Consciousness and the Paranormal

[Constance]

Beyond Good and Evil

27. It is difficult to be understood, especially when one thinks and lives gangasrotogati [Footnote: Like the river Ganges: presto.] among those only who think and live otherwise—namely, kurmagati [Footnote: Like the tortoise: lento.], or at best "froglike," mandeikagati [Footnote: Like the frog: staccato.] (*I do everything to be "difficultly understood" myself!)—and one should be heartily grateful for the good will to some refinement of interpretation. As regards "the good friends," however, who are always too easy-going, and think that as friends they have a right to ease, one does well at the very first to grant them a play-ground and romping-place for misunderstanding—one can thus laugh still; or get rid of them altogether, these good friends—and laugh then also!

* in German:
- ich thue eben Alles, um selbst schwer verstanden zu werden?
(literally: i do even everything, of self difficult/hard understand to be/)

another translation I found:

Am I doing all I can, to make myself difficult to understand?

290. Every deep thinker is more afraid of being understood than of being misunderstood. The latter perhaps wounds his vanity; but the former wounds his heart, his sympathy, which always says: "Ah, why would you also have as hard a time of it as I have?"

If I remember, Walter Kaufmann also wrote quite a bit on this and on how Nietzsche wrote to be misunderstood.

Nietzsche entitled his autobiography Ecce Homo - which, given the time, should tell you what a funny guy he was, also he entitled the chapters of the book:

Why I am so Wise -
Why I am so Clever
Why I Write such Excellent Books
Why I am a Fatality
and then devotes a chapter to each of his books. Ecce Homo is probably a good place to start reading Nietzsche - that or The Birth of Tragedy from The Spirit of Music

Thanks, Steve. I had no idea Nietzsche was so playful.

 

[smcder]

Philosophy: Free Courses Online

Lots of good resources here, I just came back across this when doing a search ... I recommend any of Hubert Drefus' lectures, also this short film of Nabokov (Christopher Plummer) lecturing on Kafka . . .

Vladimir Nabokov (Channelled by Christopher Plummer) Teaches Kafka at Cornell - Open Culture

lots more (675) free movies link from openculture.com

have fun!

 

[smcder]

I like that post ^ so much I have to say so again.

which one . . . ? the bit about The Dawkins?

 

[Constance]

Yes, the one about The Dawkins. Also enjoyed the Nabokov-Metamorphosis film and loved the music at beginning and end. Anyone know the source (CD?)

 

[Soupie]

@smcder

It's hard to say that sort of thing without teleological language, isn't it? I came across this last night:

Teleological Arguments for God's Existence (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Design intuitions, however, do not seem to emerge as novel construals from creative grappling with data, but are embedded in our thinking nearly naturally...

And it also suggests that design thinking may be natural to our sorts of intellects.​

But if design thinking is natural to our sorts of intellects - the very idea of "our sorts of intellects"...

These are the sorts of things that I would attribute to the evolution of the human psyche.

@smcder Evolutionary argument against naturalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I think this type of false - but adaptive - belief/behavior pattern is exactly the case. It's not raining? Let's do a ceremony petitioning the gods for rain. It rained!? Well I'll be damned, it worked!

My very young daughter recently brought to my attention while we were loading into the car on a rainy day that every time she touched her window, the windshield wipers would activate.

This is precisely why the scientific method has been so powerful. Hypothesize > predict > test > repeat

@smcder So if evolution was perturbed by intelligent entities, we can't say too much about "goals".

The quotations around the word goals was to indicate I wasn't using the term in its truest sense. Similar to when an evolutionary biologist says a heart was "designed" to pump blood.

The (collective) unconscious doesn't have an active goal of surviving. The idea is that - like physical morphology - the psyche is constantly "mutating" and that "adaptive" mutations are selected for.

So if a human is born (I'm completely making this up) with an impulse to swim in water, and this impulse/behavior is somehow adaptive - meaning, somehow allows this particular human to have children - then this "impulse to swim" will potentially be passed on to his/her children.

Now, if this impulse to swim results in the human quickly being eaten by a hippo, then this impulse will not be passed on.

On the other hand, if this impulse to swim is somehow incredibly adaptive - i.e., results in the organism getting lots of mates - than this impulse to swim will spread through the species and having "an impulse to swim" will become part of the human psyche.

