Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 10:01am PT
|
one long post deserves another...
There is no way to externally prove to a third-party that you are conscious, be the subject a machine or Fruitcake.
This statement assumes something about consciousness, that it is only a phenomenon that occurs to an individual and that it cannot be described.
Of course, we are all convinced not only that our own consciousness exists, but that other humans are also conscious, and that non-humans are also conscious to a degree.
So I believe your assumption is already in serious jeopardy, it very much contradicts a common human experience.
And that that human experience is individual, since we all have a particular individual physical existence and a unique set of experiences, you have conflated that with "consciousness," "mind," etc.
While a life is unique, it is also subject to interpretation through the narrative broadly created by those who are familiar with the life, and to that individual's perception (and interpretation) of that set of experiences.
Each experience (in an unfolding continuum of experiences) is not without a heavy filter of perception before it even makes its way to the "conscious" state of the individual. Most of the experience probably never makes it to that level.
What we recall as our "experience" is an interesting psychological topic, equally, what we do not recall.
You yourself wrote a very interesting essay about how a relatively mundane shift of a hex was conflated into a horrific event overcome by Olympian heroics... an essay that shifted your view of "what you experienced" to "what the truth of the experience" was... I find that essay a guiding document of the way you approach this topic, too.
By proof I mean proof that would satisfy you - an external object that you can measure.
I do not seek "proof" for consciousness, maybe it is your own misunderstanding of science, and of me. In this latest set of questions regarding how you (or anyone else) comes to the conclusion that another entity possess "consciousness" I am only exploring our common experience of "consciousness."
This is possible prelude to formulating a "theory" of "consciousness." And a theory in this sense would have to be predictive, but in all cases the general features of common observation should also be explained.
Other individuals are "external objects" to me, in the most basic sense of the dichotomy. It is a starting point and one with considerable empirical support, there is me, and there are others.
By "measure" you presume we get all technical and instrument the hell out of the physical phenomena and extract data which we can analyze and come to some conclusion. But here I am asking about another kind of "measure" where we actually just observe, and record the observation. I don't presume to know what to measure, yet, though different hypotheses of "consciousness" will propose different types of measurement.
So what is MY measure of consciousness?
very similar to the one that Paul expressed, that is, when we interact I compare what I "know" consciousness is to my own experience to that of the other entity's description, or behavior.
With humans we have a common manner of communicating, even if the communication is based on cultural backgrounds, that is, we communicate but our interpretation of the communication is learned.
With animals we perceive behavior that we would attribute to consciousness, and in the debate regarding animals we have all sorts of descriptions as to why and why not these observations could be signs of consciousness.
But in the discussion we cannot ignore the "fact" that we all have a "theory of mind" that we use to predict these behaviors, and while we may not acknowledge that, we may not be aware of it, our "theory of mind" layers a conceptual interpretation on the observed behaviors.
Our "theory of mind" does "objectify" mind, it makes it a "thing" that occupies a living physical entity.
But perhaps I am wrong about this observation, so I ask you, what you think.
I get back your standard blah,blah,blah about experience, but I am sure you aren't able to recall all of the experience you've had, and that what you can recall you do so differently each time, emphasizing some different aspect of it to make a particular point.
The use of the "objective/subjective" dichotomy is a useful tool. As with all tools, knowing the limitations of their use is also important.
It is certainly true that meditation is a way to explore other aspects of "mind," using another tool, and offering another set of observations which have been taught, student to teacher, for much of human history. I have read no description of meditation that did not involve the interaction of the meditator with a teacher, it is entirely possible I'm sure. Tales of hermits going off and meditating to death are also told. I'd suggest that anything we could learn from them is speculation, we have no way to know what they experienced.
Interestingly, however, having experienced meditative states, and also knowing, by communicating with others, that there are common experiences, one might infer just what such an experience, of constant meditation, would be like. One could also experience long periods of meditation, and infer from that experience what others might experience.
I don't think this is a stretch by any measure, this act of inference. Not only do we engage in it, but it is also a part of cultural tradition, taught from one generation to the next.
