Archive

Archive for May, 2012

May 30, 2012 Leave a comment

Listen to my radio debut yesterday:

  • Awareness of awareness
  • Blindsight
  • Color qualia
  • Sapir-Whorf, language and color
  • Layered protocols
  • Bent pencil
  • Mind-Body dualism & paradox
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Quorum Sensing
  • assembled parts and divided wholes
  • Information and sense
  • Symbol grounding problem
  • Complexity and consciousness
  • Consciousness as accident, emergence, perceptual bias
  • Significance of potential and similarity
  • Intuiting truth and evolutionary obligation
  • Space, time, and consciousness
  • Panpsychism and sense
  • Who, why, what, how
  • scale & frequency
  • fly story
  • Big bang
  • Randomness and symmetry

Quora on Soul

May 28, 2012 2 comments

Where does the soul reside?

Soul is a legacy term for awareness or consciousness (I would say  sense-motive phenomenology). Awareness doesn’t literally exist in space,  but it figuratively insists “here” and “there” and it literally  produces time, or rather subdivides time from the totality of potential  awareness.

To say that the soul exists in your imagination is not incorrect either.  The nature of subjectivity is such that the more interior and personal  the subject, the deeper, richer, and more meaningful and enduring  qualities it can have. The ‘soul’ would be the subject themselves, and  therefore the most meaning-laden and enduring (life-long or even longer  if you want to speculate on Earthly legacy or celestial brownie points)  subject of all.

The relation of time to space is inversely proportionate, so that the body which does exist literally in space is constantly changing; growing, aging, and dying, but it is the public presentation of ‘what and how’ (matter and energy) realism. The body of the moment is an ephemeral occurrence, but the self who is represented by all of our body shapes throughout our life is single occurrence – an identity. The presentation of the body is real in it’s own right as a complex object seemingly frozen in time, but it also represents the private ‘who and why’ (sense and motive) realism which we experience through direct realism.

In the same way, the qualia we experience, the colors, sounds, stories  of our life indirectly represent complex material configurations in  space, but they are also direct presentations of sense-motive  experiences which are no less real than hydrogen or spheres. They are  real in a different way though – meaning multiplied through time rather  than objects divided across space.

Note – I say that soul is a legacy term because I think it misrepresents awareness subtly by projecting it as a pseudo object. It makes ‘I’ a thing in space rather than letting it be the agency who defines and redefines all ‘things’.

Feeling Real in the World of Sense

May 21, 2012 5 comments

We have this idea, these days, that there is a real world outside of us which exists. It exists not because we experience it, but because it’s ‘just there’. The simple existence it has is thought to be absolutely real, but absolutely meaningless and unconscious. It is almost unanimously assumed that there was nobody home in the universe at all before living organisms were born on Earth (or maybe other life-friendly planets).

We also have the idea that there is an unreal world inside of us. We feel a sandwich in our hand, but really it is a vast collection of microscopic molecules and living cells, suspended in an even more vast expanse of emptiness. We see a sky above, but really it is a paper thin layer of gas clinging to the planet. Our sun, just another point of light in the oblivion of astronomical emptiness.

In this view, our perception is thought to mediate, to represent a real world that we can’t understand into an unreal experience that we can understand. The psyche is a transformer, turning meaningless reality into meaningful illusion.

Of course, this presents a bit of a problem when confronted with the fact that when we act on our illusions in the world, sometimes we know what we are doing. Sometimes we actually seem to know more than the illusion is showing us, and we are able to make changes in the real world, using only our illusion to guide us. How might that work exactly?

To my mind, the most plausible way that it can work is if the real world is not entirely meaningless and the illusions of our representations are not entirely illusion. The overlap between the two, is, what I would call sense. The overlap between the two I would call realism. That internal sense which agrees consistently with external conditions, and those external conditions which feel consistent with our internal expectations.

Where they don’t overlap, we get sense but not realism. Theory for the sake of theory. Empirical data which cannot be interpreted in way that we can conceive of (like a particle-wave or dark energy). These make sense in either a subjectively meaningful way or an objectively useful way, but not both.

The more I think about this worldview of an unconscious universe that is hogging all of the reality, and conscious illusion that is hogging all of the meaning, the more absurd it seems and the more it reminds me of the distribution of wealth, technology, and happiness in the world (hint: The happiness isn’t concentrated at the top with the money and tech). What an appropriately perverse worldview during such a perversely unbalanced phase of the Earth’s anthropological experiment.

