Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
Largo: . . . getting mired in content - whether it's illusory, archetypal, whether qualia is "real" and all the rest which seems to leave us spinning in place.
Hmmm. You might be betraying an intention here, John. What do you mean by “getting mired in content,” and why would it matter? As I read your writing here, it’s the “spinning in place” that seems to be your concern. I suspect that the wont for distinctions is what makes one spin in place. Drop that, and spinning in place may no longer be of significance. Illusion, archetypal complexes, qualia, what’s “real” (by whatever measure) all seems to be the same, IMO.
Sutra concerns itself with the independent existence of things. More advanced practices like dzogchen concerns themselves with the existence of mind. Other practices may show one that all of reality is simply one’s self. In the end, all these things present the same view. The Dharma tells us that there is no difference between samsara and nirvana. Anything that shows up for one that leads one to the conclusion that there is just one indisputable fact would seem to be an insight.
Jgill: . . . when extremely fast and accurate decisions must be made the software embodied in the brain takes over, giving Robocop lightning fast reactions - but part of the software package also makes the human think he is making the decisions.
MH2: . . . awareness is, in biological terms, all about looking for and acting on messages from the environment.
What do you think “a decision” is? What messages is “the environment sending?”
I understand that we’re just talking and writing here, that we are limited by the paucity of meaning in the metaphors of words, but . . . does an environment “send” anything? Putting aside for the moment the issue of free will (for making decisions), who or what is doing anything independently, in isolation from the rest of the universe that’s revolving around him or her? I understand that it “seems” like people are making decisions, but is that claim any different than that of a religious myth that cannot be verified? Is an archetypal complex (ala, Jung) simply a way, for example, of talking about what we cannot fully understand? What’s the difference (in a Robocop way) of talking about “hot” versus “cold cognition” which is what that part of the story pointed to? Can any of these “things” be teased apart? (If we do so, aren’t we just conceptualizing?)
I feel like I’m beating a dead horse. I’m open to any interpretation, not just one. I find interest showing up for me in them all. The real versus not-real confrontation is not very real to me (and you can see where that can lead.) :-)
Not this or that.
Not this and that.
Neither not not this nor not not-that.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetralemma);
Good morning.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
For me, consciousness is a composite phenomenon arising at the confluence of awareness and mind, mind being the multi-layers and step-functioning mechanical brain. Awareness is the same phenomenon in whatever living creature that has it. The quality and amplitude of mind is relative to brain and nervous system robustness. A more robust brain can generate more nuanced content to awareness resulting in a richer experiential life.
The only fundamental difference between us and the octopus is our respective brains and nervous systems. Awareness itself remains the same across the board, so to speak.
but I think this is at least a part of the idea that roots these behaviors in the domain of a physical explanation. If by degree, the complexity of a nervous system, however you want to define "complexity," provides a degree of "consciousness" then it would seem to be open to some comparative study, which includes the underlying physical attributes of the capabilities.
There are more differences between us and the coleoids, but the fundamental similarity is the genetic basis of our forms, and the way that that genetic information has been arrived at now.
The way that genetic material is altered, through the process of evolution and natural selection (at least "natural" for most of the history of life on Earth), has a very physical prescription, and results in a unifying description of life, the variability of its forms as to location and time, the dynamics of that variability, and the conditions that sustain that variability.
This deep insight of modern biology has lead to the abandonment of the concept of "life force" and set science on a path to understand, in detail, the conditions of life from a purely physical perspective. While it might be hard to swallow the idea of the abiotic origin of life, we have no problem with the concept that photo/chemo-synthesis of "energy" which sustains a large fraction of life, this synthesis essentially takes an abiotic energy source, light from the Sun, and chemically converts it to a "biotic" energy source. In a sense, this biotic/abiotic distinction doesn't seem very sharp.
Interestingly, one can view this modern biological unification of life in terms of ancient ideas that all life is connected (all life shares the same genetic process) and that that is based on a higher unification of all processes in the universe. Why identifying these as "physical" is demeaning is quite beyond me, it is, rather, a source of wonder that we could actually get that far in our understanding.
One motive of my evoking variational calculus, and the wonderful concept of "path integration" was to highlight that the interpretation of those methods as "teleologic" (but here appropriated in a distinctly scientific manner) meaning that the overall path is determined by some global principle (e.g. "least action") and the identification of the end-points of the path. The "determinism" here is that the physical system will be constrained to those paths that obey that "global principle."