That is an incredibly simplistic example. There are lots of other mechanisms that I think contributed to the evolutionary shaping of the psyche - for both humans and other animals.

For example, an organism might develop an "impulse" that is neutral, but nevertheless gets passed on down the historical line. However, when combinations of these neutral urges/impulses combine in certain offspring, it may lead to complex, adaptive behaviors. (And impulses would just be the tip of the psychological iceberg.)

However, I understand/respect that many intelligent people completely reject the idea that the complexity of the animal world could be the result of "accidents."

My "concern" with appealing to the intervention of external intelligences is to ask from whence did they come? Did they evolve? No. Then what external intelligence created them. And on and on.

 

[Soupie]

@Constance Soupie, you seem to have a grounding in Jung which will be helpful here. One thing that would help me further is a clarification of the term 'psyche' as Jung used it. ... I wonder how we are to understand the evolution of various facets of the human psyche -- as for example in the development of the quality of empathy for others likely first shaped in the increasingly conscious appreciation of the need for empathy in attentive and sustained nurturing of the young in our evolutionary predecessors.

Unfortunately, I've never had any formal teaching in Jungian psychology. Thus, I would not consider my views any more informed than the next person.

Semantics and language make any connection with others extremely challenging. (Especially if an uber intelligence like Neichi is just toying with us.)

When I use the word/concept "pysche" I mean to refer to the active nexus between the brain and the mind (the unconscious, conscious, and self-conscious). I try to speak of the brain and mind separately, because I do believe they are separate and that each exerts real, causal influence on the other.

However, typically, the brain and mind work together, and this I call the psyche. For example: When we are anesthetized, our brain remains but our mind ceases to be. However, when we "wake up," our mind is there again. And it's the "same" we had before going under. If the brain and mind are different, what's going on here?

I think the structure/organisation of the brain effects the structure/organisation of the mind. So, when the anesthesia wears off, and the brain is able to begin fully integrating information again - it does so according to the way it is structured/organized, and thus it produces the "same" mind - or, what I prefer: the same stream of consciousness.

But I believe this stream of self-conscious can causally affect the structure/organisation of the brain; for example, @smcder had mentioned CBT and brain plasticity. These are real, empirical phenomena. Not to mention the placebo affect I noted earlier. (Which fits the bill of false belief that has adaptive consequences.)

@Constance You've suggested, if I recall correctly, that it is the subconscious that initiates all of our actions, and perhaps you were referring to a statement by Jung. The Yale psychologists whose paper I linked recently refer to 'the subconscious mind'. It seems to me that if there is a "subconscious mind", it thinks.

Likewise, Giegerich has it that "the soul always thinks." With thought, it seems to me, we move beyond blind instinct and the idea that mind is the expression of a mechanism, move into a far more complex realm founded in consciousness of the phenomenal world in which we demonstrate degrees of freedom to the extent that we, and our forebears, make (have made) choices.

I don't know whether the unconscious "thinks." My intuition is that the unconscious processes information and acts accordingly. For example: Is that a tiger? Run!!!

I do believe some organisms have free will. I'm not sure which organisms, and I'm not sure how they achieve it. My current thinking is that it has to do with that "magical" thing we call self-awareness. That is to say, I think free will emerges in organisms when they become more than stimulus/response machines. It's possible that free will isn't binary - have/not-have. It may be had in degrees. [This would dovetail nicely with ITT where the richness of qualia/experience is equal to the amount of information an organism can handle; perhaps the degree of free will an organism has is directly related to the amount of options it has available (which - cringe - can also be reduced to information).]

I sense, @Constance, that you dislike when I and others use terms like "process information" to describe how humans interact with the world. But I believe the amounts of information we're talking about are staggering. The richness this information produces is equally staggering.

It's not dissimilar from particle physics: For example, rocks are made out of particles, but so is the Amazon rain forest. For me, "reducing" reality to particles/information does not reduce it's wonder and any meaning one derives from it.

 

[Soupie]

Couple thoughts:

I want to go back to @boomerang 's metaphor of the iceberg. I loved it.

I whipped up a little graphic:

Doing so immediately caused me to have a number of questions and thoughts.

1) There is likely lots of stuff in the what-is that the unconscious does not "interact" with. Like what? Well, on account of the fact we don't interact with it, we don't know what it is. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

2) There may be some organisms/unconsciouses that do interact with stuff that other organisms/unconsciouses do not. There may be some who have had this "stuff" rise to the level of consciousness and self-consciousness.

