Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 01:04pm PT
|
Does anyone really think that those ones and zeros can become aware of themselves.
I'll step beyond this as simply a rhetorical question and suggest that individual constituents of the brain and nervous system also lack self-awareness in the same way. An individual neuron is equivalent to the 1 or 0 of a digital machine-- in that, in and of itself it lacks self-awareness. Only when brain cells are summed by their various congregations do the emergent qualities and elements of human self-awareness finally take shape.
If you were an alien from another universe, with a wholly differing source of consciousness, there is nothing about one of Bach's neurons that would indicate to you his exquisite cadence at the end of an 8 measure choral phrase.
There is no indication that brain cells possess higher individual self-awareness-- and yet collectively that is one their products. Like the 1 or zero in a machine, they are potentials, when viewed as individual entities.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 01:16pm PT
|
Maybe start with subconscious awareness - i.e. the stuff of instinct, threat avoidance and reaction times where the mind is aware of and responding to stimuli before it is consciously aware of it. Related concepts are 'pre-attentive processing' and 'response priming'. This is also related to the previous question of whether instinctive behavior / awareness is a form of 'knowing'.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 01:24pm PT
|
Historically the realization of the self, the notion of an individual perception of being and its value was deemed so profound and so unique as to be called soul... and as an entity of such powerful proportions to be described as eternal.
I see it as the organizing, self-concerned mediator of sensory information.
Sentience requires the distinguishing "self," paring the overwhelming input of the senses into logical ordered relationships of actionable realizations beneficial to its own continued existence and well being.
Its requisite is awareness and awareness' implication of the separateness of the experiencer from the experience.
In the end, it's damned hard to describe.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 01:29pm PT
|
Consciousness has arisen after billions of years of evolution from common elements.
Has NOT arisen!
Was already there.
Without consciousness there would be zero life.
Consciousness is the source of life itself and not matter.
Before the machine was made the inventor was already there.
The machine is made and designed from nuts and bolts and assembled by life itself.
Without life itself from the start there would be absolute zero life.
Modern western materialistic scientists have had their intelligence taken away and have become ....
Stooopid !!!!
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 01:34pm PT
|
^^^^^^ Inevitable as the sun rising in the east . . .
Awareness evolving over the ages into self-awareness or consciousness, passing through the bicameral mind stages.
Awareness: associated with the mechanistic interpretation of free will
Self-awareness: associated with the very idea of free will and the notion of "I"
JL: you mentioned the sufis and the development of "you". How does this relate to the Zen concept of "I"?
Edit: Ok, you're off the hook, John. I read a a bit about Sufism and more or less see the major differences. Sufism is very religious (mostly Sunni) and meditation focuses on pleasing Allah and removing unholy characteristics from one's personality, rather than penetrating the "illusion" of "I." In this regard Sufism more resembles Christian mysticism. Jan could tell us more.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 10, 2015 - 02:13pm PT
|
I think Healje makes a good point that pans out in showing us that even awareness operates on a sliding scale from unconscious to fully conscious in the human sense of the term.
In Healje's example, we see the organism tasking unconsciously as a stimulus-response mechanism. One need not be conscious or "making a decision" to respond in many instinctual ways. Note what is called the "orienting response," which we share with all animals who have nervous system. Basically, we hear a sound, and we pause and face the stimulus. This all happens instinctively and automatically. What's more, what originally takes conscious attention like driving or playing the piano, eventually can become something we can do almost automatically. So we move from instinctive and mechanical responses up to conscious responses and the higher we go the more self-awareness is involved.
Paul said:
Sentience requires the distinguishing "self," paring the overwhelming input of the senses into logical ordered relationships of actionable realizations beneficial to its own continued existence and well being.
Its requisite is awareness and awareness' implication of the separateness of the experiencer from the experience.
In the end, it's damned hard to describe.
