Home > Uncategorized > Zoe Drayson: The autonomy of the mental and the personal/subpersonal distinction

Zoe Drayson: The autonomy of the mental and the personal/subpersonal distinction

September 7, 2012 Leave a comment Go to comments

“I listen to lots of audio and try to package some of it for mass consumption on tumblr.  I heard something I thought was really interesting today, but that I thought would NOT have mass appeal (the speaker was also… er… well, she was a good academic!).  But I thought you would find it interesting.

It was about several different ways to consider “levels” (what I’ve often called “levels of complexity”).  The context: a talk from a conference on the Personal vs Subpersonal distinction made by Dennett.

Here are some types of levels as I remember them:

  1. Whole and Parts… somewhat self-explanatory
  2. Functional Definition and Realization.  So a mind might be functionally defined by what it does.  And the “lower level” brain state is a Realization of that Mind.
  3. Simplification… a SubPerson (at a lower level) is similar to a Person (higher level), only with some simplification to avoid infinite regress (eventually arriving at purely mechanistic processes).
  4. Access.  The Person (higher level) only has access to a subset of what the SubPerson has access to (Thus one of my subpersons might be aware of how my visual attention is focussed, while “I” am not, etc).

That’s from memory, so I hope I did the speaker justice (her name was Zoey Dreyson I think).

None of these quite matches what I think of as levels of complexity.  I’d say my criteria for “qualifying as a new level” are higher than these.  She almost hit it at one point when she suggested Water can be liquid, while H20 cannot… this might be an archetypal level switch for me.

In case you’re interested, here’s the website and the audio.  Love to hear what you think, no rush of course.

Chris aka memeengine”

Hi Chris,

Thanks, yes interesting lecture. Here’s some notes and then I’ll throw in my comments:

  • personal: mental states as functional roles (“Roles”)
  • subpersonal: brain states that realize these roles in humans (“Realizers”)

‘autonomy of the mental’ in this philosophical context = ontological autonomy

nonreductive physicalism

cognitive science methodology: explain capacities of cog systems in terms of interacting cog subsystems (like car = sum of interacting car parts). Homuncular analysis-decomposition. Modularized cognition to sub, and sub-sub levels without regress.

in cog sci, whole person = person qua cognitive system

under the cog sci view, sub-personal levels or parts are vehicles for cognitive content, i.e. functionally individuated physical states bearing content. Therefore cognitive subsystems = sub-persons

1978 Steve Stitch labeled these instead of personal and sub-personal as

  • doxastic states
  • sub-doxastic states

[doxastic logic, like Bp & p to me seems to me an extremely narrow approach to a particular aspect of cognitive consciousness. I think that taking these kinds of programmatic structural views of belief and truth really turn the picture of consciousness upside down and assume binary systems as fundamental when there is no hint that such systems generate fluid wholes without an interpreter]

normative vs non-normative
cognitive whole vs cog parts

sub person level is further divided as being

  • accessible to persons
  • accessible to sub-persons

in role/realizer relation, higher & lower level properties related by realization relation – instantiated in same individual, share causal power

in the whole/parts relation, higher & lower level properties have different causal powers, instantiated in different individuals. Mereological. Composition. Water has liquidity and wetness that hydrogen and oxygen molecules don’t have.

  • Functionalist school in phil of mind – personal level states defined by their functional role.
  • cognitive science methodology – personal level capacities are explained by functional analysis.

functionalist metaphysics vs computationalist psychology

Lycan: homuncular functionalism – metaphysics inspired by cog sci methodology

role-realizer/part-whole conflation: who says what realization is? science or metaphysics?

some views claim realization implicit in decomposition [I would call this emergentism]

flat vs dimensioned realization. Science says realizers highly compex property. hardness of a diamond [emergent property]

levels: mereological and realization, supervenience, gnomic? ‘bridge laws’? structures all comport? not necessarily

Conclusion: What is important is to define the nature of realization relation. Who gets to do that? Seems to come down to metaphysical preferences.

Listening to this lecture really underscores for me how different the approach of multisense realism is to anything that is being discussed academically. To my mind, the role/realizer and part/whole relations are analogous to the character in a story – say Alice is trying to describe herself in terms of being composed of either the grammatical structure in the sentences of the story from which she emerges, or whether she is composed of the bleached and pressed wood pulp and ink that are considered page parts of the whole book.

Both approaches are wrong in exactly the opposite way. It is the same with idealism and materialism in general. Nothing means anything without perception and participation to begin with. There is, to my way of thinking, zero possibility of perception or participation experiences emerging from either

  • Inked pages in a book (physical parts in a mereological relation realizing the emergent property of the whole)
  • Words from the English language in a specific sequence (roles functioning at the personal level being realized by optical character forms configured at the sub-personal level)

The approach that is not even considered is that both the physically privileged page-book mereology and the logically privileged typesetting-linguistic mereology are related to each other only through an agent of perception-participation. This is the multisense realism view. Neither the philosophical functionalist nor the cognitive science computationalist sense of the personal and sub-personal relation can justify the existence of the relation itself. That’s because they leave out perception and participation entirely. It objectifies personal subjects and then pseudo-subjectifies objects as sub-persons without ever anchoring any of it in any kind of experiential realism. The thing that we care about is ignored completely. The hard problem is painted over with a choice of two flavors of the easy problem.

The only way around this, I’m afraid, is through it. Begin with the reality of Alice as the given. We don’t have to believe that she is anything more than a character or that her life is anything other than a story, but if the character and story were really the ground of being for Alice, then the book of pages (brain hardware) and the language typed through those pages (cognitive software) both make sense as ways of stabilizing, controlling, and reproducing aspects of the story. The book is what makes Alice in Wonderland a publicly accessible artifact and the words are what mediate from the public spatial sense to the private temporal sense. The private motive, in turn, to open the book, read the words, and imagine the characters and scenes in the story are what bind the symbols to the private sense experience. Body needs the book, mind needs the words, but story needs the willing self.

What this means is that all of the levels discussed in the lecture are not personal or sub-personal at all, but rather impersonal (surface-topological) and impersonal (syntactic-depth). I propose a whole other half of this picture of consciousness of which, to paraphrase Wittgenstein, we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent. We can however, listen.

We cannot speak about the personal, but we can know what it is to be a person. We can realize ourselves directly, as an autonomous presence without converting ourselves into an external appearance or function. We can let human experience be human experience, and nothing less. The psyche, to continue with the Alice in Wonderland metaphor, has a protagonist – an Alice. It has other characters too, and themes, and a plot, etc…or does it? Does it literally ‘have a plot’, or are stories more of an experience with multiple frequency layers of events, memories, and expectations?

The story is nothing like either the words that relate them or the book that is the vehicle for the words. I can say ‘do you know Alice in Wonderland?’ and you can say yes, and describe some of the memorable scenes or quote lines or whatever – maybe you haven’t even read the book. The many forms that the story has been enacted, plays, cartoons, satire, songs, etc are all neither a part of the story or not a part of the story. The experience, the consciousness is orthogonal to both the physical formations and logical information associated with them. Of course, I am being absolutely literal here. Multisense realism is the idea that realism arises entirely from the orthogonality or perpendicular juxtaposition of private facing perception and public facing participation.

Once we can fully appreciate the magnitude of the shift that this model presents, going all the way up and down the microcosm-macrocosm, physics and phenomenology, we can perhaps expect to apply the orthogonality completely with confidence. Every atom is a page. Every molecule is a book. Every molecule and atom are publications of quantum-electromagnetic literature. Not only is there also a story which is told through that literature filled book, but there is also an omnipotent protagonist-author trying to awaken.This is an entirely different kind of sub-personal level. In the case of human consciousness, these micro-monads are sub-selves. Not things or ideas but influences, feelings, drives and complex dialectical drive-negation-drives, meta-feelings, histories of thought, interminable arguments…psychology, sociology.

This is what can’t be located by a functionalist or computationalist approach because they try to build a self from a bottom-up nothingness rather than a top-down everythingness. It’s not a new idea, but the application of the Absolute (Totality, Singularity, Supreme Monad, Ein Sof, Tao, Om, etc..) to physics in a literal way I think is actually necessary and feasible. From information science we can approach it as the essence of non-repeatability, or what I call solitropy. Start from there. From physics we can approach the cosmology as a Big Diffraction rather than a Big Bang. Recognize that spacetime makes more sense as a virtual incursion into a singularity of mass-energy than an as an explosion of mass-energy into a spacetime plenum which doesn’t exist yet.