3) I believe (via ITT) that the conscious is information integrated by the brain/unconscious. I believe that all organisms that produce integrated information therefore have a stream of consciousness.

By existing "above" what-is (the water line) that does't remove the stream of consciousness from what-is, but perhaps indicates another kind of existence, the subjective. Is this another dimension of space-time? Another plane of existence? It might be helpful for some to think of it that way.

4) I wasn't sure where to put the "self-conscious." This is the self-aware layer/level of mind. This is in my current thinking the seat of free will.

Does the self-conscious result from two streams of consciousness combining or "looking" at each other?

I don't think it's a pin trying to prick its head, I think it's a pin that has succeeded in pricking its head.

5) The unconscious consists of the information that is not fully integrated (that is, brought to the level of consciousness), it is the "shape" conferred by the structure/organisation of the brain: our personality, our instincts, our drives, and needs such as connecting with others, etc.

On a different note, Peterson - the lecturer @smcder has linked to - mentioned how personality type (the psyche) has affected thinkers/seekers over the years. I wonder to what degree that may affect those of us in this discussion. I know I have a distinct type, and I know this "dictates" how I interact and think about what-is.

Here's an online version: Big Five Personality Test

I'm going to give it whirl when I get a moment. I think personality is, if not directly than indirectly, related to thoughts on the nature of consciousness.

 

[smcder]

These are the sorts of things that I would attribute to the evolution of the human psyche.

But I think this type of false - but adaptive - belief/behavior pattern is exactly the case. It's not raining? Let's do a ceremony petitioning the gods for rain. It rained!? Well I'll be damned, it worked!

My very young daughter recently brought to my attention while we were loading into the car on a rainy day that every time she touched her window, the windshield wipers would activate.

This is precisely why the scientific method has been so powerful. Hypothesize > predict > test > repeat

The quotations around the word goals was to indicate I wasn't using the term in its truest sense. Similar to when an evolutionary biologist says a heart was "designed" to pump blood.

The (collective) unconscious doesn't have an active goal of surviving. The idea is that - like physical morphology - the psyche is constantly "mutating" and that "adaptive" mutations are selected for.

So if a human is born (I'm completely making this up) with an impulse to swim in water, and this impulse/behavior is somehow adaptive - meaning, somehow allows this particular human to have children - then this "impulse to swim" will potentially be passed on to his/her children.

Now, if this impulse to swim results in the human quickly being eaten by a hippo, then this impulse will not be passed on.

On the other hand, if this impulse to swim is somehow incredibly adaptive - i.e., results in the organism getting lots of mates - than this impulse to swim will spread through the species and having "an impulse to swim" will become part of the human psyche.

That is an incredibly simplistic example. There are lots of other mechanisms that I think contributed to the evolutionary shaping of the psyche - for both humans and other animals.

For example, an organism might develop an "impulse" that is neutral, but nevertheless gets passed on down the historical line. However, when combinations of these neutral urges/impulses combine in certain offspring, it may lead to complex, adaptive behaviors. (And impulses would just be the tip of the psychological iceberg.)

However, I understand/respect that many intelligent people completely reject the idea that the complexity of the animal world could be the result of "accidents."

My "concern" with appealing to the intervention of external intelligences is to ask from whence did they come? Did they evolve? No. Then what external intelligence created them. And on and on.

But I think this type of false - but adaptive - belief/behavior pattern is exactly the case. It's not raining? Let's do a ceremony petitioning the gods for rain. It rained!? Well I'll be damned, it worked!

I'm not following how you relate that to the evolutionary argument against naturalism? You seem to be in your other mode now . . .

My "concern" with appealing to the intervention of external intelligences is to ask from whence did they come? Did they evolve? No. Then what external intelligence created them. And on and on.

OK - I'm confused, you brought up the idea of external intelligences - in your post on agnosticism. I'm not seeing much agnosticism, by the way - but firm commitments to specific viewpoints. Which is no problem at all - but I don't think agnostic is the proper label.

 

[smcder]

Unfortunately, I've never had any formal teaching in Jungian psychology. Thus, I would not consider my views any more informed than the next person.

Semantics and language make any connection with others extremely challenging. (Especially if an uber intelligence like Neichi is just toying with us.)

