Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Constance]

I'm reading around about the way the term has been used in computer science v. the way it's been used in biology. Presently reading this:

Cybernetics and Human Knowing. Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 7-50
"Life After Ashby: Ultrastability and the Autopoietic Foundations
of Biological Autonomy"
Tom Froese and John Stewart

Abstract:
The concept of autopoiesis was conceived by Maturana and Varela as providing the necessary and sufficient conditions for distinguishing the living from the non-
living (and, by extension, the cognitive from the non-cognitive). More recently however, there has been a growing consensus that their original conception of autopoiesis is necessary but insufficient for this task as it fails to meet a number of constructive, interactive, normative, and historical requirements. We argue that it also fails to satisfy crucial phenomenological requirements that are motivated by the ongoing appropriation of autopoiesis as a key concept in enactive cognitive science. The root of these problems can be traced to the abstract general systems framework in which the ideas were first formulated, as epitomized by Ashby’s cybernetics. While this abstract generality has helped the concept’s popularity in some circles, we insist that a restriction of autopoiesis to a radical embodiment in chemical self-production under far-from-equilibrium conditions is necessary if the
concept is to live up to its original intentions.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.187.954&rep=rep1&type=pdf

 

[Constance]

From the above article, the following extract should clarify the distinction between the meaning of autopoiesis in living systems {germinally and as further developed by Maturana, Varela, and now Evan Thompson in his Enactive Theory of Cognition} and in general systems theory.


"2. The Enactive Paradigm: Autopoiesis and Sense-making

The origin of the autopoiesis concept, which tries to capture the circular organization of the living as the root of biological autonomy, can be traced back to the Santiago school in systems biology that originated with the seminal research of Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in the late 1960s. The term autopoiesis was coined in 1971, though it wasn’t until 1974 that it was first introduced to the English-speaking community (Varela, Maturana, & Uribe, 1974).

In this section we are interested in the role of this concept for the enactive paradigm, so we will begin our discussion by considering a definition that has been used by Varela in a series of biological publications in the 1990s (e.g., Varela, 1997), and which has since carried over into the literature of enactive cognitive science:

'An autopoietic system—the minimal living organization—is one that continuously produces the components that specify it, while at the same time realizing it (the system) asa concrete unity in space and time, which makes the network of production of components possible. More precisely defined: an autopoietic system is organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (synthesis and destruction) of components such that these components:

1. continuously regenerate and realize the network that produces them, and

2. constitute the system as a distinguishable unity in the domain in which they exist.

(Varela, 1997, p. 75)'

In order to avoid any confusion we should immediately clarify that the self-constitution of an identity also entails the constitution of a relational domain between the system and its environment. The shape of this relational domain is not a pre-given a priori, but is co-determined by the organization of the system and its current environment. Accordingly, any system which fulfils the criteria for autopoiesis also generates its own domain of possible interactions in the same movement in which it gives rise to its emergent identity (Thompson, 2007, p. 44).

It is important to realize that such a self-producing system, which is generating its own identity by separating itself precisely from that which it is not, simultaneously generates the very conditions by which it can relate to this “other,” that is, its environment (Weber, 2001). It is this fundamental asymmetry of the organism-environment relationship, which places the locus of activity on the side of the system, which essentially constitutes the organism’s perspective on that environment:

“Now, in this dialogic coupling between the living unity and the physicochemical environment, there is a key difference on the side of the living since it has the active role in this reciprocal coupling. In defining what it is as unity, in the very same movement it defines what remains exterior to it, that is to say, its surrounding environment. ... the autopoietic unity creates a perspective from which the exterior is one, which cannot be confused with the physical surroundings as they appear to us as observers, the land of physical and chemical laws simpliciter, devoid of such perspectivism.” (Varela, 1997, p. 78)

Of course, this is not to say that we cannot provide a description of the organism and its environment in physicochemical terms. The point is merely that this type of description does not exhaust the domain of phenomena with which an organismic biology should be concerned. In other words: “One could envisage the circularity metabolism-membrane entirely from the outside (this is what most biochemists do). But this is not to deny that there is, at the same time, the instauration of a point of view provided by the self-construction” (Weber& Varela, 2002, p. 116). Moreover, this point of view is not only an abstract reference point for the biologist who is trying to understand the behavior of the living system, thereby moving us from biochemistry to ethology, it provides the passage from mere material happenings to a lived existence:

“In other words by putting at the center the autonomy of even the minimal cellular organism we inescapably find an intrinsic teleology in two complementary modes. First, a basic purpose in the maintenance of its own identity, an affirmation of life. Second, directly emerging from the aspect of concern to affirm life, a sense-creation purpose whence meaning comes to its surrounding, introducing a difference between environment (the physical impacts it receives), and world (how that environment is evaluated from the point of view established by maintaining an identity).” (Weber& Varela, 2002, p. 117).

