definitions or periodically re-state positions and what is meant by key words. This can be done concisely. I admit this is selfish on my part - because the time I have to spend on the forums has decreased but I do still want to follow the conversation if possible.

 

[smcder]

. . .
It's quite a mouthful to say "Consciousness ( in humans ) is an emergent property of a normally functioning brain/body system in its waking state" every time I want to refer to how I view consciousness ( and even that doesn't get everything across in a single sentence ). But for the sake of convenience just saying "the brain" still gets the essential idea across. After all, it's reasonable to assume that most of the time we're talking about the human brain while it's alive, functioning normally, undamaged, connected to the various sensors in the body, and aware, but some people get really picky about the details ( imagine that ) It's not like anyone I know would ever be like that ... lol.

I think in this case - you could subtitute the above with "Consciousness is emergent." or "Consciousness is epiphenomenal." At most: "Consciousness emerges from the brain."

 

[Tyger]

Consciousness precedes the formation of the brain, just as blood flow precedes the formation of the heart.

Consciousness requires organs of perception in order to start becoming aware in a particular milieu - and start initiating action in that milieu.

We are all familiar with the 5 physical senses preceded by the formation of the 5 physical organs. It is through the use of the 5 physical organs/senses that consciousness becomes aware in the physical universe.

This awareness in the physical universe is slowly built up over time as the consciousness builds the entire organism. Via sense impressions the mental body begins to acquire a perceptual cache leading to the beginnings of basic concepts (mother, father, food, hot, cold, hurt, pleasure). The mental body's organ is the entire body, though the brain has a significant role to play in the gestalt of the whole organism as the receiver and processor of the sense impressions.

Consciousness is an umbrella term. Awareness is key. With the human being, self-awareness is distinctive, but not immediate - it takes a while.

 

[Randall]

I'm asking if the statement:

Phenomenological phenomena are states of mind in and of themselves rather than causal factors.

corresponds to epiphenomenalism as defined here?

Epiphenomenalism is a doctrine first formulated by Thomas Henry Huxley.[39] It consists of the view that mental phenomena are causally ineffectual, where one or more mental states do not have any influence on physical states. Physical events can cause other physical events and physical events can cause mental events, but mental events cannot cause anything, since they are just causally inert by-products (i.e. epiphenomena) of the physical world.[35] This view has been defended most strongly in recent times by Frank Jackson.[40]
I think we need to minimize assumptions. My opinion is that, for clarity, we need to either adopt standard definitions or periodically re-state positions and what is meant by key words. This can be done concisely. I admit this is selfish on my part - because the time I have to spend on the forums has decreased but I do still want to follow the conversation if possible.

Ah. I see what you mean, and it's not the least bit selfish. It's required if we're going to remain coherent. As for standard definitions: That can get somewhat contentious. There are different contexts in which a single word can mean different things. If we insist that "our interpretation" is the "standard version" when the person we're discussing an issue with isn't using the word in the same context, then problems arise. I've started a thread identical to this one over on the JREF forum and that's what is happening now with respect to the words "subjective", "objective", and "reality". If you think things get tense here, join the discussion over there. For a forum that purports to foster critical thinking in a friendly and lively way, I've found it much more akin to discussing things in a cyberbullying, mocking, and inflammatory way. It's really good practise at keeping your cool and focusing on the topic at hand. It's more like psychological warfare than a discussion forum.

Anyway, I don't think that the approach of epiphenomenalism as you've quoted it above is a reasonable position to take. The phenomena ( perceptual experiences ) seem to have a direct causal effect on the underlying neural network. What I was referring to is the underlying cause that gives rise to consciousness in the first place, what constructs our "theatre of the mind" before the show even begins. What phenomenology focuses on is what happens after the show begins.

 

[Randall]

Consciousness precedes the formation of the brain, just as blood flow precedes the formation of the heart.

That is not what the best evidence I've run across suggests. What evidence do you have to support your conclusion?

 

[Randall]

I think in this case - you could subtitute the above with "Consciousness is emergent." or "Consciousness is epiphenomenal." At most: "Consciousness emerges from the brain."

I would have no objection to kicking off a casual discussion that way. We can always elaborate as the discussion progresses. Someplace back there I posted a link to a more in-depth discussion on the concept of emergence. That's the direction I currently believe is our best bet.

 

[Tyger]

There is Consciousness with a capital 'C' - the umbrella term. There is consciousness with a small 'c' referring to consciousness as distinct from un-consciousness and what is currently called the sub-consciousness. [In all of this awareness is key - where one is aware.]