When I use the word/concept "pysche" I mean to refer to the active nexus between the brain and the mind (the unconscious, conscious, and self-conscious). I try to speak of the brain and mind separately, because I do believe they are separate and that each exerts real, causal influence on the other.

However, typically, the brain and mind work together, and this I call the psyche. For example: When we are anesthetized, our brain remains but our mind ceases to be. However, when we "wake up," our mind is there again. And it's the "same" we had before going under. If the brain and mind are different, what's going on here?

I think the structure/organisation of the brain effects the structure/organisation of the mind. So, when the anesthesia wears off, and the brain is able to begin fully integrating information again - it does so according to the way it is structured/organized, and thus it produces the "same" mind - or, what I prefer: the same stream of consciousness.

But I believe this stream of self-conscious can causally affect the structure/organisation of the brain; for example, @smcder had mentioned CBT and brain plasticity. These are real, empirical phenomena. Not to mention the placebo affect I noted earlier. (Which fits the bill of false belief that has adaptive consequences.)

I don't know whether the unconscious "thinks." My intuition is that the unconscious processes information and acts accordingly. For example: Is that a tiger? Run!!!

I do believe some organisms have free will. I'm not sure which organisms, and I'm not sure how they achieve it. My current thinking is that it has to do with that "magical" thing we call self-awareness. That is to say, I think free will emerges in organisms when they become more than stimulus/response machines. It's possible that free will isn't binary - have/not-have. It may be had in degrees. [This would dovetail nicely with ITT where the richness of qualia/experience is equal to the amount of information an organism can handle; perhaps the degree of free will an organism has is directly related to the amount of options it has available (which - cringe - can also be reduced to information).]

I sense, @Constance, that you dislike when I and others use terms like "process information" to describe how humans interact with the world. But I believe the amounts of information we're talking about are staggering. The richness this information produces is equally staggering.

It's not dissimilar from particle physics: For example, rocks are made out of particles, but so is the Amazon rain forest. For me, "reducing" reality to particles/information does not reduce it's wonder and any meaning one derives from it.

...the idea of false/adaptive beliefs and Mother Nature fooling us (and us now figuring out how we've been fooled . . .) - that's the crux of the evolutionary argument against naturalism, how does it not call this thinking into question to? How do we know these are not also false/adaptive beliefs? So we either have some absolute standard or we the idea of bootstrapping our way to rationality.

It's not dissimilar from particle physics: For example, rocks are made out of particles, but so is the Amazon rain forest. For me, "reducing" reality to particles/information does not reduce it's wonder and any meaning one derives from it.

I think that's a great statement - it can either be a bald fact - it simply doesn't reduce meaning and wonder for you (because you still have meaning and wonder in your life) or you can be saying you have an underlying set of ideas or principles from which meaning and wonder flow . . . which are you saying here?

 

[smcder]

Couple thoughts:

I want to go back to @boomerang 's metaphor of the iceberg. I loved it.

I whipped up a little graphic:

Doing so immediately caused me to have a number of questions and thoughts.

1) There is likely lots of stuff in the what-is that the unconscious does not "interact" with. Like what? Well, on account of the fact we don't interact with it, we don't know what it is. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

2) There may be some organisms/unconsciouses that do interact with stuff that other organisms/unconsciouses do not. There may be some who have had this "stuff" rise to the level of consciousness and self-consciousness.

3) I believe (via ITT) that the conscious is information integrated by the brain/unconscious. I believe that all organisms that produce integrated information therefore have a stream of consciousness.

By existing "above" what-is (the water line) that does't remove the stream of consciousness from what-is, but perhaps indicates another kind of existence, the subjective. Is this another dimension of space-time? Another plane of existence? It might be helpful for some to think of it that way.

4) I wasn't sure where to put the "self-conscious." This is the self-aware layer/level of mind. This is in my current thinking the seat of free will.

Does the self-conscious result from two streams of consciousness combining or "looking" at each other?

I don't think it's a pin trying to prick its head, I think it's a pin that has succeeded in pricking its head.

5) The unconscious consists of the information that is not fully integrated (that is, brought to the level of consciousness), it is the "shape" conferred by the structure/organisation of the brain: our personality, our instincts, our drives, and needs such as connecting with others, etc.

On a different note, Peterson - the lecturer @smcder has linked to - mentioned how personality type (the psyche) has affected thinkers/seekers over the years. I wonder to what degree that may affect those of us in this discussion. I know I have a distinct type, and I know this "dictates" how I interact and think about what-is.