Note to Michael: you will probably recognize Heidegger's distinguishing concepts of 'earth' v. 'world' in the last sentence above. Varela, by the way, was heavily influenced by Merleau-Ponty's phenomenology, but likely also read Heidegger. In any case, MP carries Heidegger's 'world' forward to the extent of expressing the activity of consciousness as 'the worlding of the world' as performed by each consciousness individually, and by our species in general through its production of multiple cultures in which meaning is historically sedimented, passed along, and in time overcome and replaced. I learned last night from the article by Froese that I'm quoting from that Varela and Maturana proceeded differently in their thinking about autopoesis in the 90s, Maturana being unable to think his way past the premises of cybernetics assumed by Ashby. Froese and his coauthor present the history of the concept of autopoesis in its variations over the last 60 years or so in the fields of cybernetics and computational brain theory on one side and in phenomenology, biology, and developmental systems theory on the other, and they provide critical insights useful to both sides and suggestions for further integration in pursuing Evan Thompson's theory of enactive consciousness.

 

[Soupie]

Scientists achieve quantum teleportation of data with 100 percent accuracy | MNN - Mother Nature Network

Dutch scientists working with the Kavli Institute of Nanoscience at the Delft University of Technology have made a stunning breakthrough in quantum technology by successfully teleporting data across a distance of about 10 feet with perfect accuracy, reports the New York Times. The advance ought to have Albert Einstein, who famously dismissed the idea of quantum teleportation as "spooky action at a distance," rolling in his grave.

Einstein struggled mightily with many of the theoretical consequences of quantum theory, perhaps none moreso than the notion of entanglement-- the phenomenon that makes teleportation possible. It's easy to understand why; the idea is, well, downright spooky.

Entanglement is the weird instantaneous link that has been shown to exist between certain particles, such as photons or electrons, even if they are separated by vast distances. Although entangled particles do not appear to have any physical connection, they are capable of acting in concert. For instance, if you change the spin of one, the spin of the other will also be altered. All of this happens instantaneously, even if the two particles exist at opposite ends of the universe, as if they are one. How exactly the phenomenon happens is a complete mystery. That it happens, however, has been verified by numerous experiments.

 

[Constance]

Michael: "Regarding the solipsism comment, I am simply discarding the extreme where autopoiesis carries self-referentiality forward without any reference to an external--leading to the notion that all reality is created by and within the autopoietic system. Probably an unnecessary comment."

Where have you encountered this "extreme" usage of the term 'autopoiesis'? Having finished the article I linked above, I see that the term has been used in very different ways in cybernetics and biology, and that even its originators (M and V) have used it in various ways. I have never seen the term used in the sense you describe above.

 

[Soupie]

Integrated Information Theory and the Metaphysics of Consciousness | Consciousness Online

Once again, @Constance, I am awed by your ability to find such wonderful resources directly related to current discussions!

At that link is a Prezi presentation (it's kind of like Power Point) that is an excellent, quick resource for anyone interested in consciousness. I can't embed it, but here's a direct link:

CO5 - IIT and the Metaphysics of Consciousness by matteo grasso on Prezi

Anyhow, I can't follow the comment discussion, but I await anxiously a thorough article about IIT and the metaphysics of consciousness.

For my part, I think IIT can be compatible with Constitutive Russellian Panprotopsychism or type-F Monism: That is, when point particles are arranged in such a way that they produce Integrated Information, the intrinsic, proto-phenomenal properties of those particles interact (by some currently unknown mechanism) to realize fully-phenomenal experiences.

Regarding the Combination Problem, I still don't fully grok why it is so hard in the metaphysical sense. That is, of course it's hard because we can't objectively experiment/manipulate this theoretical intrinsic mental property of point particles, but I'm not sure why it would be hard to theorize how particles/property might combine.

For example, could fully-phenomenal qualia be constituted like vibrations? That is, when multiple proto-phenomenal units vibrate at the same frequency and subsequently interact with one another, perhaps their collective vibration is amplified thus allowing a fully-phenomenal experience to realize. Thus, a distinct fully-phenomenal experience would be constituted of a cluster of N proto-phenomenal units (point particles) vibrating in unison at a particular frequency. As the "shape" and/or "vibration frequency" of the cluster changes, so too does the realized phenomenal experience. As the shape and frequency would be dynamically changing, so too would the phenomenal experience - just as in reality.

One could substitute any mechanism in place of vibration such as charge, spin, wavelength, or very likely a mechanism unknown - and perhaps forever to be unknown - to us.

 

[Constance]

Once again, @Constance, I am awed by your ability to find such wonderful resources directly related to current discussions!

At that link is a Prezi presentation (it's kind of like Power Point) that is an excellent, quick resource for anyone interested in consciousness. I can't embed it, but here's a direct link:

CO5 - IIT and the Metaphysics of Consciousness by matteo grasso on Prezi

Anyhow, I can't follow the comment discussion, but I await anxiously a thorough article about IIT and the metaphysics of consciousness.

I could c&p here the comments section I linked to the other day (via quoting a response from Chalmers) if you want me to do so.

For my part, I think IIT can be compatible with Constitutive Russellian Panprotopsychism or type-F Monism: That is, when point particles are arranged in such a way that they produce Integrated Information, the intrinsic, proto-phenomenal properties of those particles interact (by some currently unknown mechanism) to realize fully-phenomenal experiences.