Again, it is very hard to stay with awareness at a basic enough level without defaulting into a discussion of general theory. So while it might be damn hard to describe, my sense of it is that awareness is damn hard to observe. Once we can observe with enough clarity, and arrive at a consensus per basic factors (I suggested awareness, focus and attention as the three pillars of sentience), then we can start working up the perceptual equal of double slit experiments and so forth. But I suspect a high level of specific functioning is surely needed to start "road testing" any of this material.
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 04:12pm PT
|
"we see the organism tasking unconsciously as a stimulus-response mechanism. One need not be conscious or "making a decision" to respond.... Note what is called the "orienting response," which we share with all animals who have nervous system. Basically, we hear a sound, and we pause and face the stimulus. This all happens instinctively and automatically. What's more, what originally takes conscious attention like driving or playing the piano, eventually can become something we can do almost automatically."
What are we, robots?!
:)
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 05:41pm PT
|
. . . then we can start working up the perceptual equal of double slit experiments and so forth (JL)
I think a different perspective, even a different paradigm is required, not simply trying to parody classical physics or quantum mechanics. For comparing meditative experiences with (non-classical) physics is too reminiscent of the spiritualists of the 1930s trying to employ physics to justify ectoplasm.
Think outside the box. Discover an approach that doesn't warrant the moniker quantum flapdoodle.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 10, 2015 - 06:02pm PT
|
John, when I say the equal of double slit experiments, you must know by now that I belive no one who has any real understanding of "mind" is going to take their cue from quantum mechanics per the experiments mentioned, any more than the folks at CERN are going to take their cures from an ashran. The idea is preposterous. Experiential adventures can never take their lead from measurers because they are not even looking at mind, but rather objective functioning. If people want to conflate the two, more power to them. Just note that NONE of those doing so have supplied even the first clear idea about what consciousness IS save for data processing.
Then we have the wankers talking about "woo camps" and people mentioning what "science doesn't know." In the case of sentience, I think all of us would welcome what science DOES know, what they have discovered, and as the man said, "summarize what we do know." I have been asking for that all day. For my money, the real woo is in believing that the map is the territory.
The fact remains incontrovertibly so - that when asked what, specifically, are you referring to when you use such terms as "mind," and consciousness, and so forth, many on this list claiming to be science types have no game whatsoever. The admonishment to "shut up and stop calculating" seems to cause a kind of spasm of woo shuck and jive and dismissive prattle - but no specifics per what is being asked for in the simplest terms: What the hell is this conscious life we have? What are the elements and processes involved? How might you go about describing these processes using common usage language?
Note that we can only get a few lines into what awareness is before people backslide and default into wild accusations and intemperate speech, rather than staying on task and even attempting the heavy lifting of actual investigating and describing what is at the core of our every conscious moment and our only direct experience.
JL
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 06:09pm PT
|
What the hell is this conscious life we have?
Cottleston Cottleston Cottleston Pie,
A fly can’t bird, but a bird can fly.
Ask me a riddle and I reply
Cottleston Cottleston Cottleston Pie.
Cottleston Cottleston Cottleston Pie,
A fish can’t whistle and neither can I.
Ask me a riddle and I reply
Cottleston Cottleston Cottleston Pie.
Cottleston Cottleston Cottleston Pie,
Why does a chicken? I don’t know why.
Ask me a riddle and I reply
Cottleston Cottleston Cottleston Pie.
Winnie-the-Pooh
A. A. Milne
|
|
cintune
climber
The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 06:22pm PT
|
Where is the forest? You science types keep showing me these trees, but you fail utterly at showing me the forest. And then you get all bent out of shape because you can't answer my ever so humble question!
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 10, 2015 - 07:33pm PT
|
Cintune-
Fine. Describe the trees (specifics) in terms consciousness/sentience. The most glaring woo in the house is the idea that this has been done - which is basically saying, the objective IS the subjective. And as we have seen, while this leads to silly dismissive pronouncements and old poems, verily, instead of saying, "I have no idea whatsoever, on't even know how to look, and have no capacity to shut up and stop calculating," we get a breaking wave of guff - and no burger. Not even a fry.