Here's an online version: Big Five Personality Test

I'm going to give it whirl when I get a moment. I think personality is, if not directly than indirectly, related to thoughts on the nature of consciousness.

On a different note, Peterson - the lecturer @smcder has linked to - mentioned how personality type (the psyche) has affected thinkers/seekers over the years. I wonder to what degree that may affect those of us in this discussion. I know I have a distinct type, and I know this "dictates" how I interact and think about what-is.

Biography is philosophy - ... related is how it seems some people immediately see the hard problem of consciousness and others do not - that's not a failing, it's like that optical illusion that is either a rabbit or a duck. Some see only one or the other, some can switch back and forth. And again, given your distinct type - I don't think Agnostic is the right label for you.

 

[smcder]

@Constance

you asked me a while back about Kabbalah and Magic and I've not forgotten - I don't know if this gets into Kabbalah (and I know you prefer written material - but I can't find a transcript, when I get time I will try and transcribe some pieces 18, 34 and 56 min are significant points) and I have only listened to the first lecture . . . but it's an excellent overview of the relationship of the three and their current status (all three are very active in the modern world)

@Soupie - I remembered this covers some of your question (at least from a sociological point of view) about "ultimate meaning" - in terms of the idea of the sacred

 

[smcder]

Couple thoughts:

I want to go back to @boomerang 's metaphor of the iceberg. I loved it.

I whipped up a little graphic:

Doing so immediately caused me to have a number of questions and thoughts.

1) There is likely lots of stuff in the what-is that the unconscious does not "interact" with. Like what? Well, on account of the fact we don't interact with it, we don't know what it is. But that doesn't mean it's not there.

2) There may be some organisms/unconsciouses that do interact with stuff that other organisms/unconsciouses do not. There may be some who have had this "stuff" rise to the level of consciousness and self-consciousness.

3) I believe (via ITT) that the conscious is information integrated by the brain/unconscious. I believe that all organisms that produce integrated information therefore have a stream of consciousness.

By existing "above" what-is (the water line) that does't remove the stream of consciousness from what-is, but perhaps indicates another kind of existence, the subjective. Is this another dimension of space-time? Another plane of existence? It might be helpful for some to think of it that way.

4) I wasn't sure where to put the "self-conscious." This is the self-aware layer/level of mind. This is in my current thinking the seat of free will.

Does the self-conscious result from two streams of consciousness combining or "looking" at each other?

I don't think it's a pin trying to prick its head, I think it's a pin that has succeeded in pricking its head.

5) The unconscious consists of the information that is not fully integrated (that is, brought to the level of consciousness), it is the "shape" conferred by the structure/organisation of the brain: our personality, our instincts, our drives, and needs such as connecting with others, etc.

On a different note, Peterson - the lecturer @smcder has linked to - mentioned how personality type (the psyche) has affected thinkers/seekers over the years. I wonder to what degree that may affect those of us in this discussion. I know I have a distinct type, and I know this "dictates" how I interact and think about what-is.

Here's an online version: Big Five Personality Test

I'm going to give it whirl when I get a moment. I think personality is, if not directly than indirectly, related to thoughts on the nature of consciousness.

Trait
Score Percentile
Extraversion 2.7

34


Extraversion reflects how much you are oriented towards things outside yourself and derive satisfaction from interacting with other people. [more] High scorers are said to be "extroverts" while low scorers are said to be "introverts. Introverts will tend to become tired out by socialization, while Extroverts will be energized by it. Introverts value down time while extroverts value stimulation. Due to their disposition, extroverts will usually be good at social interaction due to lots of experience, introverts tend towards the socially awkward. [less]
Conscientiousness 2.2

5


Conscientiousness reflects how careful and orderly an individual is. [more] Conscientious individuals are generally hard working and reliable. When taken to an extreme, they may also be "workaholics", perfectionists, and compulsive in their behavior. People who score low on conscientiousness tend to be more laid back, less goal-oriented, and less driven by success; they also are more likely to engage in antisocial and criminal behavior. [less]
Neuroticism 5

99


Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions. [more] Individuals who score high on neuroticism are more likely than the average to experience such feelings as anxiety, anger, envy, guilt, and depressed mood. They respond more poorly to stressors, and are more likely to interpret ordinary situations as threatening, and minor frustrations as hopelessly difficult. They are often self-conscious and shy, and they may have trouble controlling urges and delaying gratification. Neuroticism is a risk factor for the "internalizing" mental disorders such as phobia, depression, panic disorder, and other anxiety disorders, all of which are traditionally called neuroses. [less]
Agreeableness 3.6