So when you state: '...nobody "knows" what consciousness IS in the way you are positing it, as a third-person object...' you are being disingenuous, you "know", we all "know" and we use that knowledge all the time. We use it as we would use any theory, to predict. We are predicting behavior. There is money to be won this way, sit down at a poker game and take the measure of your opponents... you are using your "theory."
Now it is also possible that this "theory of mind" that we have is only a model of what is going on, a model has its utility, but often does not represent the complexity of the phenomenon that it is describing. It often fails in predicting behavior which is "outside" of its domain to explain.
So there are grounds for digging deeper into the phenomenon. One can do it many different ways. But importantly, what ever we dig up should make a reasonable explanation of what the model does.
Perhaps this is gentle measurement, at this point, but I'm interested in why you would deny something that you obviously practice yourself. You constantly restate my sentences in ways that you believe I am "truly" thinking. You constantly restate my point-of-view of being a particular category of thinker ('staunch materialist') somehow knowing that you definition of that category matches my thought.
But more interestingly, you predict that "if you closed your eyes and let the data stream fade to the background" I would have a particular type of experience.
How do you know that?
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 12:25pm PT
|
EH said "How do you know that?"
Nice post EH. You already answered your question; that the teacher has seen/experienced the territory and checks in with you to see if you can describe it (there are typically many meetings) to confirm if you have been there. They also hang out with you and observe how you react to things to confirm what your relationship is to standard phenomena ie action speaks louder than words.
Personally I am not very skilled with words and have a hard time describing my experience. When I first encountered "raw awareness" I couldn't describe it in a way that my teacher could relate very well. He obviously knew my POV had shifted but he wasn't sure if maybe I had experienced a psychotic episode. I had to do independent research to find a description of an experience that matched mine. The description matched my experience rather precisely.
I guess the reason why us meditators often spout "the map isn't the territory" is because typical class room studying is learning things by reading about them or studying them and religion is often about belief systems and meditation is not that.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 12:52pm PT
|
I had to do independent research to find a description of an experience that matched mine. The description matched my experience rather precisely
I would be interested in reading that description, PSP. Unless it's classified.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 01:07pm PT
|
[Click to View YouTube Video]
Is the inner landscape easier to describe? From "all" that is observable by the eyes in the stream of time to "elementary" particles and experiences/mental moves...
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 01:26pm PT
|
For most everything else that I can think of, when we talk about this or that, we can stipulate characteristics or dimensions. What kind of characteristics or dimensions would you think could be used to start tacking down what consciousness IS? The typical ones don’t seem to work: height, depth, width, size, temporal dimensions, color, density, beginning or end, shape, taste, touch, light / dark, variety or variation, energy, inside versus outside, high versus low, etc. If we could stipulate or define characteristics, then I think we could come up with measurements. We can’t seem to put mind into any category; we can’t seem to limit it dimensionally or categorically.
To say that I understand someone else’s mind would seem to be a reflection of my mind, not someone else’s. To say that i perceive another is to say that I perceive my own mind. Whatever I perceive is mind. What I imagine I can’t perceive is again mind. Mind is not something that I can seem to get out of. Yet, I can’t say what mind is. I can perhaps come up with a description of mind, but that is again mind itself, which is . . . nothing that we can put our finger on.
I suggest that the inability to say what mind is, is not some clever philosophical or sophist trick. There is no trick because there is no mind, even though everyone seems to think they have one. (Zen often makes references to “no mind” trying to point this out.) This thing that we are so sure of that we cannot find is THE FINDING. There is no real difference among mind, consciousness, being, and reality. It’s all the same thing.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 02:15pm PT
|
Let's consider identical twins. They result from a zygote that splits and forms two embryos that share the same DNA sequence, and look alike. In reality, even identical twins differ by hundreds of genes (not that much, really), have different fingerprints, and other differences, but for this argument, let's assume they are two copies of the same person.
In medicine, twin studies are very useful. We even have two identical twin astronauts. One has spent a boat load of time in space, and he is compared with his twin, who has spent less time in space. I pity those dudes. They probably get probed and prodded like crazy. Anyway, they use them to study changes caused by microgravity, radiation exposure, or damn near any factor involving long duration space flight.