Advertisements
  1. September 10, 2012 at 1:08 am

    Craig (I think?) Nothing means anything without perception and participation…

    Joe: Action gains meaning from identity without perception and participation. With identity, there is something upon which action can act. : )

    • September 10, 2012 at 10:41 pm

      Identity is nothing but the perceptual presentation of continuity within perceptual continuities. Identity is sense making sense of sense.

      • September 11, 2012 at 12:49 am

        Are we in perceptual continuities, or of them?

      • September 11, 2012 at 3:20 am

        Yes 🙂

      • September 11, 2012 at 1:32 pm

        Craig: Yes

        Joe: This is your second and third tautology. Consciousness as awareness of awareness was your first. Perceptual presentation of continuity within perceptual continuities is your second. Making sense of sense is your third.

        Kant, Frege, and Wittgenstein, and most others, all agree that tautologies are devoid of meaning.

        Unless you are able to correct your use of tautologies, your model is empty. I completely understand, from my own experience, how difficult it is to acknowledge and then recover from one’s mistakes.

        I don’t always agree with what you have written (sometimes I do to some extent). We are all entitled to our own beliefs and creative freedom. But, if you are to be taken seriously (and another jcs-online member noted the problem, so its not just me) you will have to address this issue. Otherwise, your creation is to be relegated to the dust bowl of history, along with so many other unsuccessful creative persons. And of course, IMnot-soHO.

        Get drunk. Man up. Fix the problem if you are able.

      • September 11, 2012 at 2:21 pm

        Consciousness as an awareness of awareness is not a tautology. It is the same as saying that an image is visual grouping of visual groupings. I am specifying that terms like consciousness, awareness, perception, feeling, and sense are all quasi-interchangeable references to the quasi-spectrum of phenomenology.

        The same goes for my nested usages of perception and sense. That is the nature of all of phenomenology – a self-bootstrapping meta-juxtaposition…of what? Experience. Detections and participations. They are the same thing in one sense, but they define each other in another. This isn’t tautology, this is the absolute root of cosmos and psyche.

        “Unless you are able to correct your use of tautologies, your model is empty. I ”

        Unless you stop giving me ultimatums, I will assume your criticism is rooted in ego and emotion rather than reason and open minded skepticism.

        “But, if you are to be taken seriously (and another jcs-online member noted the problem, so its not just me) you will have to address this issue.”

        It’s not uncommon to get this kind of criticism when you present a view that is new. I understand that it is unsettling and provocative, inflammatory, etc. There’s not much I can do about how other people interpret what I am saying. I am always happy to explain and answer questions, but I see no reason to be concerned in any way by other people’s emotional reactions and misunderstandings. You seem to get what I am saying to a fair extent. Some get it more. I have addressed the issue you remark on, but you seem to be clinging to it anyhow as some kind of evidence which equates unpopularity of new ideas with their untruth. As far as being relegated to the dust bowl of history, that is not up to me, and to be honest, I don’t particularly care. If people want to understand what consciousness actually is, I think that they can use parts of what I have written already to help them figure it out as I have, for myself. If we are going to look to the slow learners and the fearful, and to what history has seen fit to elevate, then we can kiss any chance of solving the hard problem goodbye. Fine with me. It won’t surprise me in the least.

      • September 11, 2012 at 3:21 pm

        If these are not tautologies, as you claim, it follows that you can tell me what is not sense. If sense is all there is, then there is nothing else. In the absence of something else, sense is not.

        In order to know what something is, you must know what it is not.

      • September 11, 2012 at 4:36 pm

        “In the absence of something else, sense is not. In order to know what something is, you must know what it is not.”

        Only if you must adhere to making sense. It is your statement that is a tautology. You are saying that sense must make sense in the way that you think it should, otherwise sense doesn’t make sense. It does make sense though, because sense includes its own presence on one level through its absence on another. That is what sense is and what it does.

      • September 11, 2012 at 3:23 pm

        Craig: I am always happy to explain and answer questions

        Joe: Are we in perceptual continuities, or of them. That is, “What is not sense?”

      • September 11, 2012 at 4:39 pm

        I use the “?” character to refer to what is not sense. It is ‘chance’, or that which has not been detected. What is hidden from one layer of sense or distorted by another.

      • September 11, 2012 at 3:28 pm

        Craig: t’s not uncommon to get this kind of criticism when you present a view that is new. I understand that it is unsettling and provocative, inflammatory, etc. There’s not much I can do about how other people interpret what I am saying. I am always happy to explain and answer questions, but I see no reason to be concerned in any way by other people’s emotional reactions and misunderstandings.

        Joe: This is an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy, and is not a reasoned response.

      • September 11, 2012 at 4:41 pm

        Not at all. Yours is the ad hominem attack. I am saying that it is perfectly reasonable and unsurprising that others would reject my ideas for unscientific reasons. Is it ad hominem for Galileo to say that it makes sense that the church would oppose him? How much more reasoned of a response could anyone provide?

      • September 11, 2012 at 3:34 pm

        Craig: Consciousness as an awareness of awareness is not a tautology. It is the same as saying that an image is visual grouping of visual groupings. I am specifying that terms like consciousness, awareness, perception, feeling, and sense are all quasi-interchangeable references to the quasi-spectrum of phenomenology.

        Joe: You fall back on using another tautology to say you are not using tautologies? That seems like the only move you have here.

        For example, you say that truth is the only thing that matters. I claimed, if you recall, that truth without anything else has no meaning.

        Where’s the beef?

      • September 11, 2012 at 4:46 pm

        “You fall back on using another tautology to say you are not using tautologies?”

        Not at all. Is it not clear how images are visual groupings of visual groupings?

        Once you understand that the fabric of the universe is experience itself, then any discussion of ultimate origins inevitably leads to non-wellfounded sets. See my post from today:
        http://s33light.org/post/31338986801

      • September 11, 2012 at 3:54 pm

        From wikipedia, Tautology:

        A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements that form an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that, by defining a dissimilar or synonymous term in terms of another self-referentially, the truth of the proposition or explanation cannot be disputed. Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable. It is a way of formulating a description such that it masquerades as an explanation when the real reason for the phenomena cannot be independently derived. A rhetorical tautology should not be confused with a tautology in propositional logic, since the inherent meanings and subsequent conclusions in rhetorical and logical tautologies are very different. Thus rhetorical tautologies guarantee the truth of the proposition, where the expectation (premise) was for a falsifiable construct, any conclusion is a non sequitur (logic).

      • September 11, 2012 at 4:51 pm

        Tautology itself has to exist within a context of sensemaking though, which is the context which we are addressing. We have to first be able to make some kind of sense of something before we can determine whether that sense agrees with other propositions we have made sense of. You can’t get underneath sense – it is absolute and primordial.

      • September 11, 2012 at 4:14 pm

        Craig: Consciousness as an awareness of awareness is not a tautology. It is the same as saying that an image is visual grouping of visual groupings. I am specifying that terms like consciousness, awareness, perception, feeling, and sense are all quasi-interchangeable references to the quasi-spectrum of phenomenology.

        Joe: I’ll tell you what. I will contact those who also claimed you were using tautologies, and see what they have to say about your response. O.K?

      • September 11, 2012 at 4:54 pm

        What other people think of me is none of my business – Eleanor Roosevelt

        Everybody gets the Timothy Leary that they deserve – Timothy Leary

      • September 11, 2012 at 4:20 pm

        In case you don’t believe others have made the same claim, here is a copy of an e-mail I received;

        Hi, Joseph Edward,
        I will reply to your letters tomorrow since now I am very exhausted and have other work to do. Meanwhile, you may ponder over Craig Weinberg’s definition of consciousness: “Consciousness is an awareness of awareness.”

        What a charming tautology, isn’t it?

      • September 11, 2012 at 4:55 pm

        What a charming corroboration of misinterpretation.

      • September 11, 2012 at 6:00 pm

        Craig: Truth is all that matters.

        Joe: Again, how do you decide what is true?

        Again, truth by itself is a tautology, leads to emptiness. No joy, and there is no joy in this Mudville. And love, I can’t feel it. Are you feeling fear or anger.? Wait, no. You are feeling nothing.

        Craig: I see no reason to be concerned in any way by other people’s emotional reactions and misunderstandings… to be honest, I don’t particularly care.

        Joe: Now that makes sense. : )

        It seems to me you would want to be sure yours is not just a case of self-justification.You know, not true.