This is where the rubber meets the road apparently. 'Point particles' suggests the interaction of quantum phenomena in the brain, which Penrose and Hameroff have theorized about; other physicists have explored and are exploring quantum interactions in the brain thought to influence consciousness (Stapp and Tiller are examples). You posted last night a report of successful teleportation of information to a distance of 10 feet or 10 yards, and this seems relevant to the question of direct penetration of the brain by information at the quantum level. I have a feeling that Luc Montagnier's experiments about a year (maybe two) are related. {I'll find and post a link to that experimentation and its remarkable results.} Even Bem's demonstration of precognition indicating precognitive reception of 'information' picked up by the brain or consciousness concerning imagery not yet presented to the subjects indicates that reception of 'information' goes on continually at a preconscious/subconscious level in humans (likely also in other animals). Perhaps this type of information operates at a level of consciousness we can't yet (if ever) reveal fully but only recognize indirectly as occurring in paranormal/parapsychological experimentation such as Bem's and Jahn's. Perhaps this is how 'readiness potentials' arise in human consciousness as a whole (Libet's research demonstrated these in experiments variously interpreted), originating in information reception at levels that will remain mysterious because unmeasureable, for a long time, maybe forever. I am convinced that understanding consciousness in its intricate operations will require the inclusion of paranormal/parapsychological investigations by scientists who have not yet taken them seriously. Those investigations have demonstrated the reality of precognition and also the communication of veridical information from great distances, including information provided through mediumship by postmortem consciousnesses. All of this seems to me to bear out the holographic entanglement theories of David Bohm and Karl Pribram. IIT might ultimately be valid, but if it is that will have to be shown at levels of interaction far more subtle than Tononi seems to have considered. Sorry for running on, but all of this seems to me to be relevant to the attempt to account for the multivarious phenomena of consciousness in terms of 'information'. Where the rubber meets the road is the place at which information received from a distance (well outside and beyond the material precincts of the brain) is absorbed and functions at subconscious levels that enable conscious absorption of its significance/meaning in what we can still only describe as anomalously received at this point in our developing knowledge and the theories we construct from it.

Regarding the Combination Problem, I still don't fully grok why it is so hard in the metaphysical sense. That is, of course it's hard because we can't objectively experiment/manipulate this theoretical intrinsic mental property of point particles, but I'm not sure why it would be hard to theorize how particles/property might combine.

I think the question is what kind of information is received in quantum particles and waves. Does the information exist in the particles/waves or is it merely carried abroad from one 'place' to another, one consciousness to another, via holographically evolved entanglement?

For example, could fully-phenomenal qualia be constituted like vibrations? That is, when multiple proto-phenomenal units vibrate at the same frequency and subsequently interact with one another, perhaps their collective vibration is amplified thus allowing a fully-phenomenal experience to realize. Thus, a distinct fully-phenomenal experience would be constituted of a cluster of N proto-phenomenal units (point particles) vibrating in unison at a particular frequency. As the "shape" and/or "vibration frequency" of the cluster changes, so too does the realized phenomenal experience. As the shape and frequency would be dynamically changing, so too would the phenomenal experience - just as in reality.

One could substitute any mechanism in place of vibration such as charge, spin, wavelength, or very likely a mechanism unknown - and perhaps forever to be unknown - to us.

Very interesting questions and speculations. 'Vibrational frequency' might not be more than the physical means by which holographically entangled information is moved, exchanged from mind to mind, connected, rather than constituting the information itself. Consciousness is a property of life, taking root and dwelling in the interaction of the conscious creature/being with the physical environment in which it has evolved/arisen and continues to interact. Information requires interaction, thus a subject-object relationship involving both sender and receiver as both subjects and objects. In the evolution of the material universe since the Big Bang these interactions of information have first appeared in the development of physical forces and fields, planets and galaxies, and eventuated in the production of life. Developmental systems theory, which Evan Thompson applies in Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind, seems to me to be the most promising approach to take to increasing our understanding of interactive information as the integration of world and mind in nature. Carlo Rovelli wrote a paper that I read five years ago in which he described the informational exchanges between physical systems such as forces and fields and declared them not to involve consciousness, but if protoconsciousness as theorized by Maturana, Varela, and Thompson and taken up by David Chalmers exists in nature, it appears that it is the increasing complexity of protoconsciousness in natural systems that provides the 'platform' on which self-organization, self-awareness, consciousness, and mind become possible and then increasingly thinkable, understood, by human minds at this stage of our development. The phenomenology of consciousness and the experience of the palpable, visual world in which it arises with each new life (individual and species) -- in short, the interpenetration of even prereflective awareness with that in which the awareness is embedded {nature}, with which it feels its relationship and interdependence -- is required to understand what qualia are. As qualia, in our own experience, accompany our presence to the world around us, the others around us, qualia arise only in openness to the world, which means that qualia cannot be contained in point particles that convey information to us (if that is indeed what takes place). Qualia are products of conscious presence in the material, natural world, of the temporally lived reality in which the conscious being recognizes the subjective and objective poles of his or her experience in the world, his or her Dasein. This cannot all take place in the brain of the experiencer -- if it did it would not be experience, which is felt as well as thought. Rather it is, and must be scientifically understood as, the experience of embodied consciousness, a living phenomenon in which the juncture, the Chiasm, of conscious be-ing is realized.