If one twin comes down with a disease, and the other twin comes down with the same disease, at a rate far higher than background data would suggest, it can be concluded that the disease is probably genetic. This is how researchers can draw a conclusion that a particular disease is genetic. The other way is to see if a disease tends to run in families, but twin studies are the best, although rare.
Even though they are identical in every physical way, anyone who has known twins will know that they are not the same person. There are differences in their personalities to some extent. Their minds are not identical, although morphologically, their brains are, we will assume.
From that we can draw one of two conclusions:
1) Brain does not equal mind, because morphologically they have the same brains, but have different minds.
or
2) They vary due to differing influences as they age. Epigenetic factors come into play after birth, so as they age, their gene expressions diverge. As twins age, or are separated environmentally, their gene expression will diverge. Meaning different genes switch on and off due to different environmental factors. This is a fact. Look it up. Also, experiences influence our personalities. Also a fact.
There is a flip side to this.
Let's assume that one twin has an accident, and brain function is greatly altered or totally destroyed. If one twin has a massive stroke, or suffers severe brain trauma in a car wreck, he may function very differently from his identical twin. There is ample evidence that damage to the brain can dramatically alter our minds. If the stroke or trauma is severe enough, you can become a "vegetable", with no brain function detected, and family members may decide to pull the person off of life preserving machines and allowed to die peacefully.
Trauma or disease can cause one twin's brain to stop functioning. At which time they are basically brain dead.
Other forms of brain damage or disease can cause changes in personality. How does a Dualist explain that? Look it up. Another fact. Brain damage can change your mind. There are plenty of examples. Google it up.
If physical influences can cause wild changes in the mind, then how can mind be separate from brain? This argument has been brought up before, but I don't believe that it has ever been fully answered by any of the dualists.
Again, if physical influences to the meat brain can cause dramatic changes in "mind," then how could they be truly separate? Injury can cause physical defects, cognitive defects, and even delusions, which most certainly fall in the category of mind. The uninjured twin remains the same.
The notion of dualism cannot be complete. The mind cannot be independent of the brain. You would have to be living in a cave to believe this.
Another school, apart from the dualists, are the idealists:
In philosophy, idealism is the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial.
This might be a little more in line with Werner's beliefs, as it has roots in Hindu. To take it to its extreme, it means that everything is a mental construction. There is no material. No chair. No tree. No spoon. Everything is a mental construct. See George Berkeley for that one.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 02:40pm PT
|
Jgill here is a web site with very detailed discussion of Jhanas (absorption states)http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/gunaratana/wheel351.html
This second web site http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-samadhi/jhana.html is very quick definition is the first 4 jhanas. The first site is probably too detailed and the second not detailed enough.
The factors that made me recognize them was how each jhana state cycled through a pattern of effortless concentration that would get more focused followed by rapture and bliss followed by equanimity with a side of bliss (lol). Each Jhana becomes more refined and cycles through the same patterns in the same order. As you get deeper into the jhanas and equanimity you experience a lack of body space boundary.
I was doing this without a teacher experienced in this; but it would happen whenever I would meditate. Some times during retreats I was hesitant to sit because it was so intense. In hind site it was difficult to hold such a large shift in experience.
The level of bliss and contentment was out of this world; so much so that Jhanas are not taught in many schools because they can lead to jhana addiction and spiritual materialism.
I haven't had such strong Jhanas in a few years and I try not to pursue them because that is likely counter productive in the world of meditation practice.
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 04:41pm PT
|
I was just rereading a random page from John Dewey's (the philosopher's) Experience and Nature. Then I read some more random passages. I don't think that Ed or HFCS or MH2 or Healje or Base or jgill or anybody else on this thread arguing for the science-side of things can improve on Dewey's arguments against the likes of Largo, Paul, and MikeL (who I realize are not arguing for the same thing but are pretty much "on the other side"). Rather than cite actual examples, which do take a few paragraphs to describe and support the positions, here are the chapters in the book. This was published in 1925. There is very little that is new on the philosophic front in this thread.