Interestingly, bringing quantum mechanics into this picture is straight forward, and in this particular case of "least action" sets a limit to the minimum quantity of "action" (which has the same units as the Planck's constant) and fuzzes up the paths... but this is an aside.
The main point is that this "teleological" approach is equivalent to the mechanical approach. So while we may be able to identify some global principles in biological systems, to wit, the way life interacts with the environment, we may lack the detailed mechanical description. That lack of description isn't, necessarily, an indication that this whole program has failed, it is an indication that we have a lot more to understand, and so studies, such as that for the coleoids help to fill in those details.
At the same time, Chiang's Stories of Your Life illustrate that each of our paths, our individual "world lines" may be constrained by those physical global principles, but are individual, the accumulation of our experience along those paths are unique. And even threading together many of those paths, as history allows us to do albeit only relatively recently, we have somehow come up with the general architecture of the path of the entire universe, from its beginning and have a plausible idea of its end, and not only that, of the "time" before and after.
[I should also recognize here the ancient ideas of the Fates and the metaphor of our lives as threads woven into the tapestry of history.]
Such a story is not unique, what is unique, this being a "science" story allows us to apply this understanding very broadly, and so why not try to understand "consciousness" using it?
I admit to being a "Type A materialist" in all the apparent pejorative implication intended in such a declaration. I come to that position not from a prejudice, but from an interesting conjecture that I am willing to assume, the simple conjecture that all we need is a "physical description" to describe what is... and my assumption of that conjecture is complete. It's not a matter of refusing to "change perspectives" but rather a curiosity on how far one can take a particular perspective. I'm willing to spend my entire life in this pursuit, it's as good a path as any other choice.
When doing so, one has to be both humble (I certainly cannot offer a detailed physical description of "consciousness") and open minded (my understanding of physics has changed as physics has, in my lifetime), but I do recognize that others might find this to be overly narrow.
But I have tried, here, to at least explain that this "science" perspective has much to offer in terms of a philosophy of sorts when coming to grips with those inevitable kinks that appear along our world lines, while fully understanding the inadequacy such a philosophy might have for others.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
What do you think “a decision” is? What messages is “the environment sending?”
There are many possible answers. It helps to start with a system where most of the parts, their functions and actions, are known.
I don't know if the fish gets a Robocop-like or a human-like impression that "it" made the decision, but when you may be about to get eaten, something needs doing quickly and effectively.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15996545
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
I forgot to mention that the Robocop's scientist's name is . . . . .
Dr. Dennett
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
deep insight of modern biology has lead to the abandonment of the concept of "life force"
Life force is NOT a concept, nor has it ever been a concept except to the clueless.
It is an absolute fact which remains elusive to western materialism's defective scientific methods ......
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2017 - 03:20pm PT
|
Ed, I agree that the bilogical and mechanical aspects of consciousness, which produce the bulk of our conscious content, can almost certainly be explained by physiclism. But that we are aware of same is another story.
There are two parts of this that are worth mentioning.
The first part is that any explanation I have heard per material causing (however you want to define that), sourcing, or in any way giving rise to awareness, or efforts to conflate awareness with data processing, or calling awareness itself information, or the brain "attributing" awareness to itself, etc., all either postulate awareness in the first place, or present something explanitory that feels logically incoherent.
All such explanations have a carry-over feel from behaviorism, which sought to explain consciousness strictly in terms of input and output (behavior), but never looking into the black box, so to speak. This, I suspect, is why so many people confuse the machine registration and auto responses of a sentactic engine with what goes on with a conscious human being. One way to get people to get some feel for this is to point out that when Hard AI people talk about creating a sentient machine, what do they suppose is the difference between that future machine and us.
The second problem I have is that the physical explanation must be true otherwise awareness is separate from the natural order of things. That too seems logically incoherent since consciousness occurs in nature.
I can't say where else awareness might occur just as I can't say where electromagnetism or strong/weak force or gravity might exist other than in the natural world.
One guy I find interesting in this regard is Adam Frank, author and professor of physics and astronomy at Rochester U. Here is a paper he recently wrote on physicalism, and the second link is a fascinating interview he did recently. Seems like a pretty solid guy.