      • September 11, 2012 at 8:49 pm

        Why would truth be an empty tautology. The Earth revolves around the sun. Species evolve through natural selection. These truths are not tautological. They don’t need to generate joy to be true.

        “It seems to me you would want to be sure yours is not just a case of self-justification.You know, not true.”

        It seems to me that you would give me the benefit of the doubt that I have already done that. The thing is, I never hear anyone give me any good reason why my model doesn’t work – only reasons why I should change my approach to presenting it, or that they think that ideas like mine have been tried already. When pressed though, it all seems like all of these criticisms are really empty and this encourages me, since if there were any real problem with my hypothesis, someone would be able to spell it out in a meaningful way.

      • September 11, 2012 at 6:39 pm

        Craig: Consciousness as an awareness of awareness is not a tautology.

        Joe: A tautology is a statement which is true no matter what.

        Under what condition is your statement, “consciousness is awareness of awareness”, not true?

        It is not true when consciousness is not awareness of awareness? How could we ever know when consciousness is not awareness of awareness?

        How would one verify that your statement is true?

        Can that statement be false in any other way? Can your statement ever be false?

      • September 11, 2012 at 8:55 pm

        Sure it could be false. Consciousness could be a monolithic computation or spontaneous reflexes in isolation, or anything. I am asserting that the idea of a nested, autopoietic relation is at the heart of what consciousness is.

      • September 11, 2012 at 7:02 pm

        Joe: “In the absence of something else, sense is not. In order to know what something is, you must know what it is not.”

        Craig: Only if you must adhere to making sense.

        Joe: Let’s say I don’t want to make sense. How would I do that? In order to know what something is, I don’t have to know what it is not. That is non-sense. In order to know what is aware, I don’t have to know what is not aware. Now that does not make sense.

        Craig: It is your statement that is a tautology. You are saying that sense must make sense in the way that you think it should, otherwise sense doesn’t make sense.

        Joe: All I am saying is that in order to know what sense is, you must know what is non-sense. I do not make circular statements like, “… sense must make sense..”.

        In order to know what gold is, you must know what is not gold.

        It does make sense though, because sense includes its own presence on one level through its absence on another. That is what sense is and what it does.

      • September 11, 2012 at 9:01 pm

        “Now that does not make sense. ”

        That’s what I’m saying. There is no getting around sense. It is at the very bottom and top of all possibilities.

        “in order to know what sense is, you must know what is non-sense. I do not make circular statements like, “… sense must make sense..”

        To say that you need to know what non-sense is to know what sense is means that ‘sense must make sense’ already. The possibility of non-anything presupposes sense. That’s what sense does is let us discern differences using concepts like ‘not’. Without sense to begin with, there is no ‘not’.

      • September 11, 2012 at 7:08 pm

        Joe: If these are not tautologies, as you claim, it follows that you can tell me what is not sense.

        Craig: sense includes its own presence on one level through its absence on another. That is what sense is and what it does.

        Joe: You are not telling me how I can determine if something is not sense. How do I decide if sense is absent on this other level you speak about?

      • September 11, 2012 at 9:03 pm

        There is nothing that isn’t sense, but using sense you can project the abstraction of ‘that which has not been detected’ or something like ‘that which we can’t know if we can’t know’.

      • September 11, 2012 at 7:30 pm

        Craig: You can’t get underneath sense – it is absolute and primordial.

        Joe: You say that sense is all there is. You know this conceptually, but not experientially. You do not know what it feels like to make sense, because you do not know what it feels like to not make sense. Since sense is absolute, you could never know it from a reference point outside of sense. Such a point does not exist. There is no Multisense, this sense and that sense, my sense and your sense, there is only one reference point, sense.

        There is only this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-to-anyone-else sense.

      • September 11, 2012 at 9:08 pm

        “You do not know what it feels like to make sense, because you do not know what it feels like to not make sense. ”

        No, that’s the thing about sense, it is translucent. It is made of hints about itself. Logically we shouldn’t know how to make sense of anything, but because sense is primordial unity, it isn’t possible for anything to live in a universe which doesn’t make sense or contain sensation.

        “There is only this pure, unseen, unheard, unobserved, and therefore unknown-to-anyone-else sense.”

        No, you have it exactly wrong. Sense is the impure, seen, heard, observed, and therefore known to everyone everywhere sense. Sense is the most ordinary thing in our universe.

      • September 12, 2012 at 1:52 pm

        Craig: The thing is, I never hear anyone give me any good reason why my model doesn’t work

        Joe: You are not listening.

        1) All energy contains consciousness. A recognition of this simple statement would indeed change your world. Your model literally does not work because it lacks the energy required to actually do work. Consciousness is the infinitely creative source of the universe, and all that is in it. Consciousness works, it creates.

        2) Truth is NOT all that matters. By itself, it is an empty, meaningless concept.

        It is unfortunate that your obviously original thinking is bound up.

        Few people have recognized that consciousness is fundamental, as you seem to have done. You call it “sense”, I have no problem with that. But if you want to live and die hung up on the delusion that consciousness has nothing to do with energy, just like Leon Maurer (http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/81/19), for example, that is of course your free and deliberate choice.

        Do you, Craig, actually believe that you have single-handedly created a true TOE, and that you have solved the Hard Problem of consciousness? If so, then stand in line, and it is a long one.

        There is only one way to learn what consciousness is: by studying and exploring your own awareness, by changing the focus of your attention and using your consciousness in as many ways as possible.

        Craig: if there were any real problem with my hypothesis, someone would be able to spell it out in a meaningful way.

        Joe: P-L-A-S-T-I-C . No, Ooops, I meant E-N-E-R-G-Y

        Joe ( Please remain calm.) < : )

      • September 12, 2012 at 2:34 pm

        From my view, you aren’t listening. The idea that energy contains consciousness would be true if energy was a concretely real entity. What you are telling me is New Age cosmology 101. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just that I have been well aware of this trope for probably 30 years. What I am suggesting to you is that it is not energy that contains consciousness, but consciousness which contains everything, including matter, the sense interaction of which we call energy. Your model has it backwards (as does everyone else’s…remember, from my perspective, my model is completely new as far as I know). Your description is confused because you say on one hand that consciousness works and creates the universe (which is implicit in my model) but then bring ‘energy’ into it out of nowhere. Energy doesn’t contain consciousness, energy is nothing BUT consciousness.

        2) Truth is all that matters to ME in this context of understanding consciousness. I never said that truth = all that can possibly be significant. Likewise I have never said that I have done anything single handedly. I present a possible proto-TOE that I have not seen elsewhere, that is all. I don’t understand why you claiming that I don’t factor in energy. Have you seen this? https://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/aslide4.jpg

        I show there, in a very straightforward way, exactly how energy relates to the multisense realism cosmology. As you can see, it is the antithesis of time, space, and matter, and the underlap between sense and motive.

      • September 12, 2012 at 4:26 pm

        Craig: From my view, you aren’t listening.

        Joe: O.K.

        Craig: The idea that energy contains consciousness would be true if energy was a concretely real entity.

        Joe: You seem to have a problem thinking something is real if it is not matter, i.e. concrete.

        Craig: What you are telling me is New Age cosmology 101.

        Joe: New Age cosmology is Old Age cosmology in new clothing. It is written in Eastern cosmology, in the works of Plato, in ancient myths and practices…

        Craig: Nothing wrong with that

        Joe: O.K. good to know.

        Craig: What I am suggesting to you is that it is not energy that contains consciousness, but consciousness which contains everything, including matter, the sense interaction of which we call energy.

        Joe: How did you come to believe that? My beliefs are based on my experience and my feelings. These are what I factually and intuitively know.

        Craig: Your model has it backwards (as does everyone else’s…remember, from my perspective, my model is completely new as far as I know).

        Joe: Do you ever listen to what you are saying? This is the everyone else is wrong but I am right argument. It sounds like the liar liar pants on fire argument.

        Craig: Your description is confused because you say on one hand that consciousness works and creates the universe (which is implicit in my model)

        Joe: Let me clarify: it is the individual (a Gestalt of consciousness) that create his or her own universe.

        Craig: …but then bring ‘energy’ into it out of nowhere.

        Joe: I thought I made it clear that energy is the inside vitality of the inner universe, truly nowhere, no time and no space.

        Craig: Energy doesn’t contain consciousness, energy is nothing BUT consciousness.

        Joe: You still have not said (or I have not read) how you have come to believe that, and what evidence you give? Why should anyone believe you?

        Craig: 2) Truth is all that matters to ME in this context of understanding consciousness. I never said that truth = all that can possibly be significant.

