• 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 9


Forums New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
eme said:
Jack Panksepp has apparently passed away. I was unable to find an article with details however.

@smcder I don't necessarily have a response to objectifying/using consciousness. I think humans already manipulate human consciousness and if we learn to manipulate consciousness with greater precision we will. For better and worse, as with all technology.

Edit: This is Soupie. My mind has apparently become embodied by a new account. It's still green.
Click to expand...

Eme?

If current is passed through a wire in the presence of a magnetic field, an electro- motive force acts on the wire:

dc_motor_force.png
Is an "equivalent" consciousness motor as described by Ufology possible on your view? If so what components would it have?

i.e. would some kind of field be involved? How would the components interact with other parts of the brain or mind as described by Ufology?
 
"consciousness motor"
  • responses to this idea as quick way to sort out various views?...e.g. a substance dualist might think its absurd? a physicalist might envision a literal field capable of inducing a motive force? emergentists would say consciousness is a by-product, causally impotent ... ID theorists would not recommend using the brain=consciousness as a motor, etc.
@Soupie @eme believe(s) it's possible in some sense, if they is a monist then they see consciousness as substantive or capable of inducing a force?
 
Last edited:
smcder said:
"consciousness motor"
  • responses to this idea as quick way to sort out various views?...e.g. a substance dualist might think its absurd? a physicalist might envision a literal field capable of inducing a motive force? emergentists would say consciousness is a by-product, causally impotent ... ID theorists would not recommend using the brain=consciousness as a motor, etc.
@Soupie @eme believe(s) it's possible in some sense, if they is a monist then they see consciousness as substantive or capable of inducing a force?
Click to expand...
Correct.

Hm, I like the idea. Answering this question could help people refine their own conception of consciousness.

On my (Conscious Realism) view, consciousness is a dynamic substrate which self-organizes into a variety of forms which we recognize as atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, brains, planets, stars, cars, and motors.
 
Soupie said:
Correct.

Hm, I like the idea. Answering this question could help people refine their own conception of consciousness.

On my (Conscious Realism) view, consciousness is a dynamic substrate which self-organizes into a variety of forms which we recognize as atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, brains, planets, stars, cars, and motors.
Click to expand...

download.jpg
 
Soupie said:
Correct.

Hm, I like the idea. Answering this question could help people refine their own conception of consciousness.

On my (Conscious Realism) view, consciousness is a dynamic substrate which self-organizes into a variety of forms which we recognize as atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, brains, planets, stars, cars, and motors.
Click to expand...

It might discriminate based on gut reaction ... if you think it's absurd for example.
 
Soupie said:
Correct.

Hm, I like the idea. Answering this question could help people refine their own conception of consciousness.

On my (Conscious Realism) view, consciousness is a dynamic substrate which self-organizes into a variety of forms which we recognize as atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, brains, planets, stars, cars, and motors.
Click to expand...

"On my (Conscious Realism) view, consciousness is a dynamic substrate which self-organizes into a variety of forms which we recognize as atoms, molecules, cells, organisms, brains, planets, stars, cars, and motors."

I don't think that's a "conscious motor" as Ufology describes it.
 
@smcder

I don't think that's how Ufology meant it either, but the point was to have the question help discriminate between the various conceptions.

Re: miracle

Why do you think being/existence isn't fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious?

If you don't think that being/existence is fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious but is rather a duality, how do you explain their existence and relationship? (Which is of course the HP.)

I know you find CR unpalatable, but you've never articulated a reason why that I recall. Only to say that there are "problems" with it, which is of course true, but then again, there are problems with all ontologies/metaphysics.
 
Soupie said:
@smcder

I don't think that's how Ufology meant it either, but the point was to have the question help discriminate between the various conceptions.

Re: miracle

Why do you think being/existence isn't fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious?

If you don't think that being/existence is fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious but is rather a duality, how do you explain their existence and relationship? (Which is of course the HP.)

I know you find CR unpalatable, but you've never articulated a reason why that I recall. Only to say that there are "problems" with it, which is of course true, but then again, there are problems with all ontologies/metaphysics.
Click to expand...

"Why do you think being/existence isn't fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious?"

Well, I have suggested that something more than minimal consciousness might be fundamental, that POV/intentionality/mindedness might be "strange-attractors" around which mind/brains form (fight "/"s with "/"s I always say ...) and I like Russelian Neutral Monism just fine ... It's more the Philosophy by Proclamation aspect of CR as you've articulated it ... And to a degree as Hoffman has ...