I. Experience and Philosophic Method
II. Experience as Precarious and as Stable
III. Nature, Ends, and Histories
IV. Nature, Means, and Knowledge
V. Nature as Communication and as Meaning
VI. Nature, Mind, and Subject
VII. Nature, Life, and Body-Mind
VIII. Existence,, Ideas, and Consciousness
IX. Experience, Nature and Art
X. Existence, Value, and Criticism
|
|
eeyonkee
Trad climber
Golden, CO
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 05:37pm PT
|
If I was to have to come up with two words essential to life (say, on Final Jeopardy and knowing that Alex has the answer), I would choose "pattern" and "recursion". This is what I have learned from my reading and my experience as a scientist, software engineer and thinking human being.
Frankly, these two words, together, seem more fundamental than Life.
Edit: If I could choose three words, I would add "random".
|
|
cintune
climber
Colorado School of Mimes
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 05:43pm PT
|
So with all the recent and ongoing new findings in neuroscience, what d'ya suppose it would take to bring about a resolution of the philosophical deadlock? Or for that matter what from the "experiential" side would be a sure shot to put all that measuring and chattering in its place, once and for all?
A complete, fully-expanded mechanistic explanation of every aspect of consciousness, or mentored psychotic episodes for everyone? Both might be good, too.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 06:02pm PT
|
"Complexity is generally used to characterize something with many parts where those parts interact with each other in multiple ways, culminating in a higher order of emergence greater than the sum of its parts. There is no absolute definition of what complexity means; the only consensus among researchers is that there is no agreement about the specific definition of complexity" (Wiki)
However, this Wiki page needs rewriting according to the editors. I don't even attempt to pin down "complexity" or "chaos" in the math I play with.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2016 - 08:28pm PT
|
I suggest that the inability to say what mind is, is not some clever philosophical or sophist trick. There is no trick because there is no mind, even though everyone seems to think they have one.
So the question to MikeL is, why do we think we have a mind?
My answer is because it is a very useful concept based on our experience and perception.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 06:49am PT
|
Ed: So the question to MikeL is, why do we think we have a mind? My answer is because it is a very useful concept based on our experience and perception.
Sure, evolution answers everything, doesn’t it?
Nosce te ipsum
Werner will cry BS (and maybe it is ultimately), but there are a few different narratives that have been offered. Without getting too spiritual here, an analogy might be instructive.
Child and depth psychologists say that when an infant comes into the world, he or she differentiates nothing. Everything is just one thing: no inside, outside, others, thoughts, etc. There is just instinct . . . pure undifferentiated functional being. With time, however, infants “learn” to differentiate their own feelings emotionally, physical objects, others, feelings of others empathically, intellectual concepts, and of course “self” (which we could say is best expressed as “mind”). Along the way (infants to children, to adolescents, to various stages of adulthood), a person becomes assimilated and accommodates him or herself into various social cultures and sub-cultures socially. So, first individuality is explored, and with time, the individual also becomes accommodates and is assimilated into groups.
It’s argued that development is similar to what’s happening to the consciousness of the species. Unfolding consciousness becomes aware of itself reflexively, and it has done so through an escape from it’s various constrained earlier structures of consciousness: from instinct, to emotions, to stories and myths, and on to abstractions, the ego has asserted itself, separated, and isolated itself individually finally into a state of full independence. The Son has escaped the smothering confines of the Great Mother, it has challenged, battled, and won independence from the Grand Patriarch (the Father); and that heroe’s journey has allowed the hero to become his (her) own man (woman) through reason, sublimating the passions, and developing the confidence to think for him or herself. The process has been described by some as: “differentiation—integration—transcendence” (and repeat).
Nothing experienced and understood from the past should be thrown out in deference to the new. Each new differentiation needs to be integrated in with the old—not replaced. “AND.” Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
So, what of “Mind?” Mind may well be simply an artifact of earlier phases of development that have been escaped. Modern men and women are no longer under full control of their instincts, they are no longer completely subject to their raging emotions, they are no longer under the complete spell of stories or myths that ordered the heavens and the world, and some are not longer spell-bound by their imaginations to create models and frameworks to parcel the universe into objects dualistically (even antagonistically). Even a fewer number see a bigger whole, of which all are a part. A fewer number see no *real* parts at all, just apparent parts, and they do so with all instinctual, emotional, mythological, and rational capabilities developed from the past.