        Joe: You did not say that the first time. So, this is a new clarification then?

        previously Craig wrote: Ultimately the truth is the only thing that matters.

        Craig: Likewise I have never said that I have done anything single handedly.

        Joe: First, in what I have read of yours, you do not cite references for your ideas, and second, you did say, “my model is completely new as far as I know”. Both have lead me to infer that your work is all you.

        Craig: I present a possible proto-TOE that I have not seen elsewhere, that is all.

        Joe: Like I said, its all you, unless you state otherwise.

        Craig: I don’t understand why you claiming that I don’t factor in energy. Have you seen this? https://multisenserealism.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/aslide4.jpg

        Joe: I’ll take a look.

        Craig: I show there, in a very straightforward way, exactly how energy relates to the multisense realism cosmology. As you can see, it is the antithesis of time, space, and matter, and the underlap between sense and motive.

        Joe: So O.K. just get me a copy of that evidentiary support, and O.K. ‘Peace’ (in the New Age way) index and middle finger forming a V.

      • September 12, 2012 at 6:43 pm

        “Joe: You seem to have a problem thinking something is real if it is not matter, i.e. concrete.”

        I don’t though. I see perception and participation as being concretely real, and matter as the perception of the exterior side of perception, but energy is not perceived, it is inferred. The effects of energy on matter are concretely real, but there is no actual energy there as an independent entity which can make changes to things other than matter. Energy is nothing but what matter does to matter.

        “Joe: New Age cosmology is Old Age cosmology in new clothing.”

        Yes, that was my point, it isn’t some new concept that I might not have heard of yet. I didn’t read classical philosophy, so to me, my access to it has been through familiarity with New Age cosmologies.

        “Joe: How did you come to believe that? My beliefs are based on my experience and my feelings. These are what I factually and intuitively know.”

        I’m confused. Does that relate to energy?

        “Joe: Do you ever listen to what you are saying? This is the everyone else is wrong but I am right argument. It sounds like the liar liar pants on fire argument.”

        It’s not my argument, it’s just my experience. I have seen other theories which overlap with mine in different ways, but still the underlap is significant. If I didn’t think everyone else was wrong I wouldn’t be bothering with trying to write about this stuff.

        “Joe: Let me clarify: it is the individual (a Gestalt of consciousness) that create his or her own universe.”

        We co-create our experience and contribute to the experience of others in the universe, but it’s ultimately pathological to put the idea of solipsistic omnipotence into practice.

        “Joe: I thought I made it clear that energy is the inside vitality of the inner universe, truly nowhere, no time and no space.”

        I don’t use the term that way, because 1) It mistreats a perfectly good term that serves physics and engineering 2) It is indistinguishable from other equally vague terms like spirit, elan vital, chi, prana, ‘light’, mana, and The Force. 3) All of those terms imply a distant mystery or pseudo-substance. My contrast, my approach is to talk about what it actually is without implying some special glowing phenomenon. What you call ‘energy’ I call efferent phenomenology or motive. The active and extroverted mode of sense.

        “Joe: You still have not said (or I have not read) how you have come to believe that, and what evidence you give? Why should anyone believe you?”

        Nobody should believe me. They should see for themselves. I’m not making a claim that requires evidence, I am taking the most fundamental incontrovertible descriptions of the universe and consciousness and putting them all together in a way that seems to make perfect sense. If it doesn’t make sense, all anyone has to do is point out what it is that doesn’t work and why.

        “Joe: You did not say that the first time. So, this is a new clarification then?”

        It sounds like it’s a clarification that is new to you, yes.

        “Joe: First, in what I have read of yours, you do not cite references for your ideas, and second, you did say, “my model is completely new as far as I know”. Both have lead me to infer that your work is all you.”

        I don’t infer that anyone’s work is all theirs. “I stand on the shoulders of giants” (even if sometimes I didn’t know I was standing on them). I think that I have used ideas that have been circulating in the world for a long time, many of which I stumbled on after “discovering” them on my own, but as far as I know, the overall picture that I am trying to describe is not something that I have seen elsewhere.

        “Joe: Like I said, its all you, unless you state otherwise.”

        I’m not plagiarizing anyone else, if that’s what you mean. I am influenced by many ideas, most of which have been expressed by many philosophers etc also, but I am trying to make a new contribution as well. Maybe this is where the ‘all that matters is the truth’ confusion came in. I just don’t see how any of these issues have anything to do with my ideas. I don’t care where they come from. Ideas about he nature of the universe don’t have a pedigree as far as I’m concerned.

        “Joe: So O.K. just get me a copy of that evidentiary support, and O.K. ‘Peace’ (in the New Age way) index and middle finger forming a V.”

        You already have the original evidentiary support, you just aren’t looking at it. Everything that I am saying can be verified by anyone who chooses to examine the nature of their own experience and common scientific knowledge. Consciousness requires no evidence, because it is only to consciousness itself that any evidence can be proved.

      • September 12, 2012 at 8:44 pm

        “Joe: You seem to have a problem thinking something is real if it is not matter, i.e. concrete.”

        I don’t though. I see perception and participation as being concretely real, and matter as the perception of the exterior side of perception, but energy is not perceived, it is inferred.

        Joe: Is sense perceived? or is it inferred?

      • September 12, 2012 at 9:14 pm

        Perception and inference are both types of sense. Sense isn’t a type of anything else. Inference supervenes on perception which supervenes on sense. Sense is the bottom (or top, least, most, etc. superlative by definition in any…sense).

      • September 12, 2012 at 10:57 pm

        Craig: Perception and inference are both types of sense. Sense isn’t a type of anything else. Inference supervenes on perception which supervenes on sense. Sense is the bottom (or top, least, most, etc. superlative by definition in any…sense).

        Joe: If you did not perceive sense, that is, you didn’t sense it, and if you did not infer sense, that is, you didn’t make sense of it, then how did you come to know, be aware of, or create the concept of sense?

      • September 12, 2012 at 11:45 pm

        Perceiving is the same thing as sensing, except that perception has a connotation of sensing something outside of yourself, so I use it that way in this context. Likewise, inferring is the same thing as sensing, except that inference has a connotation of making sense of something cognitively. Sense is implicit in both terms.

      • September 13, 2012 at 1:29 am

        Craig: Inference supervenes on perception

        Joe: There is much experimental evidence that contradicts that claim. It is often the case that you see or hear etc, what you expect to see or hear. Otherwise, there is initial confusion about what you are seeing and hearing.

        Craig: Perception and inference are both types of sense.

        Joe: How is it that there are types of sense? What is the nature of sense such that it has types?

      • September 13, 2012 at 4:13 am

        It’s true that in practice any given perception is conditioned by expectation, but they are expectations derived from previous perception. In an ultimate sense, you can’t infer something that you have no way to perceive. Take color for example. What do you infer that the color of radio waves or X-Rays would ‘actually’ be? We agree I hope that this can’t be done. What we can do though is infer what a combination of what a tree would look like with a green trunk and pink leaves, even though we may not have seen a tree like that.

        “How is it that there are types of sense? What is the nature of sense such that it has types?”

        I like the word sense specifically because it can be used to mean ‘type’ (“in what sense?” = of what category or type of context should I fit this in?). The nature of sense is that it is an experience of meta-discernment. Types arise from the discernment of the meta aspect. Eventually you get channels of sense qualia, visual, olfactory, etc.. Mind is a meta-perceptual qualia. Another channel of sense which can discern and transcend other channels of sense.

      • September 13, 2012 at 3:28 am

        How would you characterize the experience of sensing sense?

        So, for example, is there anything you can sense about sense that would help you explain how there can be two types of sense?

        Why does the experience of sensing sense lead you to believe that sense is fundamental?

        When one senses sense, how can they be sure they sensed the whole sense, not just a part of sense? When you objectively perceive a wooden chair, you do not perceive the cells of the wood, or the molecules. Why would you be confident that when you sense sense, you have sensed all there is to sense about sense?

        Why would one say that they sense sense, instead of just say they sense?

      • September 13, 2012 at 4:33 am

        “How would you characterize the experience of sensing sense? ”

        All experiences are nothing but experiences of sensing sense. You experience these words as a visual pattern in one sense. You also experience them as non-visual cognitive expressions. Through an experience of accessing knowledge and exercising reason, you can infer that the words are made of the English alphabet, or pixels on a screen, or micorelectronic computations, or neurological stimulation, etc. Any level of description you focus on can potentially enhance or alter another. This is consciousness.