If we can crack the door an inch and see that sense may not have been born anew with blue-green algae a billion years ago, but has been here all along. In the celestial blooms of nebula and the rattling molecular chains. Events. Happening everywhere. Peaceful places, violent times. Everywhere. Not just in our heads. Not an incomprehensible rock hard nothingness tagged and bagged inexplicably by nerve cells for an audience of one who is really a none.

Without that pre-biotic sense, you have 12.7 billion years of mathematical potentials, accumulating and discharging force in silent obscurity. Invisible and without any association with any human image you might have. A universe without a memory, without a here and now. A universe which, at it’s microcosmic level, cannot tell the difference between something and nothing, as it has no feeling, no awareness to know what those things might be.

Imagine instead a world that is as meaningful as you are, and a life as real and persistent in the cosmos as a galaxy. After all, it is only consciousness that makes a galaxy seem large and slow. Without the sense of perspective and scale, all 12.7 billion years before life goes by as an instant or an eternity. There was nobody there to tell the difference. We are here now to tell the difference, and that is what is real for us. That is the only reality that means anything to us. It makes sense and it’s how we make sense. Adding skeptical inquiry to our naive realism only gives us more of what we had before. If our senses are an illusion, then our judgements about our senses only amplify the illusion. If, on the other hand, we can make sense of the world, then we have only begun to scratch the surface of how such a thing is possible.

Panpsychism Refutation Refuted

May 20, 2012 2 comments

From Panpsychism thread on Quora

All arguments in favour of panpsychism emanate from the “comprehending mind”. They are the equivalent of a corrupt programme analysing itself for corruption. The corruption resides in the analytic tools so all results are suspect. There are many arguments in favour of panpsychism, as Paul King and Craig Weinberg have noted, but these arguments absolutely depend on a comprehending mind comprehending itself and becoming entangled with not-self. No external arguments support panpsychism. We can see that complexity throws up unexpected results. Consciousness is an unexpected and counterintuitive result of complexity. We simply don’t understand its genesis. But. The alternative is to suppose that nothing exists until you discover it (there was no gravity until Newton was hit by an apple). That is an absurd position. Panpsychism is a semantic byproduct of thought.

The fantastic thing about sense is that everything in the universe, including the universe itself, makes sense in more than one way. Your argument is completely sensible, and I know first hand because I made sense of things that way for most of my life. At some point, however, I discovered that there was a different way to look at it that makes more sense. Consider the following:

If arguments for panpsychism depend on a comprehending mind comprehending itself like a corrupt program analyzing itself, then arguments against panpsychism depend on the same thing: A bug-ridden debugger debugging itself.

“No external arguments support panpsychism. We can see that complexity throws up unexpected results.”

First of all, I’m not sure what an external argument is. All human arguments begin and end in the ‘comprehending mind’ of the human having them. Evidence from outside of our bodies for things that relate to objects outside of our minds, sure, absolutely. But there is no external evidence of consciousness to begin with. You can’t prove to me that you exist and feel like a person.

Panpsychism (or panprotopsychism) explains this surprisingly well. It’s because evidence is an experience within consciousness and not the other way around (please see my ‘pencil-in-water’ rebuttal: http://www.quora.com/Craig-Weinberg/Consciousness-Insights/160835). You can generate complexity given awareness, but without awareness as an a priori possibility, complexity cannot even generate complexity. Something needs to feel or experience something in order for there to be a difference between simple and complex in the first place. Complexity may throw up results that defy our expectations, but they don’t defy the universe’s expectations if you deny awareness as a primordial ground of being to have expectations within.

“Consciousness is an unexpected and counterintuitive result of complexity.”

Complexity itself is utterly sterile. Without awareness, no amount of stacking of uniform bricks will result in anything other than bricks. Without some form of pattern recognition, we cannot say even how many bricks there might be, what size they are, how long they have been sitting there, etc. There is really no difference between anything and nothing without pattern and experience.

“We simply don’t understand its genesis”

For the same reason that we don’t understand a square circle. Consciousness has no cause, causality is dependent upon experience, memory, and analytical associations among remembered experiences. Without any of those, the universe could only be a single instant of inchoate fragments. To say that we haven’t figured out its genesis yet is to my mind now, a naive assertion of religious faith – wishful thinking in the supremacy of Enlightenment Era approaches to science.

“The alternative is to suppose that nothing exists until you discover it (there was no gravity until Newton was hit by an apple). That is an absurd position.”