“Mind” is an artifact of our own making. As you point out, it has served developmental purposes. It’s perhaps helped the species’ consciousness (its self-knowing) to transcend old orders of consciousness for more integrated understandings of what and who the species and consciousness are.
“Nosce te ipsum” means to know thyself. Knowing oneself (to be “at-one-ment”) has apparently been occurring throughout the history of the specie, but in different and more inclusive ways, each transcending the most previous way—but without disregarding or obviating the old ways. Each “adds to.” The process is not about perfection. It’s about completion.
1 Corinthians 8-13: Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.
This, too, is a narrative that give us some comfort and temporary understanding.
|
|
Gnome Ofthe Diabase
climber
Out Of Bed
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 07:21am PT
|
Thank you.
I mean to everyone who spends moments re thinking the perceptions & then comes here knowing that there are levels of consciousness but still tries to delve into an all encompassing
Definition /answer that carries the water of as many of those levels as possible. This thread has yielded one of the . . . no, the most thought provoking outlet that I have access to,
So thank you.
Maybe I should have said 'carries the weight of see-able, examples. . .
Anyway for the iota of recognition if nothing else, again thank you.
MikeL has so broadened my view as have many of you with your posts, the very existence of deep thought , climbing archetypes & fools like me joining in together in civil repartee
Is the Super in this Mexican food truck
This is the best hot sauce, on the far side of the food truck, take as much as you have a taste for and enjoy your burrito, enchiladas or tacos,
CMac,/Spurier
" El mejor alimento para la mente se vende aquí "
in that I lurk here without comment till
At random, I spew forth.& post some drivel like this
THANKS again!
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 08:00am PT
|
when an infant comes into the world, he or she differentiates nothing
So let us not despair for the poor machine.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 09:30am PT
|
Sure, evolution answers everything, doesn’t it?
Nosce te ipsum
I suppose that one could appeal to Delphic oracles in these matters. When was the last time that worked for you, MikeL?
Evolution is a very powerful concept, and probably the most influential scientific theories, basically providing an explanation of how humans (and everything else) evolved. It also provides a guide to what the future might be, the future of life on the planet.
For someone looking for a physical explanation of the development of life on the planet, evolution provides the framework for the explanation.
As far as the brain is concerned, it is an energy hungry organ that requires very large resources to maintain. For that to be evolutionarily viable, it must return an equally large advantage in acquiring resources. For the most part, these brains are not necessary for life...
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 21, 2016 - 09:33am PT
|
The business about knowing how someone else has an internal life is an old philosophical argument called "the problem with other minds."
Dan Perry said this about it:
The problem with "other minds."
The philosophical problem of other minds goes like this. I know that I have a mind, that is, feelings, sensations, thoughts and the like, in a very direct way. I am directly aware ("privileged access") of what goes on in my own mind. But how do I know that something like this goes on in other people?
I am not directly aware (no privileged access) of your thoughts and sensations. So how do I now that anything is going on in you, like what I know is going on in me, which I call “consciouisness” or “mind." And, just to be polite and assume you do have a mind, vice versa?
One thing is clear: this is not a practical problem. No sane person doubts that others have minds.
In fact our ability to figure out what other people are thinking and feeling, “mind-reading” as it’s sometimes called in cognitive science, is a deep-seated ability humans have, apparently wired in.
The problem isn’t whether we believe other people have minds. It is the basis for the belief. Is the belief rational? Is it really knowledge?
The traditional answer was formulated by J. S. Mill: The argument from analogy. You are a human like me, you behave a lot like me, you use language like me. I have a mind; isn’t it rational to suppose that you have one too?
But it's based on a pretty small sample, isn’t it? One case. Imagine two hundred cars on the freeway. They all are very similar: four wheels, moving in response to the way the drivers steer, accelerate and brake. I notice that one has a box of Kleenex on the front seat. So I infer the others do too. Very weak inference.
More promising is inference to the best explanation. The box of kleenex I see in one car doesn't explain anything interesting about it, or about the similarities we observe between in and the other cars. But suppose we look under the hood and find an engine in the car. We see that this explains why the car moves. Pretty good inference that the others have engines too. A much stronger inference, than one based merely on analogy.