        “is there anything you can sense about sense that would help you explain how there can be two types of sense? ”

        Yes, sense is discernment. Nothing vs something. In vs out. There are more and more types of types of types of sense. That’s what the universe is – a machine that creates significance (sense accumulation through time) and excretes entropy (material attenuation across space).

        “Why does the experience of sensing sense lead you to believe that sense is fundamental? ”

        Because I think it is the only possible experience that can’t be explained by any other means, and that every possible experience can be described entirely as a sense experience.

        “When one senses sense, how can they be sure they sensed the whole sense, not just a part of sense?”

        It’s always only a part of it. You make it sound like some magical event though. Picking your nose is the sensing of sensing of sensing of sense. It’s all the same thing. It’s just experience. Participation in a perceptual tableau. It has layers for us because we are very complex and layered. Newcomers to the universe.

        “When you objectively perceive a wooden chair, you do not perceive the cells of the wood, or the molecules.:

        You don’t perceive them with your eyes, you infer them with your knowledge of molecules. It’s a different kind of sense – cognitive qualia that you can use to enrich your experience of and control over the chair. Your mind amplifies your sense receptivity and motive projection.

        “Why would you be confident that when you sense sense, you have sensed all there is to sense about sense? ”

        Confidence is just another qualia. The more channels of sense that we can access which are in agreement, the more realism we experience and the more we can extend confidence about the sense we make of it. That is all there is. There is no certainty beyond the extentsion of experiential consensus.

        “Why would one say that they sense sense, instead of just say they sense?”

        Just sense. Or feel, see, know, think, figured it out, solved the problem, got to the point, etc.

      • September 13, 2012 at 12:54 pm

        Joe: Thank-you Craig. That was an entertaining diversion/ vacation from jcs-online. I have forwarded my final report on our Sept. vacation together to them.

        Joe (aka Otmar) : )

      • September 13, 2012 at 8:44 pm

        Hah! Cool, stealth-Otmar. See you there…

      • September 15, 2012 at 1:37 pm

        Craig: Consciousness as an awareness of awareness is not a tautology. It is the same as saying that an image is visual grouping of visual groupings.

        Joe: Isn’t it usually the case that we define things in terms of words we are more familiar with. I have a good idea of what you mean by “visual grouping”, but not very clear on “awareness”, or “consciousness”. “Awareness” and consciousness” are still the hard problem, and of which, “we don’t have a clue”.

        Craig: Identity is nothing but the perceptual presentation of continuity within perceptual continuities. Identity is sense making sense of sense.

        Joe: Do you think, that by embedding the hard problem “perceptual presentation”, the Cartesian Theatre, with “continuity” (the binding problem) you are defining “identity”?

      • September 15, 2012 at 4:39 pm

        ” Isn’t it usually the case that we define things in terms of words we are more familiar with”

        I think that when talking about consciousness, the best way to proceed is to take what is usually the case and ask what is the opposite. Nothing can be like consciousness and nothing can be unlike consciousness. There is nothing more familiar than awareness – it is familiarity itself.

        “I have a good idea of what you mean by “visual grouping”, but not very clear on “awareness”, or “consciousness””

        Instead of ‘visual’, substitute any sense. Now think of cognition and emotion as senses too. Awareness is the grouping of anything that can be detected or the detection of anything which can be grouped. They are the same thing. Sensation is the making of sense and sense-making is rich sensation.

        “Do you think, that by embedding the hard problem “perceptual presentation”, the Cartesian Theatre, with “continuity” (the binding problem) you are defining “identity”?”

        Multisense realism assumes the opposite of the Cartesian Theater. Perceptual presentation is not the hard problem, it is the soft solution. Binding is not necessary because perception is a window on the totality of experience, not a mechanism which produces an effect. I day that identity is a continuity of perceptions because that is all that it is. Experiences build significance through continuity, and identity plays off of significance.

      • September 15, 2012 at 3:39 pm

        Craig: The same goes for my nested usages of perception and sense. That is the nature of all of phenomenology – a self-bootstrapping meta-juxtaposition…of what?

        Joe: [Sense] nested within [phenomenological perception juxtaposed with objective realism], right?

        Craig: Experience.

        Physically our body has a stance in space and time. We can speak of primary and secondary experience. Let us call primary experience that which exists immediately in SENSE terms, in a moment of time -the contact of the body with the environment, what Block calls phenomenal consciousness. Secondary experience is information that comes through, say, reading, discussion, and so forth, access consciousness.

        The second kind of experience is largely symbolic. Reading about a war on a quiet sunny afternoon is not the same as being in the war. The map is not the territory, as Robert DeNiro says in Ronin.

        If, under conditions naturally safe in terms of primary experience, you become overwhelmed by unsafe signals from secondary experience -from reading or CNN – you often can show a lack of discrimination. You are not able to differentiate between the physically safe present situation, and the imagined, perhaps unsafe situation, calling forth the alarms of danger.

        The body mechanisms become highly disoriented. The signals to the body are very contradictory, so that after a while if such conditions continue, you can no longer tell if you are in actual danger or imagined danger.

        Craig: (from overview), Phenomenology and realism are not merely a dualism of separate or unrelated ‘substances’, they are the two opposite expressions of sense, and they are opposite in every conceivable way. What they share is their opposition to each other – their orthogonality, which reveals the sense that gives rise to their distinction, and to distinction itself.

        Joe:The experience of the body conflating phenomenological secondary experience with real primary experience seems to indicate that the two are not opposite in every conceivable way.

        Detections and participations. They are the same thing in one sense, but they define each other in another. This isn’t tautology, this is the absolute root of cosmos and psyche.

      • September 15, 2012 at 6:16 pm

        Joe: [Sense] nested within [phenomenological perception juxtaposed with objective realism], right?

        They are the same thing. All forms of sense (feeling, emotion, cognition, perception, awareness, consciousness) are the capacity to infer or embody juxtapositions.

        Craig: Experience.

        Physically our body has a stance in space and time.

        We can apply spatial measurements to our body, but time is an interior experience of expectation and memory. From the multisense realism perspective, neither space nor time are a plenum which anything can have a stance within. Spacetime is the expanding semiotic interface between private phenomenology and public realism (anti-phenomenology) as they diffract and refract into each other. Like the point of contact where the Ouroboros snake’s mouth gobbles its own tail.

        We can speak of primary and secondary experience. Let us call primary experience that which exists immediately in SENSE terms, in a moment of time -the contact of the body with the environment, what Block calls phenomenal consciousness. Secondary experience is information that comes through, say, reading, discussion, and so forth, access consciousness.

        My approach is radically different. I see the whole appearance of ‘information’ as a distant afterthought, having nothing to do with consciousness until we get to human cognition. I see that time does not occur in moments, that’s an abstraction. Experience warps and stretches phenomenal time like gravitational mass seems to warp spacetime. “Time flies when you’re having fun…” “It was the longest three hours of my life”… This is the true nature of time. All externalizations of time is a conversion to public space topology. It becomes clocking and calendaring.

        I would say throw out the primary secondary distinction completely. The reality of consciousness is a fugue of experiential influences and expectations on many figurative semi-levels. The body is perpetually in contact with the environment and our discussions and opinions shape and distort our perceptions at the sense level (for example, you see these squiggles as letters and words).

        The multisense view is that we can divide the picture in many ways, and they will all seem to make sense, but the most powerful and revolutionary way to model it is private phenomenology juxtaposed against public realism. Timespace and spacetime follow respectively as the private view of public realism and the inferred (depersonalized) public view of the self.

        The second kind of experience is largely symbolic. Reading about a war on a quiet sunny afternoon is not the same as being in the war. The map is not the territory, as Robert DeNiro says in Ronin.

        Yes, but symbolic experiences are just primary experiences on the cognitive level. The experiences which can be recovered through the cortex are subsidized not just by the physiology of the human body, but the protection of human society so that it is free to discover qualia of a more frivolous and fictional nature. The map is not the territory that we associate it with as map readers, but I propose that every map is also a territory in and of itself, as is every territory usable as a map by some other reader. It’s all multiplexed, intertwined, and specular. So yes, you can have an experience with symbolic content, but no experience is only symbolic and no symbol by itself is an experience.

        If, under conditions naturally safe in terms of primary experience, you become overwhelmed by unsafe signals from secondary experience -from reading or CNN – you often can show a lack of discrimination. You are not able to differentiate between the physically safe present situation, and the imagined, perhaps unsafe situation, calling forth the alarms of danger.