As theories what evidence do we have? How would you falsify it? What experiment could we do to show consciousness is a dynamic self-organizing substrate that emerges(?) from a "neutral" sub-substrate? And why stop there ... where does the sub-substrate come from?
 
Soupie said:
@smcder

I don't think that's how Ufology meant it either, but the point was to have the question help discriminate between the various conceptions.

Re: miracle

Why do you think being/existence isn't fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious?

If you don't think that being/existence is fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious but is rather a duality, how do you explain their existence and relationship? (Which is of course the HP.)

I know you find CR unpalatable, but you've never articulated a reason why that I recall. Only to say that there are "problems" with it, which is of course true, but then again, there are problems with all ontologies/metaphysics.
Click to expand...

"Only to say that there are "problems" with it, which is of course true, but then again, there are problems with all ontologies/metaphysics."

Right, which is why we have to discriminate theories based on elegance, explanatory power, evidence, falsifiability ... anything we can get our paws on.
 
"If you don't think that being/existence is fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious but is rather a duality, how do you explain their existence and relationship? (Which is of course the HP.)"

The hard problem is a problem for physicalists ... not dualists!

Many people point to "well how do two totally different substances interact?" as a knock-out blow for Dualism but, as I've said many times, on a Humean account of causation as "constant conjunction" there isn't a problem of causation for dualism.
 
smcder said:
"If you don't think that being/existence is fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious but is rather a duality, how do you explain their existence and relationship? (Which is of course the HP.)"

The hard problem is a problem for physicalists ... not dualists!

Many people point to "well how do two totally different substances interact?" as a knock-out blow for Dualism but, as I've said many times, on a Humean account of causation as "constant conjunction" there isn't a problem of causation for dualism.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're right. In this case it would be the MBP then.
smcder said:
"Why do you think being/existence isn't fundamentally feeling/experiential/conscious?"

Well, I have suggested that something more than minimal consciousness might be fundamental, that POV/intentionality/mindedness might be "strange-attractors" around which mind/brains form (fight "/"s with "/"s I always say ...) and I like Russelian Neutral Monism just fine ... It's more the Philosophy by Proclamation aspect of CR as you've articulated it ... And to a degree as Hoffman has ...


As theories what evidence do we have? How would you falsify it? What experiment could we do to show consciousness is a dynamic self-organizing substrate that emerges(?) from a "neutral" sub-substrate? And why stop there ... where does the sub-substrate come from?
Click to expand...
None that I'm aware of. It's hard enough determining if something has a mind, let alone whether something is conscious.

The proposal is that the neutral background is unbound potential and thus stops there. From out of unbound potential emerges a self interacting substrate.
 
Soupie said:
Yes, you're right. In this case it would be the MBP then.

None that I'm aware of. It's hard enough determining if something has a mind, let alone whether something is conscious.

The proposal is that the neutral background is unbound potential and thus stops there. From out of unbound potential emerges a self interacting substrate.
Click to expand...

Can you lay out the steps that led you to this conclusion?
 
smcder said:
I couldn't get the link to the PDF to paste... But it's easy to find.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I will look it up. I'm sceptical that anyone could explain or even explicate Heidegger's philosophy in a paper. I especially doubt that Harman, as an exponent of 'object-oriented ontology', could do so.
 
Last edited:
Constance said:
Thanks. I will look it up. I'm sceptical that anyone could explain or even explicate Heidegger's philosophy in a paper. I especially doubt that Harman, as an exponent of 'object-oriented ontology' could do so.
Click to expand...

It's a book with a more modest aim than the title (it's part of a series "Ideas Explained" - so the title is not Harman's)

"This book explains the philosophy of Martin Heidegger in clear and simple terms, without footnotes or excessive use of technical language. The goal of this Open Court series is to present difficult philosophers in a way that any intelligent reader can understand. But even while aiming at clarity for a general audience, a book of this kind can do something more: by avoiding professional jargon and the usual family quarrels of scholars, it can bring Heidegger’s philosophy back to life as a series of problems relevant to everyone. Since Heidegger is probably the most recent great philosopher in the Western tradition, to present his ideas to general readers means inviting them to witness the emerging drama of twenty-first century philosophy."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top