It's like folks talking about climbing a route, and only bickering over the topo. Invitations to boot up garner woo and only woo - about tress, rabbit holes, and how little we understand.
Mercy...
I actually think this task is doable. But as John suggested, a new paradigm might be indicated. So far, the only one IMO who has answered honestly is Paul, who said it is "damn hard" to try and describe the forest. You;d think I was asking folks to streak the Yosemite Cafeteria.
JL
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 09:37pm PT
|
John, maybe you would restate your definitions of mind, awareness, and no-thing since I seem to have forgotten them . . . I'm an old codger and can't remember a lot. I mention this since you continually ask science types to do the same, and as you say there is not a great deal forthcoming apart from elements of neuroscience.
A new paradigm will probably require new language, not appropriations from modern physics or elsewhere. This is far from a simple task. In advanced mathematics metaphorical allusions from the normal world abound. Is it possible to develop an effective new vocabulary distinct from that of science and math, one that escapes the pejoritive of woo?
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 09:57pm PT
|
Note what is called the "orienting response," which we share with all animals who have nervous system.
I gotta think consciousness and awareness inhabits in every living organism.. This "orienting response" sounds a lot like Stannard's "survival gene". Which is the declaration of the evolution clan. How true is it that only "the strongest will survive"? Doesn't this suggest that the stronger gene pool is garenteed sucsess over the weaker gene pool when dealing with the adversity's brought on by the environment? But where does this egotistical thought rear it's ugly head in the plant family? Here in the desert the water tables are shrinking daily. Does the Joshua Tree just die off because it's current survival mechanism can't doesn't meet the new criteria? That's exactly what's happening in today's sped-up environment. But maybe if the water depletion was at a much slower rate the JTree could adjust its genetic makeup and morph into a different form, thus perpetuating life.
My question in all this is where is it seen in our gene the need to succeed?
Where is it engraved in the elements the Will to Live?
Today's corresponding environment to life HAD to be established for life to begin. Before ANY gene pool could solidify, there was first an exterior NEED for a specific organism species!?
A plant is aware the Sun rises in the east, isn't it?
|
|
Wayno
Big Wall climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 10:02pm PT
|
I was recently and once again reminded of the curious subjective experience of twins. I even remember that some serious studies have been done that only bring up more questions. Anybody on top of this or think that it even applies to the discussion?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 10:56pm PT
|
Largo
but looking at computation to find a workable description of sentience is clearly absurd. That's like a feuding couple going to a marriage counselor and the counselor sending the couple to the hospital to have an MRI to get right down to the root cause of the problem. When in fact, the guy with the lab coat is not even looking at the problem at all, but at objective processing, believing the two are self-same.
You state it is "clearly absurd" but you don't state, first, what you mean by computation and you certainly don't provide any reason to doubt the possibility of a "computation model." If I have misunderstood you I'd love to hear you explain it more clearly. We have divided up the problem into an "objective" and a "subjective" part but we haven't provided any guide to where the boundary is... and in some ways we've agreed that the boundaries may be somewhat blurry. However, and once again, your objection to an "objective" description is based on the lack of such a description, not on the possibility of providing one.
"What's more, in any investigation, you first must isolate out WHAT it is you are investigating before you can work up meaningful analysis. That is, we are going to investigate the moon. Or a rock. Or a tree. The tricky part with sentience is it is not a "thing" (a material entity) "out there" we can objectify, so we cannot use out normal sense data machinery to describe it. "
Sentience is very much a thing, as is consciousness, there exist many definitions of them which are generally agreed upon. These definitions fall short, once again, of any rigorous scientific meaning for the simple reason that the science hasn't yet been able to provide such a definition. Once again, your criticism seems to be based on that lack, and doesn't address the issue of "impossibility" except that you have constructed your meaning to exclude that possibility. That construction doesn't have any more valid basis than the claim that a scientific understanding of these things (and they are things, everyone reading this possess them and can agree what they are) is possible.