        The body mechanisms become highly disoriented. The signals to the body are very contradictory, so that after a while if such conditions continue, you can no longer tell if you are in actual danger or imagined danger.

        Human psychology and physiology are of course complex and their multiple layers are often in conflict. Media saturation can add confusion and alienation (I came up with a concept called Immediacracy to talk about how the meme-ification of all experiences onto uniform digital formats makes media invisible and blinding at the same time). I don’t know that the disorientation is unwarranted. Being part of a world that is remotely programmed by faceless autocracies may be a real enough danger to warrant alarm.

        Craig: (from overview), Phenomenology and realism are not merely a dualism of separate or unrelated ‘substances’, they are the two opposite expressions of sense, and they are opposite in every conceivable way. What they share is their opposition to each other – their orthogonality, which reveals the sense that gives rise to their distinction, and to distinction itself.

        Joe:The experience of the body conflating phenomenological secondary experience with real primary experience seems to indicate that the two are not opposite in every conceivable way.

        The publicly real body doesn’t conflate anything. It raises blood pressure, increases heartbeat, secretes cortisol, whatever, but it doesn’t care what your interpretation behind that is. This takes some time to really retrain your mind to disconnect all of the legacy assumptions of all previous models. It really requires starting from scratch and seeing your body as nothing and the world of the body as nothing but what appears in photographs or sculptures. There is no time out there, only difference sized bodies nested within each other. All time and animation comes from the other side, the experiential side. There is no way to overstate how huge of a change this is. You would just have to be interested enough in investigating it often. Slice the universe in half and put all things that can be expressed as spatial and public on one side, and all that can be experienced as private and temporal on the other. They are both primary and they are both secondary (although phenomenology which is returned to itself through the reflection of realism is a self-image rather than a self. Phenomneology can never truly be secondary in an absolute sense, but it is necessary for it to model itself that way).

      • September 15, 2012 at 5:37 pm

        Craig: Nothing can be like consciousness and nothing can be unlike consciousness. There is nothing more familiar than awareness – it is familiarity itself.

        Joe: How can nothing be like and unlike consciousness?

        Nothing is just the opposite of something, isn’t it? Or is it the opposite of sense?

        You say, “There is nothing….”. In what sense is there nothing?

        So I am confused.

      • September 15, 2012 at 6:28 pm

        “How can nothing be like and unlike consciousness?”

        Because like and unlike are conditions within consciousness. Consciousness is the outermost and innermost frame of all possibilities, so any thing that can exist, even in theory, supervenes completely on consciousness so that consciousness would be horribly constrained by comparison to any phenomenon within itself. At the same time, since every experience is made completely of experiences, you’d have to say that it is always the most common property. It is inescapable in all ways. (Not human consciousness of course – we can escape that, but the universe can’t escape being the universe.)

        “Nothing is just the opposite of something, isn’t it? Or is it the opposite of sense?

        You say, “There is nothing….”. In what sense is there nothing? ”

        I mean that there isn’t anything that can be conceived that is like consciousness except consciousness. It isn’t like anything else (nothing else). There is no substitute. “Joe, I’ll give you $1,000,000 to try this new imitation consciousness. It’s great, everyone will love you and think that you are a great guy having a great life. The only difference is that you will never experience anything ever again. Deal?”

      • September 16, 2012 at 3:07 am

        Craig: I mean that there isn’t anything that can be conceived that is like consciousness except consciousness.

        Joe: I do acknowledge that there are few in the academic area, and none on the forums, or in the journals, that have gotten as far as you in recognizing the primacy of consciousness. Very good. The trouble is that you are in the “Flatland” of consciousness. To you, consciousness is one-dimensional.

        Craig: “Joe, I’ll give you $1,000,000 to try this new imitation consciousness.

        Joe: Do you really have a million dollars to play with?

        Craig: It’s great, everyone will love you and think that you are a great guy having a great life.

        Joe: Everyone does love me, I am a great guy, and I am having a great life already.

        Craig: The only difference is that you will never experience anything ever again. Deal?”

        Joe: The state of consciousness, called consciousness of self, is what you would call imitation consciousness because to you, there is only the one dimension of consciousness, experience.

        There was a “time”, before time, in which I could not experience, and neither could you.

        As I mentioned, in the Meno, Socrates said the soul knows all there is to know. There is nothing hidden to it, nothing unknown. Yet knowing is not enough.

        You can KNOW yourself to be generous, but unless you DO something which displays generosity, you have nothing but a concept. Until concept becomes experience, all there is is speculation. The soul’s concepts are not objects unless you literally think them so. Yet it is the soul’s desire to turn concept into experience, to objectify concept. Right? So for example you say, “Now think of cognition and emotion as senses.”

        In the beginning, there was only one soul, conscious only of itself, for itself was all there was. The only thing for the one soul to know was that it was all there was, and there was nothing else. It could only know itself conceptually, not experientially. Why? There was no experiential knowledge to know. The one soul could not know what it felt like to experience, unless that which is not the one soul showed up.

        Please let me explain. The one thing that the one soul knew was that it was all there was, and there was nothing else. It could never know itself from a reference point outside of Itself. It could never experience anything. Such a Point for experience did not exist. Only one reference point existed, and that was the single point within.

        And there is your “imitation experience”.

        I’ve already got a million bucks, and don’t need any more. So, just send the check to my friends at Americares.

      • September 16, 2012 at 11:42 am

        “To you, consciousness is one-dimensional.”

        If you think that by MULTI-sense you think I mean one dimensional…or by ‘awareness of awareness’ I mean ‘there is only one kind of awareness’, then I’m not sure that my explaining to you what I mean is going to help. There are a lot of ways to define consciousness, but one dimensional is the least meaningful.

        “Do you really have a million dollars to play with? ”

        You’ll have to try my imitation consciousness to find out 🙂

        “consciousness of self, is what you would call imitation consciousness”

        No. Consciousness is what I call awareness of awareness. If I were totally engrossed in a movie I could be conscious of the movie but not of myself. Flow states are states of consciousness, not the state of being unconscious. What I mean by imitation consciousness is just what would be meant by any other kind of imitation substance – from a casual inspection from the outside, it appears to resemble the genuine article. My point was to show that this is absurd when applied to experience. You can’t almost have the capacity to experience. You can almost have the capacity to have a human experience, but not experience in general.

        “There was a “time”, before time, in which I could not experience, ”

        There would not have been an “I” “then”. I is always an experience.

        “It could only know itself conceptually, not experientially. ”

        Knowing is an experience. It doesn’t matter if what it is that you know, sense, detect, feel, etc is only yourself, you are still that experience – that stillness, stasis, insoluble solitude, solid solace, solid, strong, etc. It’s a phenomenological quality which inherently juxtaposes to the absence of that quality: receptivity, loneliness, isolation, weakness, nihilism, etc. Sol is soul. Sol is solar. Orienting, anchored. There is no ‘in the beginning’ since causality itself supervenes on time, on sequence and memory, sense of multiple experiences which can be ordered to lend significance to a ‘first cause’. Cause is not primary. Primary-ness prefigures cause.

        I agree that for an experience of realism then ‘that which is not the soul’ has to be diffracted out or reflected back upon itself, which is why this capacity to diffract and multiply (self-juxtaposition) and to re-constitute those juxtapositions in different ways through meta-juxtaposition (levels, channels of sense or awareness) must be inherent. It is what sense is made of. You can’t have an experience unless you can tell the difference (2-1=1) between the presence (1) and absence (1-1=0) of that experience. The experience of being able to tell the difference then becomes a second experience – a memory or history of the first.

      • September 16, 2012 at 3:14 am

        Craig: no symbol by itself is an experience.

        Joe: Like I said !

      • September 16, 2012 at 11:47 am

        You are conflating the experience of conceptualizing a symbol with the concept of a symbol as a thing independent of an interpreter. I don’t do that. I can conceive of the letter A and that is an experience. The letter A is not having an experience and in a universe which somehow had nothing but the letter A in it would have no experience. This is the symbol grounding problem – as you said: the Map is not the territory http://s33light.org/image/30726765691

      • September 16, 2012 at 5:21 pm

        Craig: “Do you really have a million dollars to play with? ”

        You’ll have to try my imitation consciousness to find out

        Joe: I told you, I already have tried it. You just don’t believe me.

        Craig: If you think that by MULTI-sense you think I mean one dimensional…

        Joe: No. I think your understanding of consciousness is one- dimensional.

        Joe: “consciousness of self, is what you would call imitation consciousness”

        Craig: No. Consciousness is what I call awareness of awareness.