30


Agreeableness reflects how much you like and try please others. [more] People who score high on this dimension tend to believe that most people are honest, decent, and trustworthy. People scoring low on agreeableness are generally less concerned with others' well-being and report having less empathy. Therefore, these individuals are less likely to go out of their way to help others. Low agreeableness is often characterized by skepticism about other people's motives, resulting in suspicion and unfriendliness. People very low on agreeableness have a tendency to be manipulative in their social relationships. They are also more likely to compete than to cooperate. [less]
Openness 5

95


Openness reflects how much you seek out new experiences. [more]

It looks like my openness is only exceed by my neuroticism and near criminally-low levels of conscientiousness . . . but who cares!?? ;-)

I can say I scored high on Psychopathy on the MMPI 30 years ago - the doc said I should do well in business or crime (I fail to see much difference) ... turns out he was wrong on both counts, not that I've tried that hard at either mind you.

 

[Soupie]

@Soupie But I think this type of false - but adaptive - belief/behavior pattern is exactly the case. It's not raining? Let's do a ceremony petitioning the gods for rain. It rained!? Well I'll be damned, it worked!

@smcder I'm not following how you relate that to the evolutionary argument against naturalism? You seem to be in your other mode now . . .

My response can best be summed up by the Ruse gentleman quoted at wiki:

[Ruse] comments that in Plantinga's thinking we have confusion between the world as we know it, and the world as it might be knowable in some ultimate way, but "If we are all in an illusion then it makes no sense to talk of illusion, for we have no touchstone of reality to make absolute judgements."

@smcder OK - I'm confused, you brought up the idea of external intelligences - in your post on agnosticism. I'm not seeing much agnosticism, by the way - but firm commitments to specific viewpoints. Which is no problem at all - but I don't think agnostic is the proper label.

From wiki: Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims are unknown or unknowable.

In my mind, this relates to what Peterson was saying about the framing problem.

We are beings with finite knowledge and perspective. But, we do have some knowledge and perspective. So what are we to do? We use what knowledge and perspective we have to actively create a worldview. I've shared my (ever changing) worldview in regards to metaphysics.

Do I think for a second that my worldview is absolutely correct, i.e., the best model of what-is? Not for a second.

If I am presented with logic, evidence, or self-experience I (like to think that I) would augment my worldview. As per Peterson, I would sacrifice a sacred belief and replace it with another. (Which itself may or may not "model" ultimate reality.)

 

[Soupie]

@smcder

Trait | Score - Percentile

Extraversion 2.7 - 34

Conscientiousness 2.2 - 5

Neuroticism 5 - 99

Agreeableness 3.6 - 30

Openness 5 - 95

It looks like my openness is only exceed by my neuroticism and near criminally-low levels of conscientiousness . . . but who cares!?? ;-)

@Soupie

Extraversion 1.5 - 4

Conscientiousness 3.1 - 33

Neuroticism 3 - 48

Agreeableness 2.8 - 7

Openness 4.5 - 71

Pretty cool! I'll share my thoughts later.

I don't like their definition of openness: Openness reflects how much you seek out new experiences.

I much prefer:

Openness is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. They tend to be, when compared to closed people, more creative and more aware of their feelings. They are more likely to hold unconventional beliefs. Another characteristic of the open cognitive style is a facility for thinking in symbols and abstractions far removed from concrete experience.

 

[Constance]

But I think this type of false - but adaptive - belief/behavior pattern is exactly the case. It's not raining? Let's do a ceremony petitioning the gods for rain. It rained!? Well I'll be damned, it worked!

I'm not following how you relate that to the evolutionary argument against naturalism? You seem to be in your other mode now . . .

My "concern" with appealing to the intervention of external intelligences is to ask from whence did they come? Did they evolve? No. Then what external intelligence created them. And on and on.

OK - I'm confused, you brought up the idea of external intelligences - in your post on agnosticism. I'm not seeing much agnosticism, by the way - but firm commitments to specific viewpoints. Which is no problem at all - but I don't think agnostic is the proper label.