No, that is not the only alternative, and yes that position is absurd. It makes the hasty supposition of conflating human consciousness with awareness in general. When applied to criticism of panpsychism, this is a fallacy of begging the question since the panpsychic proposition is itself that awareness is a property that is irreducibly present in the universe, and for me, more importantly *as* the universe. You have to take the next step and realize that even though it wasn’t Newton, there was some first something (an atom? star? spacetime? the singularity?) that experienced gravity, and yes before that experience, gravity as we know it did not exist.

“Panpsychism is a semantic byproduct of thought.”

So are functionalism and materialism. Panpsychism addresses the universe directly, from the inside out. It begins with the Cartesian certainty, that if anything exists for sure around here, it is me. We cannot question that because it will only be ourselves doing the doubting. Only after having faith in our own sense, can we trust ourselves to make sense of empirical evidence from the world of our body. We see people get shot in the head and die. This gives us good reason to believe that a human mind supervenes on a human brain. In the last 500 years we have taken that kind of faith in matter to the extreme. It definitely works on a gross material level…at least until you start choking on the industrial and social backlash.

Now we stand poised on the edge of a next age of Enlightenment. This time the transition may be much more precarious than the last, as unlike in the 17th century, the discoveries are not in-your-face experimental demonstrations of principles that have a chance at shaking bright people out of their religious ignorance. This time, the 21st century discoveries may have to be reinterpretations of what we already thought we understood. We have to face the reality of a world, not that we bring into existence, but which has been brought into existence through billions of years of sense experience on different scales, and which anticipates a temporal unity in which all of those years and all that are to come are but a single moment of totality. This tension, between the retrocausality of the eternal now and the feed forward sense of linear causality, are, I think, where consciousness ‘comes from’. It is not panpsychism that is semantic, it is the entire universe. A sense of significance which divides itself into insignificant fragments which return back to their source on their own. A respiration meta-cycle of meaning and entropy oscillation. Thought is the product of panpsychism. Sense does not emerge from nonsense.

Bent Pencil

May 18, 2012 Leave a comment

“Let us consider the pencil-in-water example. The representation of the pencil in your head is bent. The real pencil is not bent. That which misrepresents reality is, by definition, wrong.”

That is right in one sense, but only when you extend your naive realism (the pencil looks bent) to additional levels of biased realism (I can tell that it only looks bent, and I understand that it is possible for things to seem one way in one sense and a different way in another sense).

What this means is that when you say “The real pencil is not bent. That which misrepresents reality is, by definition, wrong.” you assume that there is a “real pencil” based purely on the bias of perceptual capacities of your human body. Your psychological capacities elevate that low level perception to a more subtle level of  interpretation (which is still a form of perception of perception) in which you can entertain a difference between a real pencil and a visual appearance.

I submit that the bent pencil is, in a sense, a much more ‘real’ pencil than the understood straight pencil in that it reflects not only the distant object of physical surfaces of a pencil and water, but it conveys a condensed encyclopedia on optics and perception which lead directly to discoverable neurological truths.

It is the simplistic interpretation of a literal reality that ‘simply is’, independent of a perceptual experience of that reality which seems to be a misrepresentation of reality.

That’s right. Fiction is primordial, fact is contrived.

Is Matter Concentrated Energy?

May 17, 2012 4 comments

Would you have any objection to postulating that all matter is a form of concentrated energy (E = mcc), and that all energy is aware-ized?

I agree in a sense but I think we can go further than that. I would say that energy is nothing except awareness in the efferent-output mode (motive), and matter is awareness in the afferent-input mode (sense). E=mc² gives us the measure of how the two modes relate to each other. When we talk about energy, we are referring to a quality of dynamism of experienced events to persist through time and across space. The idea that matter is concentrated energy is more true if we mean concentrated in time than concentrated in space as density.

To say that matter is concentrated energy conjures an image of a bright glowing haze being squeezed into a particle, which I think we could say is figuratively true, but not literally. It is *as if* that were happening as far as particles can be destroyed and there is an explosive dynamism produced in surrounding matter, but I don’t think that there is actually any bright glowing haze to begin with. If we use a sense-based model instead, with energy as nothing more or less than the experience-behavior of things (particles, objects, cells, bodies), so that empty space cannot in any way contain energy, I think it makes more sense in addressing our experience, and no less sense as far as interpreting physics. Energy is a notational concept of how things happen to matter statistically, but I think our mistake is to model it as a pseudosubstance that literally exists.

Instead, energy condenses as matter not through space but through time. It is not frozen energy but an accumulated history which has been perceptually collapsed due to the defining conditions of our subjectivity. We see a slice of the whole history of the thing from the outside as a 3D object.