        Joe: Like I said, you believe consciousness is only restricted to one dimension, awareness of awareness. Consciousness is awareness, consciousness is awareness of awareness, consciousness is infinitely many things. That is, consciousness has many dimensions. You are just not aware of them.

        So, for example, you must think that dreaming is awareness of awareness, because you only recognize the one type of consciousness. Reverie is just the one kind of consciousness. Imagination is just the one kind of consciousness. You paint all consciousness with one brush, awareness of awareness.

        Craig: If I were totally engrossed in a movie I could be conscious of the movie but not of myself.

        Joe: O.K. You have focused your consciousness totally in a different direction. How do you explain that? If all consciousness is awareness of awareness, and if you are not aware of your awareness, as your example seems to suggest.

        Craig: What I mean by imitation consciousness is just what would be meant by any other kind of imitation substance

        Joe: You have suggested that imitation consciousness is a state that lacks experience. I described such a state. The state in which you are aware, but there is nothing else, so, no experience.

        Craig: – from a casual inspection from the outside, it appears to resemble the genuine article.

        Joe Consciousness of self has no outside, no reference point outside itself, as I said.

        Craig: My point was to show that this is absurd when applied to experience.

        Joe: Not sure what you are saying is absurd.

        Craig: You can’t almost have the capacity to experience.

        Joe: You can have a non-experiential state that makes experience possible.

        Gotta hop…

      • September 16, 2012 at 8:34 pm

        “Joe: No. I think your understanding of consciousness is one- dimensional.”

        You know what they say about opinions…everybody’s got one.

        “That is, consciousness has many dimensions. You are just not aware of them. ”

        I agree, consciousness has many dimensions, and of course I am not aware of all of them. That doesn’t mean that consciousness can’t also be meaningfully defined as an awareness of awareness.

        “You paint all consciousness with one brush, awareness of awareness. ”

        If you use the word consciousness, you are already painting with one brush. If you ask me to define consciousness, you can always say that my definition is incomplete because there is nothing that is not a form or effect of consciousness.

        “You have focused your consciousness totally in a different direction. How do you explain that? ”

        Easily. You are aware of different awarenesses than you were when you are not watching a movie.

        “If all consciousness is awareness of awareness, and if you are not aware of your awareness, as your example seems to suggest. ”

        I never said that an individual is aware of all possible awareness at all times. That is the opposite of what I mean by multisense realism. Any individual’s consciousness is continuously expanding and contracting in its range of awareness. This gets more into human psychology though, not a theory of consciousness as it pertains to the hard problem and the cosmos.

        “The state in which you are aware, but there is nothing else, so, no experience”

        The experience is one ‘in which you are aware, but there is nothing else’. That is the experience. I could say to you “Oh man, I just was meditating and I had this experience where I was aware, but there was nothing else”…but now that experience is over and I am aware of this conversation with you, and baked beans, the absence of a napkin, and the song ‘Der Kommisar”, among other things.

        “Joe Consciousness of self has no outside, no reference point outside itself, as I said.”

        I agree. That’s why I am saying you wouldn’t want to blindly accept an imitation of consciousness, because an imitation can only be based on some reference point outside of itself.

        “Joe: Not sure what you are saying is absurd. ”

        The idea that things can be imitated.

        “Joe: You can have a non-experiential state that makes experience possible. ”

        No. You cannot have a non-experiential state. There can be experiential states which are not experienced by you, and which can make your experience possible, but that doesn’t mean that the state is not an experience of some kind to some thing. I don’t experience my DNA transcription, but that doesn’t mean that atoms or DNA or cells don’t have an experience which corresponds to DNA transcription.

      • September 16, 2012 at 9:45 pm

        Craig:I’ll give you $1,000,000 to try this new imitation consciousness. It’s great, everyone will love you and think that you are a great guy having a great life. The only difference is that you will never experience anything ever again. Deal?

        Joe: You seem to be saying that imitation consciousness is a state in which there is no experience. So I described a state in which there is no experience.

        Craig; What I mean by imitation consciousness is just what would be meant by any other kind of imitation substance –

        Joe: Imitation meat is not meat. I had fake bacon this morning, not real bacon, not pig bacon. The consciousness of one soul, when that one soul is all there is, and there is nothing else, is not experience. It is not what you are calling the real consciousness.

        Craig: I agree, consciousness has many dimensions, and of course I am not aware of all of them.

        Joe: When you said you are defining consciousness as awareness of awareness, you limited it to one-dimension. Are we both speaking the same language here? When you define something one way, you equivocate when you turn around later and say, oh yeah, it also means this and this and this. What do you imagine I think when I read you say you define it as awareness of awareness. Do I think, oh yeah, he probably also means this and that, and he also probably has several definitions of awareness. Now its not just one awareness, but a whole swarm of awarenesses.

        Craig: That doesn’t mean that consciousness can’t also be meaningfully defined as an awareness of awareness.

        Joe: It also makes me wonder when you define consciousness, and then say, “while consciousness (really sense) has no simpler concept.. “. If it has no simpler concept, how can consciousness be defined as awareness of awareness?

      • September 16, 2012 at 11:25 pm

        “The consciousness of one soul, when that one soul is all there is, and there is nothing else, is not experience. ”

        I think that quibbling over word definitions and hypothetical ontology is the lowest form of philosophizing. If you want to believe that there can be consciousness without experience or experience without consciousness, that’s ok with me, but trying to convince me of such a thing is just going to be a waste of your time.

        “Now its not just one awareness, but a whole swarm of awarenesses. ”

        You are assuming that awareness is like something else – that it can be defined as one thing or more than one thing. I am trying to explain to you that subjectivity is the opposite of objectivity. All awareness is neither one dimensional nor not one dimensional. You are trying to nail down awareness to a particular thing that I can be wrong about, but you have missed my point that awareness is beneath all forms of definition. Awareness, consciousness, perception, etc. is “this”. It is experience.

        ” If it has no simpler concept, how can consciousness be defined as awareness of awareness?”

        Because they are all ultimately the same thing. Consciousness is a word that seems more appropriate for richer forms of awareness, such as adult human beings. It’s all nothing but playing with vocabulary though. Call it phenomenology, subjectivity, eidetic participation, feeling, being, seeming…whatever, it is all the same thing. It contains all dimensions as one dimension. It defines all definitions.

      • September 16, 2012 at 9:53 pm

        Craig: You can’t almost have the capacity to experience.

        Joe I explained very carefully how consciousness of self almost has the capacity to experience. Let’s say I am 50 miles from Manhattan. I am almost in Manhattan. If I do this one thing, get on the train in NH, then I will be in Manhattan. I almost have the capacity to be in NYC. I just have to do this one thing, get on Metro North.

      • September 16, 2012 at 11:34 pm

        Your initial explanation begs the question (Latin petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”). You assume that there could be a ‘soul’ which is ‘conscious’ but has no experience of being conscious to begin with.

        Your example here assumes that consciousness can be like other things. I have tried to explain why it is that consciousness cannot be defined in that way. Something cannot almost be itself. There is no “I am 50 miles from being me”. Saying “I” means that you already “are”. You are experiencing the state of your own capacity to experience, regardless of the content. This is awareness. If you have a capacity to notice that you are having an experience, then you have an awareness of your awareness and are therefore conscious.

      • September 16, 2012 at 9:57 pm

        Craig: You can’t almost have the capacity to experience. You can almost have the capacity to have a human experience, but not experience in general.

        Joe: Now you have multiple senses of “experience”. There is general experience, human experience….???? Can you try to be more explicit? I am having trouble talking to you, understanding you.

      • September 16, 2012 at 11:40 pm

        “Now you have multiple senses of “experience”. There is general experience, human experience….????”

        You seem to have a habit of projecting your misunderstanding of my ideas as my ‘changing my story’. I’m not too bothered or surprised by that, but it is a kind of loaded question/ad hominem strategy from my perspective. I haven’t changed my story. I use the word experience in the ordinary way. If I am a human being, I have human experiences. If I am a fish or a paramecium, I have experiences with different qualities. To talk about experience in general means the common qualities of all experiences – awareness. Sense. Private phenomenology.

      • September 16, 2012 at 10:18 pm

        Joe: “There was a “time”, before time, in which I could not experience, ”

        Craig: There would not have been an “I” “then”. I is always an experience.

        Joe: Exactly. So now maybe I am not being clear. Let me clarify. I was not an I, in the beginning. I was referring to myself as I currently exist.