 

[Michael Allen]

Michael: "Regarding the solipsism comment, I am simply discarding the extreme where autopoiesis carries self-referentiality forward without any reference to an external--leading to the notion that all reality is created by and within the autopoietic system. Probably an unnecessary comment."

Where have you encountered this "extreme" usage of the term 'autopoiesis'? Having finished the article I linked above, I see that the term has been used in very different ways in cybernetics and biology, and that even its originators (M and V) have used it in various ways. I have never seen the term used in the sense you describe above.

Two papers cited by Wikipedia (yes its alive and well) -- Rod Swenson:

Swenson, R. (1992). Autocatakinetics, Yes---Autopoiesis, No: Steps Toward a Unified Theory of Evolutionary Ordering. Int. J. General Systems, Vol. 21, 207-208


Swenson R (1992). "Galileo, Babel, and Autopoiesis (It's Turtles All The Way Down)". Int. J. General Systems 21 (2): 267–269. doi:10.1080/03081079208945080.

 

[Constance]

Two papers cited by Wikipedia (yes its alive and well) -- Rod Swenson:

Swenson, R. (1992). Autocatakinetics, Yes---Autopoiesis, No: Steps Toward a Unified Theory of Evolutionary Ordering. Int. J. General Systems, Vol. 21, 207-208


Swenson R (1992). "Galileo, Babel, and Autopoiesis (It's Turtles All The Way Down)". Int. J. General Systems 21 (2): 267–269. doi:10.1080/03081079208945080.

I'll look into those. It looks like he wrote in the heydey of Cybernetics and its presuppositions.

 

[smcder]

Interestingly, time consciousness seems to disappear in deep meditation, in which a timelessness beneath time and temporality is discovered and sustained experientially for periods of time. What does this signify about the nature of reality as accessed by consciousness (which includes that which subconscious information contributes to mind)? What do we perhaps already know, at levels beneath ordinary knowing, about the nature and extent of being?

I'm interested in the previous post on time consciousness and didn't you post something on converting time into energy or matter?

I'll find the post ... in meditation, consciounsess of time does go with consciousness of body ... with the breath as object there is rhythm but endless change in pattern, long breath in, short breath out - etc and observing but not controlling the breath is key ... and there is no focusing on the previous breath or the one you haven't taken - so whatever the "circuit" is you tap into in the brain when focusing on the breath, it's the entrance to many states of consciousness and seems to de-couple one from time. You get the broader impression that everything is breathing.

Taking this knowledge into everyday life is another thing ... but perhaps that's where phenomenological techniques are better suited than more traditional meditation.

Another aspect of meditation that ties into several aspects of the discussion, this is from a talk by Ken McLeod on Unfettered Mind - in a wonderful Irish accent by the way -

"Is it something that one has to work at? Absolutely. People talk about natural awareness ... this is such a load of crap ... because there is nothing natural about it in terms of our conditioning, we are bilogically, evolutionarily, psychologically, emotionally, culturally, educationally, conditioned to live and experience life a different way. So is this possible for us ... yeah? If you have use for it, then it's something you can cultivate."

At first, I thought he was referring to a pretty specific meditation experience - but listening to the talk again, this is it for him - what he calls experiencing life in a different way ... the relaxation response, relaxation exercises like progressive muscle relaxation or autogenics may be more of an animal type experience, a lessening of consciousness - but he is talking about heightened awareness and focus - something that takes effort, being more awake than in "normal" states of concisouness.

He doesn't offer any ideas about where this comes from ... since he has ruled out biology, psychology, emotion, culture, education ... etc ... so it's very interesting and yet, the tradition is very clear that this is "nothing special" but the birthright of being human.

 

[Soupie]

I could c&p here the comments section I linked to the other day (via quoting a response from Chalmers) if you want me to do so.

I meant that I couldn't intellectually follow it; too many obscure terms and concepts that I'm not 100% on. I need to read an article that provides an overview of the issues in an easy to digest format.

This is where the rubber meets the road apparently.

Yes and no.

I think one of the difficulties with this thread and discussing consciousness in general is the many facets of the topic. Specifically, there are the metaphysical aspects of consciousness - the Hard Problem; there are the micro-physical and neurological aspects of consciousness - how do point particles interact in the form of organisms to give rise to consciousness; and then there are the macro, subjective, phenomenal aspects of consciousness which I think phenomenology, psychology, and mediation explore.

The participants in this thread - myself included - have been talking about all three of these facets (and more) in no particular order, haha. I for one have found it helpful and stimulating, but obviously, not everyone has.