Remember too that both fission and fusion produce energy. Most of that energy is not from particles being turned into energy but from mass being lost as nuclei either “move into the same apartment together” under fusion and thus save on “rent”, or in fission by breaking up big businesses by selling off divisions. It’s interesting that it works both way – apparently because of the Iron Peak: Matter lighter than iron wants to be heavier – it’s looking for roommates. Matter heavier than iron wants to get rid of employees. That’s my goofy understanding anyhow. I think that particles can actually be lost but the amount of energy generated by that is surprisingly low. The power is in changing the relation of materials, not in converting them directly to energy.

It’s really a whole different way of looking at energy that I’m trying to get across. Once we can let go of our inherited 20th century models of energy and try out the sense-primitive model instead, I think we recover a great deal of our native realism. We experience energy directly. We see light, we feel heat, we hear sound. None of those things can be described in any meaningful way as objects in space. Our instruments and observations only tell us what they are experiencing, how the event changes them. The 20th century gave us a brilliant unifying vision of energy as an underlying quantitative omnipotence, but I think that is only true in the most physical and qualitatively flat sense.

I think a new understanding of energy must recognize the disunity of sense channels; the qualitative deepening of material experiences driven from top down significance attraction as well as bottom up accumulation. By breaking up the monolith of physics, we unify the outermost definition of the cosmos with the definitions which are evolving within (biology, neurology, anthropology, psychology, etc.). By breaking up Einsteinian spacetime relativity into sense-motive perception, we unify qualitative subjectivity with quantitative objectivity.

Consciousness and Rhythm

May 15, 2012 Leave a comment

Brain oscillations reveal that our senses do not experience the world continuously

Testing subsequent visual perception, by using transcranial magnetic stimulation of the visual cortex, revealed a cyclic pattern at the very rapid rate of brain oscillations, in time with the underlying brainwaves. Prof Thut said: “Rhythmicity therefore is indeed omnipresent not only in brain activity but also brain function. For perception, this means that despite experiencing the world as a continuum, we do not sample our world continuously but in discrete snapshots determined by the cycles of brain rhythms.” The research, ‘Sounds reset rhythms of visual cortex and corresponding human visual perception’ is published in the journal Current Biology. More information: Romei et al., Sounds Reset Rhythms of Visual Cortex and Corresponding Human Visual Perception, Current Biology (2012), doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.03.025 Provided by University of Glasgow

This is more support for what I have been calling subtractive mechanics. The idea that subjectivity is not only built from the bottom up from meaningless parts and pixels but elided from the top down as well.

Just as our optical blindspot is erased through a filling in of high level perceptual expectations, our entire experience of life is a process of extracting signifying themes from many oscillating channels of sense. The realism we experience persists through time, within each moment accumulating the sense of the past and anticipating the intentions of our different sense-motive modalities. We are seeing through the oscillations, bridging each gap in sensation with ourselves – weaving ourselves into our experience .

This is the same thing I mean by the ‘Big Diffraction‘; the presence of everythingness bleeding through the gap between itself and its own absence, seeking to re-member its wholeness.

The Field, Part I

May 8, 2012 5 comments

I’m about halfway through Lynne McTaggart’s “The Field”, which is worthwhile even if a little New Agey in style for my current tastes. She does a good job of telling the stories of scientists who have been studying consciousness, and painting a picture of a universe of quantum coherence that consciousness can tune like a radio. In many ways I agree. If I had to flatten my model of the universe, it would probably look just like The Field. I can almost accept a universe of vacuums full of energy and matter as charged space, but I think with a simple inversion, we can find ourselves in a universe of sense and reality, rather than simulation and holography.

I feel that Multisense Realism picks up where The Field leaves off. The notion of zero-point field and holographic transformation of wave interference patterns through microtubule quantum superposition being responsible for human consciousness is visionary, and I think almost true, but it still doesn’t jump from the easy problem to the hard problem. This view doesn’t explain why, if you have holographic interference patterns that contain tremendous amounts of information, why would it get transformed into anything other than what it is? Why does the transmission and reception of zero-point light feel like something?

If we turn this model inside out however, we might say that it is not wave interference patterns that are transformed holographically into experience, but multidimensional experience casting a 3-D shadow as holographically interrelated waving objects. It’s not wave patterns being reconstituted as a simulation or projection, but fantastically rich experiential realism that is being stepped down into flat quantitative mechanisms across space.