Consciousness is related to that which we observe as being 'life' [in the physical universe]. Consciousness requires a living physical body to perceive the physical universe. One must have a concept of what 'life' is - but for the purposes of this discussion, we will call this life a 'force'. Consciousness gathers and directs the life-forces to form the human body, in order to have perceptual access to this physical universe.

The above is not a matter for belief. For those who do not yet know, it will be a heuristic devise, as good as any other, more or less. If the above is close to an accurate description it will resonate and it will, as well, 'tie up loose ends'. Most explorations in this realm are on the order of thought-experiments to begin with anyway.

 

[Randall]

There is Consciousness with a capital 'C' - the umbrella term. There is consciousness with a small 'c' referring to consciousness as distinct from un-consciousness and what is currently called the sub-consciousness. [In all of this awareness is key - where one is aware.]

Consciousness is related to that which we observe as being 'life' [in the physical universe]. Consciousness requires a living physical body to perceive the physical universe. One must have a concept of what 'life' is - but for the purposes of this discussion, we will call this life a 'force'. Consciousness gathers and directs the life-forces to form the human body, in order to have perceptual access to this physical universe.

The above is not a matter for belief. For those who do not yet know, it will be a heuristic devise, as good as any other, more or less. If the above is close to an accurate description it will resonate and it will, as well, 'tie up loose ends'. Most explorations in this realm are on the order of thought-experiments to begin with.

Again, are the ideas you're presenting supported by evidence? If so, please provide some of the evidence rather than just making more proclamations. It would also help if you could outline the framework you are working from. For example do you consider your claims to be an actual state of affairs, or do you consider them to be hypothetical, or do you consider them to be based in some established mythology? In other words, from what premise are the ideas you're putting forth here originating? Do you have any references? If so, can you provide a couple of examples?

 

[Constance]

There is Consciousness with a capital 'C' - the umbrella term. There is consciousness with a small 'c' referring to consciousness as distinct from un-consciousness and what is currently called the sub-consciousness. [In all of this awareness is key - where one is aware.]

Consciousness is related to that which we observe as being 'life' [in the physical universe]. Consciousness requires a living physical body to perceive the physical universe. One must have a concept of what 'life' is - but for the purposes of this discussion, we will call this life a 'force'. Consciousness gathers and directs the life-forces to form the human body, in order to have perceptual access to this physical universe.

The above is not a matter for belief. For those who do not yet know, it will be a heuristic devise, as good as any other, more or less. If the above is close to an accurate description it will resonate and it will, as well, 'tie up loose ends'. Most explorations in this realm are on the order of thought-experiments to begin with anyway.

That is a very interesting post, Tyger. I'm just waking up and need to get some coffee before I can respond to what you've said, but it's very helpful and I think enlightening in expanding this discussion beyond the level at which we've been discussing consciousness.

 

[Constance]

I think in this case - you could subtitute the above with "Consciousness is emergent." or "Consciousness is epiphenomenal." At most: "Consciousness emerges from the brain."

That's very helpful, Steve. Ufology does indeed seem to be thinking from the position of emergence (which we don't have to reinvent here; it's a well-understood position), and to see consciousness as epiphenomenal. We should probably identify what these terms signify and then use them with clear mutual understanding of their premises to save time.

 

[Constance]

Again, are the ideas you're presenting supported by evidence? If so, please provide some of the evidence rather than just making more proclamations. It would also help if you could outline the framework you are working from. For example do you consider your claims to be an actual state of affairs, or do you consider them to be hypothetical, or do you consider them to be based in some established mythology? In other words, from what premise are the ideas you're putting forth here originating? Do you have any references? If so, can you provide a couple of examples?

Ufology, are you aware that your own premises and presuppositions sometimes prevent your entertaining other perspectives on consciousness and mind? There is a great deal of insight into consciousness and mind that does not originate in the physical sciences, that does not come with what you would consider a certificate of validity for reasonable discourse provided by neuroscientists. Going to get some coffee now.

 

[Tyger]

That is a very interesting post, Tyger. I'm just waking up and need to get some coffee before I can respond to what you've said, but it's very helpful and I think enlightening in expanding this discussion beyond the level at which we've been discussing consciousness.

Hi, Constance - I don't intend to be a participant in the way you guys here are, just an occasional contributor as time allows (you know how that is). I don't even expect to be responded to.

The basic division is whether - in very broad terms - one accepts that Consciousness precedes 'life' in the physical universe, and (therefore) continues after 'life' in the physical universe has ceased.

The word 'accepts' can be interpreted to mean a 'belief' - or, as in scientific debate, it is taken as a 'premise' for the sake of debate.