'Point particles' suggests the interaction of quantum phenomena in the brain, which Penrose and Hameroff have theorized about; other physicists have explored and are exploring quantum interactions in the brain thought to influence consciousness (Stapp and Tiller are examples). You posted last night a report of successful teleportation of information to a distance of 10 feet or 10 yards, and this seems relevant to the question of direct penetration of the brain by information at the quantum level. I have a feeling that Luc Montagnier's experiments about a year (maybe two) are related. {I'll find and post a link to that experimentation and its remarkable results.} Even Bem's demonstration of precognition indicating precognitive reception of 'information' picked up by the brain or consciousness concerning imagery not yet presented to the subjects indicates that reception of 'information' goes on continually at a preconscious/subconscious level in humans (likely also in other animals). Perhaps this type of information operates at a level of consciousness we can't yet (if ever) reveal fully but only recognize indirectly as occurring in paranormal/parapsychological experimentation such as Bem's and Jahn's. Perhaps this is how 'readiness potentials' arise in human consciousness as a whole (Libet's research demonstrated these in experiments variously interpreted), originating in information reception at levels that will remain mysterious because unmeasureable, for a long time, maybe forever. I am convinced that understanding consciousness in its intricate operations will require the inclusion of paranormal/parapsychological investigations by scientists who have not yet taken them seriously. Those investigations have demonstrated the reality of precognition and also the communication of veridical information from great distances, including information provided through mediumship by postmortem consciousnesses. All of this seems to me to bear out the holographic entanglement theories of David Bohm and Karl Pribram. IIT might ultimately be valid, but if it is that will have to be shown at levels of interaction far more subtle than Tononi seems to have considered. Sorry for running on, but all of this seems to me to be relevant to the attempt to account for the multivarious phenomena of consciousness in terms of 'information'. Where the rubber meets the road is the place at which information received from a distance (well outside and beyond the material precincts of the brain) is absorbed and functions at subconscious levels that enable conscious absorption of its significance/meaning in what we can still only describe as anomalously received at this point in our developing knowledge and the theories we construct from it.

All good stuff. But again, what level or aspect of consciousness is Tononi trying to address? The metaphysical, neurological, or phenomenological? I think IIT sits at the neurological level of the issue and doesn't address the metaphysical nor phenomenological, pyschological aspects of consciousness.

When you take your car to the mechanic, do you expect him to tell you the molecular structure of the materials or do you want him to diagnose and fix a leaky o-ring? Of course, there are physics involved in how a car (engine) behaves, but when discussing how a car is able to exist and operate, there are multiple levels of description.

Very interesting questions and speculations.

In this case, I wasn't actually referring to micro-physical interactions but rather micro-phenomenal interactions.

Qualia are the musical notes... But of what are they constituted? Music notes are constituted of vibrating air or water molecules. What is the mechanism by which the intrinsic, micro-phenomenal property of individual point particles are able to interact - in intimate concert with micro-physical processes - to realize fully-phenomenal subject experiences such as Greenish?

 

[smcder]

I meant that I couldn't intellectually follow it; too many obscure terms and concepts that I'm not 100% on. I need to read an article that provides an overview of the issues in an easy to digest format.

Yes and no.

I think one of the difficulties with this thread and discussing consciousness in general is the many facets of the topic. Specifically, there are the metaphysical aspects of consciousness - the Hard Problem; there are the micro-physical and neurological aspects of consciousness - how do point particles interact in the form of organisms to give rise to consciousness; and then there are the macro, subjective, phenomenal aspects of consciousness which I think phenomenology, psychology, and mediation explore.

The participants in this thread - myself included - have been talking about all three of these facets (and more) in no particular order, haha. I for one have found it helpful and stimulating, but obviously, not everyone has.

All good stuff. But again, what level or aspect of consciousness is Tononi trying to address? The metaphysical, neurological, or phenomenological? I think IIT sits at the neurological level of the issue and doesn't address the metaphysical nor phenomenological, pyschological aspects of consciousness.

When you take your car to the mechanic, do you expect him to tell you the molecular structure of the materials or do you want him to diagnose and fix a leaky o-ring? Of course, there are physics involved in how a car (engine) behaves, but when discussing how a car is able to exist and operate, there are multiple levels of description.

In this case, I wasn't actually referring to micro-physical interactions but rather micro-phenomenal interactions.

Qualia are the musical notes... But of what are they constituted? Music notes are constituted of vibrating air or water molecules. What is the mechanism by which the intrinsic, micro-phenomenal property of individual point particles are able to interact - in intimate concert with micro-physical processes - to realize fully-phenomenal subject experiences such as Greenish?

The participants in this thread - myself included - have been talking about all three of these facets (and more) in no particular order, haha. I for one have found it helpful and stimulating, but obviously, not everyone has."

I haven't heard any complaints!

the thread started very broad and you lay out the threads of the threads nicely - enough to suggest titles for new threads

new threads on one topic would be easier to go back and search or index but having all the topics together has advantages as you note -

I seek the will of the group? and of course each participant decides if they want to start a new thread ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

I meant that I couldn't intellectually follow it; too many obscure terms and concepts that I'm not 100% on. I need to read an article that provides an overview of the issues in an easy to digest format.

Yes and no.