That seems to be what we are doing with other minds. I know my own mind explains a lot of my behavior, and also that it is affected by the external world, and that the way it causes me to behave is responsive to the information it picks up about the world. Isn’t it overwhelmingly likely that other people work in basically the same way?
Still, suppose we grant that this is a pretty good inference. It isn't the worth of inference that provides certainty. After all, we might find that some cars have electric motors rather than gasoline engines. We might find some of them were just rolling downhill, or being towed. That wouldn’t be amazing. Our inference was probable, but not certain. But we seem extremely confident that other people have minds, basically similar to ours.
For the lack of any external, 3rd person material proof of mind, some have ventured into jackass land and speculated that mind, and subjective experience, are perforce simply a workable concept we employ and they are part of reality only as a concept. This is the quagmire you swim in when you are fixated on objects, and what the mind does, or all the stuff that is sourced by consciousness.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 09:39am PT
|
That seems to be what we are doing with other minds. I know my own mind explains a lot of my behavior, and also that it is affected by the external world, and that the way it causes me to behave is responsive to the information it picks up about the world. Isn’t it overwhelmingly likely that other people work in basically the same way?
If minds are only "first person" then how is it that it is "overwhelmingly likely that other people work in basically the same way?"
a simple explanation is that brains are all very similar in detail and that the behavior of the brain is the source of mind...
...no need to require some extra-natural property like "intrinsic consciousness" to the explanation.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 21, 2016 - 10:08am PT
|
There is no way to externally prove to a third-party that you are conscious, be the subject a machine or Fruitcake.
This statement assumes something about consciousness, that it is only a phenomenon that occurs to an individual and that it cannot be described.
I didn't see this, Ed.
My statement does not assume that consciousness "occurs" (like rain occurs to a cloud) to an individual. An individual occurs from, and so do objects, from consciouness. No, consciousness does not create the quantum field, but that's another discussion.
My point is a very simple one we all experience all the time: We only have direct or "privileged access" (first person) to our own consciousness. Consciousness can be an object of thought by others, but that doesn't make consciousness itself a 3rd person object or pehnomenon. It just means we are taking a theoretical 3rd person (objective) look at a 1st person phenomenon. But this is where it gets tricky.
What we are seeing in another person is not consciousness, but the content of consciousness by way of stuff related through language, body movements and actions. All the stuff that arises from consciousness, especially the actions. And on that we want to formulate a predictive theory.
Of course our theory won't be about consciousness because we can't see it or know it in the third person. We CAN see and know what arises, and we go after that. Just know that these are two different phenomenons. Conflating consciousness with what a person does or thinks or feels is different that you or me or the host person being conscious of something we can predict.
This underscores the principal challenge of studying consciousness itself. We cannot witness it directly in another host. We only have "privileged access" to own awareness. And since consciousness itself only manifests in the first person, the first person, if they want to study consciousness as opposed to the never ending geyser of stuff bursting FROM consciousness, we are left to use observation itself to observe observation - an impossible task since we cannot exit 1st person observation to observe it from the outside because there is no escaping it. That leaves us to witness consciousness from the inside - tricky work.
So I think much of the confusion in this discussion derives from confusing the content of consciousness (intelligence, thoughts, actions, and so forth) with sentience. In this regards, the stuff of consciousness could, metaphorically be called the contents of a cave, including the cave, while consciousness is the lamp that lets us see and experience both the cave and what's in it.
But wait, there's more...
Who is seeing and what IS this seeing/experiencing? This, in my experience, is where your mention of a provisional model is used, a concept that allows us to work with this consciousness. That model is the small "self" or the idea of a host or subject that IS aware.
When one works on objectless consciousness, and the small self drops away, what is left is the ungraspable "no-thing" that confounds both the materialist and the contemplative.
Working with the stuff or content of consciousness is what both psychologists (meta level) and neuroscientists (micro level) do, among others.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2016 - 10:13am PT
|
For the lack of any external, 3rd person material proof of mind, some have ventured into jackass land and speculated that mind, and subjective experience, are perforce simply a workable concept we employ and they are part of reality only as a concept.
Straighten out that pretzel.
edit:
Or stay within your bends.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!