Once again, if you have offered a cogent demonstration that the scientific explanation is "impossible," I missed it.
"One is obliged to "shut up and stop calculating" and look long and hard at what this sentience is that you hope to describe. This is not at all to say that meditation or any particular modality is the gold standard to looking at sentience, but so far that experience is itself a subjective phenomenon, it stands to reason that we must look at this subjectivity directly to understand what it is we strive to define. My contention is that looking at computation is NOT looking at experience anymore than looking at a topo is the actual experience of rock climbing. In the realm of experience, the map is NEVER the territory."
The underlined bit is a rather interesting statement, you are saying that if something is subjective then we can only understand it subjectively? The consequences lead to solipsism, and if you really believe that, why would you engage in a discussion with any one else? What you experience is all you and has nothing to do with anyone else, and need not have anyone else's consideration.
When you learn from a teacher, you can be sure that the teacher does not know your experiences (you have asserted that) yet, somehow the teacher is able to guide you in your meditation practice. What the teacher can offer you is certainly akin to a "map," yet you state that that "map" is not the same thing as the "territory." Yet the teacher can successfully guide you to that territory, even though the teacher cannot know what it is you are experiencing, what you are experiencing, by your own assertion, is subjective, it is totally you, first person, exclusive.
It would seem that teaching would be a futile task in your construction. At least teaching anything that falls into the realm of you definition of subjective.
Yet you learned you meditation practice from a teacher.
"The thing is, if you actually do shut up and stop calculating, and observe sentience (NOT the content, or that of which we are aware such as memories, feelings, thoughts, etc.), you will invariably be looking at the three cornerstones: awareness, focus and attention. These are not in and of themselves computations. But this is as good a place as any to start looking and working up experiments and a common language for further exploration. Not surprisingly, neither awareness, focus nor yet attention are betrayed through investigating computational models."
While you state that "awareness, focus and attention" are not computations, they are actually three tasks that computations do quite well, and in some ways better than humans... these "tasks" are relatively easy if one uses the common meaning of the words. It is possible that your definition is somewhat different from the common definitions, or the "scientific" definitions (which allow the computation to be performed). The experiments at the LHC all employee elaborate computational systems to do, exactly, those three things. Maybe you could offer a better definition?
But in doing so, be aware of the act of providing a vocabulary for discussing, in more precise terms, these aspects of mind. While science might now lack such precision, that absence doesn't "prove" in anyway that an objective approach to understanding "mind" does not exist. The vocabulary that you are using is ancient, and probably extends into prehistory. Science hasn't been around that long... but it might not be too crazy to think that science explains a bit more than was understood back then.
The Sun as a "thing" is a relatively recent revelation (brought to you by science), previous thought had it squarely in the realm of the divine and beyond human comprehension. It wasn't until the first third of the twentieth century that the Sun was understandable as a "thing." Yet we know it to be such, and oddly, based on reductive, objective reasoning... how times have changed.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 11:05pm PT
|
These definitions fall short, once again, of any rigorous scientific meaning for the simple reason
that the science hasn't yet been able to provide such a definition.
That's not true all.
Only modern western materialistic science has lost its scientific roots.
The definitions have been given long ago and are completely verifiable.
Modern materialistic science is finished, stuck, and closed minded in western gross materialism.
It has failed miserably and fallen down into the deep well of scientism.
All western material science has done is created more and more bondage and attachment to the temporary gross physical material body .....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 10, 2015 - 11:37pm PT
|
The definitions have been given long ago and are completely verifiable.
please provide them and the verification
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2015 - 07:06am PT
|
[youtube=https://youtu.be/zF5X9amkH2s]
Here is a kind of direct response to the last video post. Really a kind of interesting take on science and especially "neuroscience." by a philosopher I find too conservative politically but increasingly interesting. Love to get a scientist's reaction to it.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!