I think one of the difficulties with this thread and discussing consciousness in general is the many facets of the topic. Specifically, there are the metaphysical aspects of consciousness - the Hard Problem; there are the micro-physical and neurological aspects of consciousness - how do point particles interact in the form of organisms to give rise to consciousness; and then there are the macro, subjective, phenomenal aspects of consciousness which I think phenomenology, psychology, and mediation explore.

The participants in this thread - myself included - have been talking about all three of these facets (and more) in no particular order, haha. I for one have found it helpful and stimulating, but obviously, not everyone has.

All good stuff. But again, what level or aspect of consciousness is Tononi trying to address? The metaphysical, neurological, or phenomenological? I think IIT sits at the neurological level of the issue and doesn't address the metaphysical nor phenomenological, pyschological aspects of consciousness.

I agree, and that's been my problem with IIT all along. Tononi claims to be addressing the phenomenological level of consciousness but, so far as I've seen, he does not do so. He appears to think exclusively in terms of 'information' without defining it and to apply it strictly at the level of neurological 'machinery' imagined to be undifferentiable from nonliving information processors such as computers and robots. The Froese and Stewart paper I linked above clarified for me the fact that information theory as applied influentially in Cybernetics over several decades ignored the material and biological aspects of reality as investigated in physics and, more relevantly for the subject of consciousness, in biology. By contrast, the biologists Maturana and Varela, who were also pursuing information theory and cybernics, remained focused on physical life and recognized information exchange between 'self' and 'environment' in primitive cellular life. It is information exchange that requires understanding all the way up from cellular life to consciousness as understood in phenomenological philosophy, and this project requires interdisciplinary approaches as has been shown in Consciousness Studies.

When you take your car to the mechanic, do you expect him to tell you the molecular structure of the materials or do you want him to diagnose and fix a leaky o-ring? Of course, there are physics involved in how a car (engine) behaves, but when discussing how a car is able to exist and operate, there are multiple levels of description.

Right, and it seems clear by now that to understand life, consciousness, and mind, rather than machinery, many disciplines of science and also philosophy must work together in light of their various insights and knowledge bases.

In this case, I wasn't actually referring to micro-physical interactions but rather micro-phenomenal interactions

It's not clear to me which 'case' you are referring to, unless you mean the auto mechanics reference, but concerning life and mind I don't think we can distinguish 'micro-physical interactions' from 'micro-phenomenal interactions'. Information exchanged between quantum particles and fields must itself constitute phenomenal interaction, at a level of nature far less 'visible' than the autopoietic interaction that evidently takes place in the single cell. Note: I might not be understanding what you mean by 'micro-phenomenal interactions'. Can you clarify that?

Qualia are the musical notes... But of what are they constituted? Music notes are constituted of vibrating air or water molecules. What is the mechanism by which the intrinsic, micro-phenomenal property of individual point particles are able to interact - in intimate concert with micro-physical processes - to realize fully-phenomenal subject experiences such as Greenish?

I'm afraid I still don't understand your musical notes analogy. My theory is that music becomes a natural expression of consciousness at a certain level of felt awareness of its environment. I think of the flutes discovered in a cave at Blombos, and likely we will find earlier examples of similar instruments. What motivated, first, singing {as the expression of what had been found attractive and pleasureable in the sounds heard in the wind, the water, the cries of other animals, the songs of birds} and second, the crafting of instruments such as flutes to carry human musical expression farther using the sounds and intrinsic harmonics first heard in sounds produced in nature? The early production of music by our species seems to me to be a profound example of the primordial interactions of consciousness and the world,environment in which it finds itself existing and experiencing what-is. The physical and sensible plenum of surrounding nature experienced aesthetically first draws consciousness toward what appears, visually, aurally, and tactilely, from outside itself and inspires a response in kind that already contains the seeds of creativity and art, a standing slightly apart from the discovered world and adding to its realization.

 

[Constance]

The participants in this thread - myself included - have been talking about all three of these facets (and more) in no particular order, haha. I for one have found it helpful and stimulating, but obviously, not everyone has."

I haven't heard any complaints!

the thread started very broad and you lay out the threads of the threads nicely - enough to suggest titles for new threads

new threads on one topic would be easier to go back and search or index but having all the topics together has advantages as you note -

I seek the will of the group? and of course each participant decides if they want to start a new thread ...

I think threads focusing on different levels of the problem of consciousness could be helpful. It is necessary that we understand the complexity of the problem before we can solve it, and that means we need to approach the problem at all levels of reality involved in the appearance of protoconsciousness and the evolution of consciousness in nature. We only need to remain aware that would-be 'explanations' of consciousness at one level cannot make progress in understanding all that is involved in consciousness -- to the extent that our species has so far understood parts or aspects of what consciousness is.

 

[smcder]

I meant that I couldn't intellectually follow it; too many obscure terms and concepts that I'm not 100% on. I need to read an article that provides an overview of the issues in an easy to digest format.

Yes and no.

I think one of the difficulties with this thread and discussing consciousness in general is the many facets of the topic. Specifically, there are the metaphysical aspects of consciousness - the Hard Problem; there are the micro-physical and neurological aspects of consciousness - how do point particles interact in the form of organisms to give rise to consciousness; and then there are the macro, subjective, phenomenal aspects of consciousness which I think phenomenology, psychology, and mediation explore.