In the same way, the observation that “Consciousness at it’s most basic, was coherent light” would make more sense as “Light, at it’s most basic, is coherence (sense)”. Instead of this metaphysical notion of matter being eddies in a cosmic sea of light, we should ask why it is that our naive realism always seems to show us the opposite – a universe of objects in space, islands of light and coherence in a field of emptiness. We should ask why it is that tiny bits of substance can profoundly impact our minds and bodies, but rhythms and frequencies don’t seem to have much of a universal semiotic consistency. Seeing a graphic visualization of  music has only vaguely consistent association with the aural experience of it. I’m not advocating naive realism, but rather than a counterintuitive metaphysics of quantum mechanical waves in space time creating a holographic consciousness, I suggest a counterintuitive physics of matter creating time and space by waving at itself. We are who is waving. Hollow, boundary-less, and eternal, but concrete and real – local temporal confinements of a timeless experiential firmament. There is no ‘light’ in space, only in our experience. Our ability to sense visually is activated through illumination of the sense organs themselves.

Where we are now, most of us can only conceive of an exteriorized universe. Even though our every moment of life is clearly spent as an interior narrative of an exterior circumstance, we assume that this is limited to living creatures. If we extend the possibility of interiority to all matter, we find that the external symptoms of consciousness – energy, coherent light, patterns, zero point field, etc is only the surface layer that is available to us through the stepped down architectures of our body and the instruments we have made for it. In a universe where matter is literally experience, the temporal distortions of General Relativity can give us a clue as to how different kinds of perception might co-exist, nested within each other, not just holographically but holotemporally. Time within time that can be modeled as inertial frames of scale from microcosm to macrocosm, confined to particular ranges of experience by frequency and wavelength. Not energy in space pretending to be matter, pretending to feel, but feeling through time re-presenting itself as energized matter across space.

Panpsychism, Synchronicity Reinterpreted

May 5, 2012 5 comments

I think like most people, the idea of inanimate objects having consciousness to be a prospect that at best seems hard to swallow.  I don’t rule it out as impossible, but I think that something else is going on.

Objects in the Anthrocosm – In the last century, physics has been whittling away at naive realism to an almost perverse degree. For most sane adults during waking hours, the conditions of our experience are defined to a great degree by moving our body around in the context of solid objects, yet after the revelations of quantum mechanics, we are increasingly being put upon to accept that not only is this not exactly as it seems, it is exactly the opposite. Rather than solid bodies separated by a void of space, science sees a universe where the void is filled with staggering amounts of energy. Vacuum fluctuation. Virtual particles. Not to mention dark matter and dark energy, black holes, and a host of wave-particles that challenge the notion of existence.

Likewise, contemporary physics assures that solid matter itself is almost completely empty space (99.999999999999%), and that any residual substance is really more of charged, spinning tendencies to exist that tend to occur probabilistically. Despite many good theories and interpretations, the transformation from this microcosmic un-world of overflowing vacuums and particles spun out of nothing but charge into the familiar human scale world remains an open question.  The hard problem of matter is the same as the hard problem of consciousness. Why should there be any experience or events or wavefunction collapse at all?

This is where panpsychism comes in as well. The puzzle of the extent to which we, as human beings are qualified to pass judgment on what is or is not a being is questionable. Indeed, the human race has had an abysmal record of recognizing its own common humanity even within its own species, let alone other organisms. When it comes to understanding inorganic systems, some of which are quite complex (imagine some of these growing in time-lapse over thousands of years), our intuitions about them may be no more accurate than our view of our own world is in matching the underlying physical reality.

Sample Rate – As with most things in physics and in consciousness, frequency and scale are critical. A crystal looks static to our naked eye, but we know they grow over time. A rock looks like a generic non-entity, but we know that it is part of vast mineral deposits that have accumulated in the Earth’s crust over geological spans of time. What we see as human beings would be like an instantaneous snap shot in the ‘life’ of the Earth as a whole, which itself might appear even more majestically Gaian at 1000 human year frames per second. By the same token, to something on a bacterial scale, our body might appear as a vast ancient landscape of somatic canyons and cellular rivers.

I would stop short of claiming any kind of ‘Horton Hears A Who’ full-scale anthropomorphism though. I would not discount our sense that despite the recurring themes of isomorphism in nature, we never encounter an exact re-run. Ants and bees have their sophisticated civil colonies and perform many human-like functions, but they don’t appear to be building any satellite dishes or microwave ovens. There are differences that seem to go beyond aesthetics or phylogenetic prejudice. It seems absurd and it seems like there is a good reason that it seems that way. That isn’t a logical argument, but it is the argument that makes sense to us nonetheless. It isn’t so clear cut when we get into deciding what or who we should feel comfortable eating, but there too, individual sense seems to have a way of guiding us eventually to more sane practices.