One may 'accept' the idea of a sustained a priori Consciousness as a premise, or as a belief, or as a condition out of one's 'lived experience'.

 

[Constance]

Hi, Constance - I don't intend to be a participant in the way you guys here are, just an occasional contributor as time allows (you know how that is). I don't even expect to be responded to.

The basic division is whether - in very broad terms - one accepts that Consciousness precedes 'life' in the physical universe, and (therefore) continues after 'life' in the physical universe has ceased.

The word 'accepts' can be interpreted to mean a 'belief' - or, as in scientific debate, it is taken as a 'premise' for the sake of debate.

One may 'accept' the idea of a sustained a priori Consciousness as a premise, or as a belief, or as a condition out of one's 'lived experience'.

I hope you will stick around in this thread, Tyger, because you present a perspective on consciousness that none of the rest of us is well informed about. I personally do think that consciousness survives the death of the body, but it's not necessary to entertain the accumulating evidence for that point of view in order to discuss consciousness in larger terms as a phenomenon in nature itself that develops from what some scientists and philosphers see as 'protoconsciousness'. If human consciousness is a further evolution of protoconsciousness in nature, we can't understand our own level of consciousness without reference to it. To investigate what protoconsciousness means is to lift the roof off the room in which we sit here, trying to understand our own consciousness by analyzing the brain, and to illuminate consciousness as a property of nature (thereby also illuminating our understanding of nature to a vast degree). I realize that I am not talking about consciousness from the same perspective you are but one that might support your view, which is why I want, need, you to stay in the discussion.

 

[Constance]

Earlier today ufology suggested that we each identify as best we can our approach to or concept of consciousness. For me, phenomenology -- especially as developed by Merleau-Ponty -- is the soundest approach to understanding consciousness and its interdependence with the natural world and the cultural worlds we live in, layered over our primordial relationship with nature. As it happens, the wikipedia article on MP provides an adequate overview of and helpful introduction to MP's thought.

Maurice Merleau-Ponty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Randall]

Ufology, are you aware that your own premises and presuppositions sometimes prevent your entertaining other perspectives on consciousness and mind? There is a great deal of insight into consciousness and mind that does not originate in the physical sciences, that does not come with what you would consider a certificate of validity for reasonable discourse provided by neuroscientists. Going to get some coffee now.

The questions I asked weren't restricted to the physical sciences. I didn't ask for scientific evidence, or use the word "scientific" or "physical" even once. Perhaps you might try reading my post again without making your own presumptions. For your convenience, here's the link: Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained | Page 39 | The Paracast Community Forums

 

[Constance]

The questions I asked weren't restricted to the physical sciences. I didn't ask for scientific evidence, or even use the word "scientific" or "physical" once. Perhaps you might try reading my post again without making your own presumptions. For your convenience, here's the link: Philosophy, Science, and the Unexplained | Page 39 | The Paracast Community Forums

OK, then. Here's the post you link, which stimulated my response:

Again, are the ideas you're presenting supported by evidence? If so, please provide some of the evidence rather than just making more proclamations. It would also help if you could outline the framework you are working from. For example do you consider your claims to be an actual state of affairs, or do you consider them to be hypothetical, or do you consider them to be based in some established mythology? In other words, from what premise are the ideas you're putting forth here originating? Do you have any references? If so, can you provide a couple of examples?

What other than physicalist, objectivist science would you accept as "evidence" to support what Tyger was talking about? . . . or to identify what she was talking about as "an actual state of affairs" as opposed to a "hypothetical" or "mythological" one?

As to your next question to her: "from what premise are the ideas you're putting forth here originating?," that's a reasonable question and we likewise could ask you to delineate the premises upon which you base your viewpoint that we might be living in a 'virtual' universe and, moreover, become capable of creating another virtual universe.*

In response to your last question there, surely both of you can cite references to texts that have played a role in the development of your ideas about the nature of reality.

*For example, what are your premises and evidence concerning this statement you made earlier on this page:

In the case of the generated construct I alluded to earlier, it's not the same idea as The Matrix movies, where we are humans connected to a perceptual simulation by a physical interface implanted into our brains. The theory is that spacetime itself is part of the construct, and although the idea is related to The Matrix, there are very important differences, and there is circumstantial scientific evidence.

 

[Constance]

I've just discovered that trying to insert something in brackets triggers the strike-through key here.

 

[Randall]

I've just discovered that trying to insert something in brackets triggers the strike-through key here.

{ interesting } You mean like those kinds of brackets? Or these: ( interesting ) ?

I don't see any strikethroughs in the examples above. What browser are you using?