The participants in this thread - myself included - have been talking about all three of these facets (and more) in no particular order, haha. I for one have found it helpful and stimulating, but obviously, not everyone has.

All good stuff. But again, what level or aspect of consciousness is Tononi trying to address? The metaphysical, neurological, or phenomenological? I think IIT sits at the neurological level of the issue and doesn't address the metaphysical nor phenomenological, pyschological aspects of consciousness.

When you take your car to the mechanic, do you expect him to tell you the molecular structure of the materials or do you want him to diagnose and fix a leaky o-ring? Of course, there are physics involved in how a car (engine) behaves, but when discussing how a car is able to exist and operate, there are multiple levels of description.

In this case, I wasn't actually referring to micro-physical interactions but rather micro-phenomenal interactions.

Qualia are the musical notes... But of what are they constituted? Music notes are constituted of vibrating air or water molecules. What is the mechanism by which the intrinsic, micro-phenomenal property of individual point particles are able to interact - in intimate concert with micro-physical processes - to realize fully-phenomenal subject experiences such as Greenish?

The participants in this thread - myself included - have been talking about all three of these facets (and more) in no particular order, haha. I for one have found it helpful and stimulating, but obviously, not everyone has."

can you link to where in the thread you feel this has not been helpful to someone?

one thing I have seen on the forum, and I think it's because there are so many approaches, is that posts and questions have gone in acknowledged - no one can keep up with all the posts but I would suggest we all agree, in this forum, to diligence in addressing any reasonable question directed at us -

if someone starts a specific thread on a topic I think it's reasonable to keep a tight focus and some questions could be ignored if they don't meet that focus - but in this larger forum in the spirit of "freewheeling discussion" I feel we should try to engage all comers and encourage new perspectives and participants.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

The participants in this thread - myself included - have been talking about all three of these facets (and more) in no particular order, haha. I for one have found it helpful and stimulating, but obviously, not everyone has."

can you link to where in the thread you feel this has not been helpful to someone?

one thing I have seen on the forum, and I think it's because there are so many approaches, is that posts and questions have gone in acknowledged - no one can keep up with all the posts but I would suggest we all agree, in this forum, to diligence in addressing any reasonable question directed at us -

if someone starts a specific thread on a topic I think it's reasonable to keep a tight focus and some questions could be ignored if they don't meet that focus - but in this larger forum in the spirit of "freewheeling discussion" I feel we should try to engage all comers and encourage new perspectives and participants.

I agree, Steve, and would add that the apparent randomness and changes of subject in this thread result from the complexity of the problem of consciousness itself as encountered in a range of disciplines already bound to certain presuppositions and theories about the nature of reality, none of which is sufficient in itself to account for the structure of the world or the structure of consciousness and mind through which we understand the world to the extent we presently do. Discussions and debates in interdisciplinary Consciousness Studies in the last 30 years have involved physics, chemistry, biology, neurology, information theory, cybernetics, cognitive science, psychology, paranormal studies and parapsychology, mystical and spiritual traditions, practices, and philosophies, the philosophy of mind, analytical philosophy, phenomenological philosophy, and theories of language (and that's likely not a complete list). Since all these disciplines have made some contributions to recognizing the complexity of consciousness, it seems that all of them must be taken into consideration in the attempt to ultimately comprehend what consciousness is and to account for how it has evolved to become what it is.

But it's still possible to isolate and explore certain approaches to consciousness in single threads, so long as we keep in mind the claims made -- and the supports provided for them -- in the other approaches to this mega, meta subject.

 

[Soupie]

@Soupie I for one have found [this thread] helpful and stimulating, but obviously, not everyone has."

@smcder can you link to where in the thread you feel this has not been helpful to someone?

All I meant to say was that I have found this thread helpful. A few posts ago someone made a post critical of those commenting here and cited use of Wikipedia as an apparent negative thing. That is what I had in mind regarding not everyone finding the thread helpful. I didn't mean to imply that the broad scope of the thread was a problem per se.

While creating separate threads to address/discuss the various facets of consciousness makes sense, I don't think it would work. I have a feeling people would chime in to the various threads still focused on their particular theory/model regardless of how it might relate the particular thread topic. So for example, we might have a thread about phenomenology and people will likely chime in to talk about the neurological or micro-physical processes of consciousness, which of course phenomenology doesn't deal with at all.

Probably best to just have this one thread where all aspects can be discusses - however confusingly - at once.

 

[Soupie]

I agree, and that's been my problem with IIT all along. Tononi claims to be addressing the phenomenological level of consciousness but, so far as I've seen, he does not do so. He appears to think exclusively in terms of 'information' without defining it and to apply it strictly at the level of neurological 'machinery' imagined to be undifferentiable from nonliving information processors such as computers and robots.

No, Tononi isn't a phenomenologist, in the sense that he's not creating a taxonomy of the mind or investigating it's structure. Rather, he presents a model of how the brain might use information to generate "phenomenal" experience.