One of the most fundamental metrics that we use to determine what is ok to eat vs pet vs makes friends with has to do with size and frequency. People have generally liked to eat animals with four legs that are smaller than an elephant and larger than a rat, which are also slower than a hummingbird. Things that are very large and change slowly, like a mountain, are hard to relate to as a subject. With our complex, fast organic nervous system, very few things in the natural world could probably relate to us as a subject.

Our native conscious awareness sampling rate probably ranges between 10 Hz and 0.001 Hz, but if I’m right, it is perception which ultimately defines time and not the other way around. This is not to say that if we feel time is slowing down that other things will act like they are slowing down too compared to each other, but that our lives are made up of moments of our conscious attention which expand and contract the now as they relate to our inner narrative. Significance distorts the density of experienced time, not only in the moment but in the recollections and reverberations, the retelling and rehearsing. To signify is to present in figurative deceleration (increasing metaphorical mass or import with more cycles per second to saturate qualia more deeply), and to re-present with reflected luminosity (longevity, intensity, and recursiveness in memory).

Top Down Influence – My conjecture is that sense-motive experience may originate not only through ordinary feed-forward causation from the past to the present, but that awareness is also drawing us forward from outside of time (or outside of our time). If we think of the cosmos one level as a single gigantic moment, (and there is nothing to make us suppose that it doesn’t exist as that outside of our human frame of reference), then our being embedded in that moment requires that our lives be shaped in some way by the larger agendas as well as the smaller ones. Just as our bodies are enveloped by the biosphere, atmosphere, solar system, and galaxy, so too our ~100 yr lives are nested within larger cycles which correspond not only to astrophysical frequencies, but cultural, social, and personal frequencies.

We are enmeshed in a multi-speed anthrocosm, which extends internally as the personality, mind, subconscious, and unconscious psyche. The deep unconscious seems to merge with the transpersonal, foreshadowing with intuition, apprehension, enthusiasm, etc. Luck. In this way, panpsychism follows not as a kind of charge in matter but as a charge in experience. That charge is significance, working, as mentioned above, by saturating qualitative depth using apparent temporal deceleration (giving you more time to prevaricate before getting on the doomed plane, etc), figurative luminosity (spiritual ‘glow’, ‘shine’, ‘light’, etc), and other signifiers which ring out with earvurm-like reverberation.

Synchronicity – What all this means to me about synchronicity is that what you might interpret as fate or God communicating with you (known as ideas of reference as a symptom of schizophrenia or delusional mania) is actually about the gears of your life, so to speak, meshing with the gears of all other beings on all other scales of time – some of which are, relative to your conscious mind, insisting from ‘the future’. This is not so much a communication as a sensitivity to the rhythms of sentience pushed into overdrive.  Not to say that synchronicity, as a meaningful coincidence, can’t be a valid persuasion to the conscious mind, but that it isn’t necessarily a sign that you are on the right track or are being guided intentionally. It can often be just the opposite, leading to many catastrophic decisions which defy common sense.

How I think it might work is that the relation between repetition, variation, and augmentation are what make signalling and significance possible. From reproductive success in biology to things like celebrity (the etymology of celebrate links notions of praise, popularity, and frequency) and beauty, we are programmed to pay attention to superlative sense experiences. We concentrate on what is concentrated already. For us to allow novelty into our awareness, as when a long term cycle of our life is ending or beginning, it tends to happen through synchronous foreshadowing. No just coincidence that you notice but coincidences that you notice that you notice more than usual.

We can still think of this as God whispering in our ear if we like, or angels protecting us, or meaningless noise, but if I’m on the right track, we can also look at it as the chime of an inner clock striking a new hour.  If we listen for every chime, every tick of the clock, we court madness. If we dismiss it altogether, we won’t know what time it is and may not appreciate the full richness of our own narrative and its connection with the events of the world.

A deja vu experience, even as a neurologically caused event, has the phenomenological experience that is the same thing as synchronicity. Like an acoustic vibration that surrounds us, the larger inertial frames of our perception (our lifetime, family history, evolution, etc) can resonate through resonance from either the future or the past. Like an earthquake, the changes which have accumulated may shift under our feet, erupting in perceptions which expose some distant strata of our psyche.