Unless you are indeed 'agnostic' about every approach to consciousness/mind/brain discussed in this thread, which at various times you do seem to be, Soupie. But that doesn't seem to be the case either since you adhere so firmly to the term 'information' as if it explains itself. You've stated in one of your posts today that you do not believe there is 'a subconscious mind'. Yet you do claim to believe that the subconscious stores information (accrued over the whole of evolution of life on this planet) and that that information affects the 'brain' (?) or the 'mind' {?} It seems to me that information must be distinguished from ideation, the latter forming in consciousness {and indeed in subconsciousness} from several sources [as per your diagram] in the individual's attempt to integrate 'information' in order to react to it or to understand whether he/she {or 'it' in the instances of primitive organisms such as cells?} should react to it. Our responses to the world are plainly not those of an automaton, though perhaps like the automaton we are not aware of all of the information informing our experience. I think our primary concern in this discussion has been an attempt to approach some understanding of how and why we respond to our existence in the world in the ways (the manifold ways) we do, including the philosophies humans have produced, focusing the sameness of the core problems with which they struggle.

The above is probably not clear, but I have only these few minutes to respond at the moment.

 

[Soupie]

@Soupie It's not dissimilar from particle physics: For example, rocks are made out of particles, but so is the Amazon rain forest. For me, "reducing" reality to particles/information does not reduce it's wonder and any meaning one derives from it.

@smcder I think that's a great statement - it can either be a bald fact - it simply doesn't reduce meaning and wonder for you (because you still have meaning and wonder in your life) or you can be saying you have an underlying set of ideas or principles from which meaning and wonder flow . . . which are you saying here?

Can I choose D, all of the above?

For example, I've been watching the television show Cosmos. (For what it's worth, it's very unusual for me to watch a TV show.) The opening segment of last night's episode, ep 6, filled me with nothing less than wonder. The focus was on the goings-on inside a water droplet. Simply amazing. And then the process of photosynthesis. Again, incredible.

But I would say that typically I "live in my head" and that my personal search for metaphysical understanding gives me a sense of "meaning." I also have a family which provides plenty of meaning.

I don't have an "ultimate" meaning however. Having said that, what might be an example of ultimate meaning, I wonder?

 

[Constance]

Taylor Carman, a leading philosophical scholar, hones in on the key distinctions among the major phenomenological philosophers (Husserl, Heidegger, Sartre, and Merleau-Ponty) in this highly readable interview:

Mature: heidegger and merleau-ponty » 3:AM Magazine

 

[smcder]

Can I choose D, all of the above?

For example, I've been watching the television show Cosmos. (For what it's worth, it's very unusual for me to watch a TV show.) The opening segment of last night's episode, ep 6, filled me with nothing less than wonder. The focus was on the goings-on inside a water droplet. Simply amazing. And then the process of photosynthesis. Again, incredible.

But I would say that typically I "live in my head" and that my personal search for metaphysical understanding gives me a sense of "meaning." I also have a family which provides plenty of meaning.

I don't have an "ultimate" meaning however. Having said that, what might be an example of ultimate meaning, I wonder?

I don't have an "ultimate" meaning however.

Really?

Having said that, what might be an example of ultimate meaning, I wonder?

My sense of it is that most folks don't have to think about it. In terms of cultures, I would say it's captured in the Perennial Philosophy- see Huxley's book of the same name.

 

[smcder]

re: Mindfulness practice and moving stuff from the subconscious to the conscious mind

this is from the Insight Meditation Center's daylong practice of receptive awareness, recognizing the natural flow of experience moment to moment ... based on Insight Meditation, sometimes called mindfulness or Vipassana meditation

Audio Dharma - Mindfulness Of Mind Daylong

there are Dharma talks and guided meditations, including walking meditations

excerpt 3/29/2014 Andrea Fella
time stamp: 9:48min
…what this is doing is beginning to lift the lid of what is typically in our subconscious area of our minds and revealing it to our conscious mind, that revealing . . . when u put soap in the washing machine, the soap attracts the dirt from the clothes - … pulls the dirt into the water, mindfulness with this non-judgmental attitude functions like that soap in the water, it pulls things into consciousness that aren’t readily apparent and then b/c of that non-judgmental exploration those things begin to release

 

[smcder]

Pretty cool! I'll share my thoughts later.

I don't like their definition of openness: Openness reflects how much you seek out new experiences.

I much prefer:

Don't they use that defintion because it is what they are testing?