A rough, rough analogy might be that Tononi is to a phenomenologist as a biologist is to a behaviorist. Wherein the former seeks to explain the mechanism(s) of the origin of the phenomena - mind or behavior - and the latter seeks a taxonomy of the phenomena - mind or behavior.

Also, while IIT does involve information processes, one of the important aspects of the model is that this information processing is not like that of any current computer or machine. I posted an article awhile back pointing out that very thing.

If, as Chalmers says, there is no question that mind is related to brains, than it follows that there is no question that mind is related to information processing.

IIT is so important because it finally explains why this can be, but also how brains do it differently than computers/machines.

...but concerning life and mind I don't think we can distinguish 'micro-physical interactions' from 'micro-phenomenal interactions' ... Can you clarify that?

As I understand Chalmers reasoning, the primal unit of which all of what-is is constituted theoretically has two properties - the physical and the mental. He argues that the mental property of this primal unit may indeed be the most fundamental aspect of all of what-is. And indeed, the physical aspect of this primal unit may be relational in nature - meaning - in the language of E-Prime - the physical nature of the primal unit may only manifest in relation to other primal units.

As I understand Chalmers reasoning, neither micro nor macro physical processes can logically be said to constitute what we know as subjective, phenomenal experience. However, it is clear that subjective, phenomenal experience is intimately related to the physical brain. So, the quest is to find a model describing how micro and macro physical processes in conjunction with micro-mental "processes" are able to produce the macro-phenomenal or what we call the mind.

I'm afraid I still don't understand your musical notes analogy. My theory is that music becomes a natural expression of consciousness at a certain level of felt awareness of its environment.

I'll try to explain soon. However, it seems to me that you're not understanding it as an analogy, but viewing it as a model. It's not a model of consciousness, it's an analogy seeking to describe how the different facets/levels of the process of the generation of mind relate.

 

[smcder]

@Soupie I for one have found [this thread] helpful and stimulating, but obviously, not everyone has."

@smcder can you link to where in the thread you feel this has not been helpful to someone?

All I meant to say was that I have found this thread helpful. A few posts ago someone made a post critical of those commenting here and cited use of Wikipedia as an apparent negative thing. That is what I had in mind regarding not everyone finding the thread helpful. I didn't mean to imply that the broad scope of the thread was a problem per se.

While creating separate threads to address/discuss the various facets of consciousness makes sense, I don't think it would work. I have a feeling people would chime in to the various threads still focused on their particular theory/model regardless of how it might relate the particular thread topic. So for example, we might have a thread about phenomenology and people will likely chime in to talk about the neurological or micro-physical processes of consciousness, which of course phenomenology doesn't deal with at all.

Probably best to just have this one thread where all aspects can be discusses - however confusingly - at once.

Good point ... on individual threads, the originator can assert more control or focus and refer those comments back to the main thread ... but it might not work. I do think it's worth a try ... what do others think?

As for that one comment - I haven't looked, but I suspect that person got suspended ... they haven't made any more comments - and their account was created just a few days before the comments were made and they made similar comments on several other threads ... so I think that was just trolling for whatever reason and not something to take seriously.

 

[smcder]

I agree with what you say in this post, Steve. Both 'Consciousness' and 'the Paranormal' are enormous subjects, and after 100 pages we have barely focused on their relevance for one another. I do think it's a good idea to branch off into different threads for discussion of the various topics that hold particular interest for the various members who have posted in this thread. I brought phenomenology forward because it represents the strongest critique of the reductive, computationalist approach to consciousness that is dominant in our time. I think I've posted enough relevant links and extracts here by now for anyone who might be interested in pursuing the phenomenology of consciousness further. Re the hard problem of consciousness, thousands of academics in science and philosophy continue to struggle with it (after several decades of attempts to resolve it) and I don't think we here can either dismiss it or benefit from carrying discussion of it forward. [Edit to add] It will either turn out over time to be irresolvable (as McGinn thinks) or some progress will be made in the current combined efforts of phenomenologists and neuroscientists working together.

@Constance - suggestions as to where we go from here ... ?

I agree with trying to branch off the various threads - what focus should we bring to this original thread then?

Above you indicate that you feel you've posted enough links on phenomenology and that we can't do much more with the hard problem of consciousness ... a page or two back you started some posts more directly on the paranormal, survival of death, OOBEs etc ... should we pursue that as the main focus of this thread?

 

[Constance]

@Constance - suggestions as to where we go from here ... ?

I agree with trying to branch off the various threads - what focus should we bring to this original thread then?

Above you indicate that you feel you've posted enough links on phenomenology and that we can't do much more with the hard problem of consciousness ... a page or two back you started some posts more directly on the paranormal, survival of death, OOBEs etc ... should we pursue that as the main focus of this thread?

I think that would be a refreshing change. We've covered a lot of bases in the thread to date concerning the various theories of consciousness currently being applied and are now pretty much circling around that territory. I'm all for changing the subject to an exploration of what can be learned about consciousness from the perspectives of psychical, mystical, spiritual, paranormal, and parapsychological experiences and capabilities.