Taken together, the ideas of panspychism and synchronicity can both be seen as different aspects of the how subjectivity may propagate through spatio-temporal echo. A universe of worlds within worlds which nonetheless presents the wholeness of the totality within each world must have some bleed-through among the various forms and layers.  I suggest that significance and entropy act as conductor and insulator respectively, of this capacity to experience wholeness. The experience itself can be modeled in terms of a continuum between literal (flat signal) objectivity and metaphorical (deep signal) subjectivity. In a human psyche, too much crosstalk or bleed through of this sensitivity can result in naive or magical thinking, while too much insulation can result in a lack of compassion and a dogmatic approach. At one extreme, the panpsychism of the cosmos and the synchronicity of one’s own life become too literally real, while at the other, all vitality and meaning are sequestered and compulsively denied.

Philosophy of Mind Reblog

May 2, 2012 Leave a comment

Reblogging a post on consciousness  that I like, and trying to chart a course from it’s logical conclusion to one which I think makes more sense.

omegaphilosophia: Utilize Philosophy: On Consciousness

Our method for perceiving objects is to look upon them from the outside of them, though granted we may perceive the innards of an object, but even then we are outside the innards looking upon them. However, for ourselves, we appear to be an object inside our bodies looking outwards at phenomena….

Ah, so close. I love what he has done with explaining how even the innards of objects are really still just the outside of smaller objects. The snag comes toward the end, and this is the snag that I think most people encounter with consciousness, and that is taking awareness or sense for granted. The OP writes:

Let us return to the basic description of consciousness, which is “awareness of one’s own existence.”

I disagree here, and it is a subtle but critically important point. Consciousness is awareness period. ‘One’s own existence’ is part of the contents of experience. I can dream without the existence of a self or a dreamer. I can watch movies and be immersed in the story and world of the movie without being conscious of my own existence.

If the consciousness is an object that looks upon other objects from the inside of some object, how is it aware of its own existence?

It’s not an object. It’s the opposite. I would say that it is a subject but it’s not even that…consciousness is the source of subjectivity – the capacity for awareness itself. It is the non-object which contains (metaphorically) all subjects.

How is it aware of it’s existence? Through sense. Our sense ‘insists’ that we be made aware of influences which are potentially significant to ourselves, our body, our social group, our species, etc. Sense is the bridge between the self and the universe, but sense is also the continuum which manifests as self, universe, and the anomalous symmetrical continuum between them.

For consciousness appears to be aware of many objects, but none of them can firmly be considered consciousness. And consciousness doesn’t seem to possess the ability to look upon itself, and if it has, how will we know?

“How will we know?”, again, through sense. Truth makes sense. That’s how we can know anything, and there is no other way that anything has ever known anything. Knowledge is nothing but an agreement of multiple sense-making channels which convinces or fails to convince the executive senses (self) to internalize that agreement.

We become aware of the existence of other objects, physical or mental, by a perception of them. However, we claim such a thing as consciousness exist, without having any perception of such a phenomena;

If it helps, don’t think of consciousness as something that exists, but something that insists. Existence is a subset of insistence. We are a mind in a brain, but the only way we know what a brain is and how it might work are through the mind. It’s a Mobius loop of involuted, self-referential, redundantly redundant ontology (see also).

for we can not perceive consciousness physically nor mentally.

This is the trap of disorientation. It is overthinking it to try to perceive perception. Sense is the bottom layer, there is no description level beyond that as consciousness contains description itself. It is to say ‘I can’t move my arm because I can’t perceive how exactly I do that’. Right. That’s because it’s actually your arm. You just move it directly. No mechanism is required subjectively for you to move it – it’s like The Force…”reeach out with your feelings Luke”.

how can we claim to know the information we are receiving is true?

We don’t have to. We can say with absolute certainty that is seems true, and that is the epistemological standard for subjectivity, because subjectivity is not an object. It doesn’t work that way. Fact is actually a type of fiction, and fiction is the only fact (ie, existence is a function of perspective, which is a function of detection and response).

My personal fix to this dilemma is to be rid of the concept of consciousness completely.

This is the same solution offered by Daniel Dennett and others as well. It’s sort of setting yourself on fire to make it easier to find wood for the fireplace. How does one have a “personal fix” to “dilemmas” without being conscious?

This, however, would require some alteration to one’s model of reality, particularly a will caused solely by the brain. For we would no longer be able to claim we were in control of our bodies unless when we use the term “we” or “I”, we are referring to our brain.