It's worth noting the hailstorm of replies he received from the article, most of whom I suspect didn't really hear what he was getting at. The interview goes much more in dept than the paper, and Frank seems like a very fun guy to hear talking about his personal views on all of this.
The paper:
https://aeon.co/essays/materialism-alone-cannot-explain-the-riddle-of-consciousness
The interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-xGdmfX7A
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
when Frank writes: Classifying consciousness as a material problem is tantamount to saying that consciousness, too, remains fundamentally unexplained. I'm not at all sure what he is getting at. It is certainly true that consciousness "remains fundamentally unexplained."
It is not true that any thing in his argument states whether or not consciousness is "fundamentally unexplainable," whether from a material point of view or any other.
The example of the plethora of "interpretations" of quantum mechanics does nothing to lessen the power of quantum mechanic's ability to predict. "Just calculate." In so doing we side step what is an obvious lack of understanding the "fundamentals" of quantum mechanics, but that is also rapidly changing, yet for one hundred years now we've been able to use quantum mechanics as a tool for understanding the atomic and subatomic domain, apparently still ignorant of those "fundamentals."
Maybe it is not so important to understand the "fundamentals." Perhaps they aren't so "fundamental."
The science of consciousness is not where quantum mechanics is, yet. But I could just as easily foresee a situation where that science is predictive, yet we would bemoan a lack of "fundamental" understanding. That is, our theory may not be "realistic" in the sense that there is bit-by-bit explanation of the process that maps one-to-one onto the actual brain.
The entire domain in which quantum mechanics takes place is in a space that is inaccessible to us directly, and our access reduces to calculating probable outcomes. It might be too much to ask that that domain opens up to us, it is very likely that that domain doesn't "exist."
Would quantum mechanics be any less for that?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
As Dr. Dennett (Gary Oldman in "Robocop") says: Consciousness is no more than the brain processing information.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2017 - 06:08pm PT
|
It might be too much to ask that that domain opens up to us, it is very likely that that domain doesn't "exist."
Well, Ed, that's pretty much my take on awareness, and that of just about every other person I have heard speak of it who has spent their time observing it directly.
When the old Zen sages used to say, "It's ungraspable," they didn't mean it wasn't an active phenomenon in reality. They only meant, according to my understanding, that awareness was not an observable external object or force that we could nail down with sense data and say, "THAT is what is IS."
Granted, I only have a laymen's understanding of QM but when some of the people like Frank say that the underlying stuff that you guys measure and for which you make your predictions, might not have properties, or when Heisenberg advised people not to think of atoms as ‘things,’ these descriptors sound uncanny and familiar. But who knows what if any bearing they have on consciousness.
So far as predictions and their part in teasing apart consciousness, I hope some day we can have a good enough take on mind (in the mechanical sense, of that which generates content: memories, thoughts, feelings and sensations) that we can predict what the mind might DO, or what impulses might be wrought, or what actions might be suggested to awareness, or automatically acted upon. But predictions, no matter how accurate ... I struggle to make any connection there with awareness itself, which is the spark on the tender of the whole shebang.
It may be that the correlates, at least theory wise, between physics and consciousness is that in some ill-defined way, awareness is to consciousness what quantum/fields/particles etc. is to physics.
In both cases we might not be able to use ontological descriptors because apparently, neither realm will behave like the stuff we normally label. But there does seem to be an "it" with the quantum stuff that is absent in awareness, and while we can and often be deluded about what consciousness IS, and especially the content of consciousness, no one can be deluded about being aware and having experience, no matter how illusory or incohate.
The longer I am into this and the more I think it through my sense is that, if nothing else, internal work is good for seeing that awareness and mind are not the same phenomenon. That is a starting point to start teasing apart what essentially is a unified system. So in some sense the exercise itself is contrived.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
I don't think that lacking the "fundamentals" makes them meaningless, after all, we have a strong reason to seek them, whether in consciousness, quantum mechanics or mathematics... but we build adequate systems from which to "understand" them, in the sense that we can calculate, make predictions and confirm them in observation, that goes a long way.
Our prejudice that the "fundamentals" are important stems from our belief that knowing them would provide even more insight into what is going on... but here we can invoke MikeL's conviction that this is an endless path down a rabbit hole... which is no doubt true, at least from a science point of view, there are more and more things to understand.