Not so fast. My interpretation requires a bit more alteration to one’s (now nonexistent?) model of reality. Just because the mind and the brain are the same thing doesn’t mean that the brain is real and the mind isn’t. We command our brain consciously, and our brain commands us as well. We can’t claim that we can no longer claim something if that which we disclaim is the ability to claim anything at all in the first place. We don’t have the power to deny our awareness. It is not an option.

It all comes back to the initial assumptions:

Our method for perceiving objects is to look upon them from the outside of them, though granted we may perceive the innards of an object, but even then we are outside the innards looking upon them.

So far so good…

However, for ourselves, we appear to be an object inside our bodies

No, non, nein, nay, negative. We have no appearance inside our bodies. We appear to be looking outside of our body, to feel things inside of our bodies with special personal significance that seems close to us, but at no time do we appear to ourselves natively as an object. We can embody objects or characters, or we could try to objectify who we are with terms like soul or essence, but ultimately we are not even that. We are the subject. We insist through time, but do not exist across space. Unsettling, yes, but this is how reality works. If you had to make the universe from scratch, you could not leave this most important feature out – how it feels to participate in a world, how narrative experiences work.

looking outwards at phenomena. This is not only the case for physical phenomena, but also for mental phenomena; for when we utilize the mechanics of imagination, we still appear to be an internal object looking upon some external phenomena (inside ourselves)

Same for dreams and imagination. We aren’t an internal object until we try to label ourselves as such. This is the ‘elephant in every room‘ phenomenon. All you have to do is understand that sense is what allows us to look through the mirror rather than look at just the silvered glass. It allows our subjectivity to extend through matter on many different scales simultaneously, providing discrete access with selective attention even as it condenses all of the meaning in a generalized presentation (I call a perceptual inertial frame, or you might say niche or world).

Once you see how this extension might work, from the figurative through the literal to the figurative, you can perhaps see how the literal and figurative nature of things can only be considered qualities of perception or qualia. What is solid rock for a human being is like a thin fog for a flying neutrino (if there even is such a thing). In the same way, our human thoughts and experiences may seem like evanescent puffs of nothingness fading through ‘time’, on some more inclusive inertial frame may seem like concrete crystalline towers of juicy, aromatic human suffering and joy. Musical monuments of lives being lived in visible 3-D terrain.

Consciousness is a real as a brick or a donkey’s ears. It’s also more than real and less than real, in its super-signifying projections of heroic perfection and fantastic delusions. The contents aren’t always consistent with every other inertial frame we live through. Not everything makes sense on every level. Some shows are just for us personally, and have no value for others or the world at large. Some shows are unreal but we can make them more substantial over time with attention and effort.

The Third Eve

Who we are becoming.

Shé Art

The Art of Shé D'Montford

Astro Butterfly

Transform your life with Astrology

Be Inspired..!!

Listen to your inner self..it has all the answers..

Rain Coast Review

Thoughts on life... by Donald B. Wilson

Perfect Chaos

Steven Colborne's Philosophical Theology Blog

Amecylia

Multimedia Project: Mettā Programming DNA

SHINE OF A LUCID BEING

Astral Lucid Music - Philosophy On Life, The Universe And Everything...

Rationalising The Universe

one post at a time

Conscience and Consciousness

Academic Philosophy for a General Audience

yhousenyc.wordpress.com/

Exploring the Origins and Nature of Awareness

DNA OF GOD

BRAINSTORM- An Evolving and propitious Synergy Mode~!

Musings and Thoughts on the Universe, Personal Development and Current Topics

Copyright © 2016 by JAMES MICHAEL J. LOVELL, MUSINGS AND THOUGHTS ON THE UNIVERSE, PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT TOPICS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. UNAUTHORIZED USE AND/OR DUPLICATION OF THIS MATERIAL WITHOUT EXPRESS AND WRITTEN PERMISSION FROM THIS SITE’S AUTHOR AND/OR OWNER IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Paul's Bench

Ruminations on philosophy, psychology, life

This is not Yet-Another-Paradox, This is just How-Things-Really-Are...

For all dangerous minds, your own, or ours, but not the tv shows'... ... ... ... ... ... ... How to hack human consciousness, How to defend against human-hackers, and anything in between... ... ... ... ... ...this may be regarded as a sort of dialogue for peace and plenty for a hungry planet, with no one left behind, ever... ... ... ... please note: It may behoove you more to try to prove to yourselves how we may really be a time-traveler, than to try to disprove it... ... ... ... ... ... ...Enjoy!

Creativity✒📃😍✌

“Don’t try to be different. Just be Creative. To be creative is different enough.”

Political Joint

A political blog centralized on current events

zumpoems

Zumwalt Poems Online