When we "understand the fundamentals" of quantum mechanics it will lead to some very deep insights of the physical universe, I have no doubt about that, and I am equally sure that we will be very surprised.
As for consciousness, we'll get there too, in my opinion. But "there" won't answer the many of the questions we all have... in the meantime, I'm enjoying my journey along this path.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 8, 2017 - 07:19pm PT
|
On another note, it's exciting times for archaeologists, who just this last week uncovered two complete skeletons of Humanum Giantus, a phylon of humans long spoken of in myths and folklore but not till now substantiated by any hard, physical evidence.
The first bones were found by sheep herders in Mongolia, the later skeleton, in Toledo, Ohio, of all places, discovered by trail runners during an ultramarathon. Dr. Jules Valentine, from Yale, said that based on preliminary measurement of the giant's skull, his brain would likely go at a whopping 70-75 pounds, roughly twenty five times the size of Warner's.
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
Simplicity is a beautiful word as well as a way (for some of us) to live life. I (think I) enjoy and am challenged by reading what has been posted recently, but it is not a world all of us inhabit.
This may sound too simple, but I like my mind and enjoy learning its ways. At times it can be a struggle, but it is mine.
I live in a world filled with people who also have minds. Interaction can be complex at times, but it is also full of enrichment and adventure.
But don't mind me......:)
PS. They talk about these big people in stories in the OT of the Bible, Largo. Giants, they called them.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
Simplicity can be beautiful.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
I especially like the Ann Mayo Muir / Gordon Bok treatment, but it isn't available for public broadcast.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
Years ago they unearthed one of those in Canon City, Colorado. Fascinating.
if nothing else, internal work is good for seeing that awareness and mind are not the same phenomenon. That is a starting point to start teasing apart what essentially is a unified system
And back we go, 15,000 posts, to the beginning. Is it possible to "tease apart" a truly unified system? Doubtful.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
And back we go, 15,000 posts, to the beginning.
This proves that mankind never invented the wheel.
It was already always there just like everything else as consciousness .....
|
|
Lynne Leichtfuss
Trad climber
Will know soon
|
|
MH2....no words.
Does your multiplicity of words make you more than others?
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
Giantus!! did Batboy lead the team to this discovery? Or is Batboy the lead archeologist?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
I can’t say how much I like you, Ed. You are through and through. You are in the zone. And you are a serious seeker.
. . . this "teleological" approach is equivalent to the mechanical approach.
Brilliant. 3 cheers.
Largo: . . .. seeing that awareness and mind are not the same phenomenon.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
That needs to be seen personally, John. No amount of argument or data will do anything to anyone, IMO.
This whole thing is about seeing. Rumi was right. Nargajuna also came to this same conclusion after presenting impeccable logic about existence. That—unfortunately—leaves us with mystics. Oh, Lordy.
Ya gotta be there. If you’re not, you’re not.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Apr 9, 2017 - 08:56am PT
|
From Mike
Largo: . . .. seeing that awareness and mind are not the same phenomenon.
Says Mike: Yes. Yes. Yes.
That needs to be seen personally, John. No amount of argument or data will do anything to anyone, IMO.
Totally agree. The interesting thing here is that as diversified as the meditation and contemplative fields go, awareness is the one issue receiving almost universal agreement.
Several challenges for those trying to work this out from strictly the outside.
First, we all go in thinking that the important thing is the enlightened stuff we will find, that we will gain a privileged view per what is "out there" or "in here."
Strangely, the focus slowly shifts from WHAT passes through awareness (ephemeral, open to debate and interpretation) to awareness itself, which entirely lacks qualifiers. In Gestalt language, the figure-ground dichotomy seems to flip flop.
Being mistaken about this leads people to believe that all the subjective adventures, since they are apparently dealing with the stuff that science measures (remember that Ed just told us that said stuff might not even "exist" in the way our minds and sense organs tell us), are really trying to do science without instruments or math models. This can only give you "old wisdom" that has been completely replaced by modern scientific study.
Except, IME, that's not what is happening.
MH2 described a thought experiment that I had wondered about also, about a person who was raised with very limited "content" or outside stimulation, as if nurtured in an isolation chamber.
I always wondered exactly what he did and went back and tried to find in the writings of Helen Keller (who was deaf and blind) some phenomenonological descriptions of what her consciousness was like before she learned to "speak" and communicate. But I never found out anything...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!