        When I could not experience, I was a all there was. There was nothing else to experience. I was only conscious of me. I had the concept of “I”, but not the experience of I, as I tried to explain in message #51. The one concept I had was that I was I, and there was nothing else.

        I was all there was, and there was nothing else. I could not know myself experientially because I was all there was, and there was nothing else. Therefore, I was not. In the absence of something else, I was not.

        However, I did have the capacity to experience. I just had to do this one thing.

      • September 16, 2012 at 11:44 pm

        “There was nothing else to experience. I was only conscious of me. ”

        Why do you day that “only me” is nothing. To me experience is awareness and awareness is experience.

      • September 16, 2012 at 10:32 pm

        Craig: Knowing is an experience.

        Joe: Is it?

        Craig: It doesn’t matter if what it is that you know, sense, detect, feel, etc is only yourself, you are still that experience

        Joe: Not before existence. Not when the only thing you know is that All I am is all there is, and there is nothing else. Not when “I” does not exist. That is consciousness of self.

        Craig: – that stillness, stasis, insoluble solitude, solid solace, solid, strong, etc. It’s a phenomenological quality which inherently juxtaposes to the absence of that quality: receptivity, loneliness, isolation, weakness, nihilism, etc.

        Joe: All those things have no meaning before existence. The only thing that has any meaning, that constitutes knowledge, is that I know that I am all there is, and there is nothing else. Since I do not exist, I have no experience.

      • September 16, 2012 at 11:54 pm

        “Joe: Is it?”

        Why wouldn’t it be. If I know where my shoes are, then there is an experience of my shoes which I have the experience of knowing.

        “Not when the only thing you know is that All I am is all there is”

        It’s still awareness. It is still an experience of being, even if there is no second order reflection of that experience as awareness of being.

        “All those things have no meaning before existence.”

        I can see why most people would see it that way but I disagree. I think those things are what gives rise to existence. Existence is an abstraction, an a posteriori analysis/generalization of the intellect. Stasis is a concrete experiential quality which prefigures the intellect and any conceptualizations thereof.

        “The only thing that has any meaning, that constitutes knowledge, is that I know that I am all there is, and there is nothing else. Since I do not exist, I have no experience.”

        If you know anything about there being nothing else besides you, that is an experience, and you do ‘exist’ (exist in the sense of being an experience, not of being an object in a public materialistic sense). It is not possible to say or think ‘I do not exist’ or ‘I have no experience’, because that state of being aware of any possibilities or conditions whatsoever is already an experience that “I” am having.

      • September 16, 2012 at 10:39 pm

        Craig: If you use the word consciousness, you are already painting with one brush.

        Joe: I am not defining consciousness, when I use the word “consciousness”. I am expressing it. Consciousness cannot be defined and limited.

        Craig: If you ask me to define consciousness,

        Joe: I would never do that.

        Craig: you can always say that my definition is incomplete because there is nothing that is not a form or effect of consciousness.

        Joe: See. Truth is simple, clear.

      • September 16, 2012 at 11:59 pm

        I agree, but most people are incapable of entertaining a model of consciousness without some definition of it. I don’t like definitions myself, but before I had one there, the first thing a lot of people would accuse me of is not having a definition of consciousness.

        That’s why ‘an awareness of awareness’ (or awarenesses of awarenesses if you prefer) is better than nothing as it pertains to distinguishing between the term ‘consciousness’ as it is typically used and subordinate forms of consciousness of awareness.

        To say that ‘consciousness is everything’ is true, but it doesn’t help anyone who doesn’t already agree with that view.

      • September 16, 2012 at 10:40 pm

        Craig: no symbol by itself is an experience.

        Joe: Nothing by itself is an experience. See. Simple.

      • September 17, 2012 at 12:10 am

        Not true. Being a person by itself is an experience. Waking up by itself is an experience. It is understood that there is no such thing as feeling something without an experience of having that feeling.

        That changes with symbols. Because they interface with objective realism, they are easy to confuse with objects, and as objects with interface with subjective realism, they are easy to confuse with subjects. This is the infocentric view which seems to be the most popular view among intelligent and educated thinkers at this time. Functionalism. Computationalism.

        I used to subscribe to that myself, for many years. It made sense to me that everything in the universe can be reduced to ‘patterns’. I now see that while this is almost exactly right, because of the nature of consciousness and how it is unlike anything else, it turns out that it is exactly wrong. Patterns supervene on pattern recognition. It is sense making phenomenology which makes patterns possible, not the other way around. If we say hypothetically that patterns could exist by themselves, there is no possibility that experience could or would arise out of them. Experience however, naturally implies a desirability for persistence of patterns. Patterns alone can’t desire things. They are just forms.

      • September 17, 2012 at 1:19 am

        Craig: trying to convince me of such a thing is just going to be a waste of your time.

        Joe: Ever write a computer program? You write it, run it, test it. I am testing MY program for bugs, not yours.

      • September 17, 2012 at 1:46 am

        Okay.

      • September 17, 2012 at 5:27 am

        Joe: No. I think your understanding of consciousness is one- dimensional.”

        When I say it is one-dimensional, I mean you take consciousness at face value, you do not look below the surface of consciousness. You don’t say what it is, or why it is, or even what role it plays in the workings of the mind. You seem to deny any causal connection between the world and the conscious mind.

      • September 17, 2012 at 11:42 am

        “you do not look below the surface of consciousness. You don’t say what it is, or why it is, or even what role it plays in the workings of the mind. You seem to deny any causal connection between the world and the conscious mind.”

        Have you not seen the mural that I use? http://www.stationlink.com/art/comp7.jpg

        I don’t focus on psychology or spiritual development in multisense realism. I think that those aspects of consciousness are being covered very well by other sources. What this project focuses on is explaining the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity, which, as it turns out, requires a radical re-interpretation of physics. Isn’t that enough?

        I don’t deny any connections between the world and the conscious mind, but I’m not trying to impersonate Carl Jung or Aleister Crowley either. I do, however say what it is (sense = experiential meta self-juxtaposition in active and passive modes) and why it is needs no other justifications (sense = primordial and prefigures causality. Roles come out of sense, not the other way around.) Consciousness is that which must be experienced to understand.

    • September 11, 2012 at 3:52 pm

      Craig: “Unless you are able to correct your use of tautologies, your model is empty. I ”

      Unless you stop giving me ultimatums,

      Joe: I am sorry you think it is an ultimatum. I only intend to make a statement of fact.

      • September 11, 2012 at 4:49 pm

        It’s not a statement of fact, its a loaded question fallacy. You accuse me of tautology, which I have explained is not the case, although a trivial read of what I am saying will result in that impression. Since I disagree with the accusation, the injunction you place on top of it begs the question.

  2. September 10, 2012 at 1:14 am

    Craig?: We can realize ourselves directly, as an autonomous presence without converting ourselves into an external appearance or function.

    Joe: That is consciousness of self.

  3. September 10, 2012 at 1:32 am

    Consciousness of self is identity that knows itself as itself

    • September 11, 2012 at 3:20 am

      I think it’s just sense sensing its own capacity to sense. Identity is a much higher order cognitive analysis of experiential themes through time which are interpreted as revealing or reflecting personal qualities.

  4. September 12, 2012 at 7:47 pm

    Multisenserealism, not to be confused with http://www.multisense.org

  5. September 14, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Just wondering, what does “sense” mean?

    • September 14, 2012 at 3:53 pm

      The colloquial definitions of sense work for me, but for a more technical definition of how I use sense, I would say “perception and participation”. I posted here about why I think the word has some significant advantages: http://s33light.org/post/24159233874

      In the Multisense Realism Overview here I get technical in a more philosophical way about it:

      “The universal set of experiential principles through which fundamental and derived aspects are presented in relation to each other.”
      https://multisenserealism.com/about/

  6. September 15, 2012 at 2:01 am

    http://s33light.org/post/24159233874

    seems to be a bad link

    • September 15, 2012 at 4:39 am

      odd. works for me. maybe try it again? I’ll paste it here if not:

      In Defense of Sense

      The use of the term Multisense Realism is arguably a weak point. I agree sense or sense-motive is hard to get behind, although I’m not sure yet whether that might not be appropriate. Maybe the conceit of a single term to encompass the essence of the entire cosmos and psyche should be a little blurry. I used to use sensorimotive but that seemed even to make less of a connection with people. What would be a better word than sense? To really do a justice to the whole psychic-physical enchilada, the ideal candidate would have to encompass:

      1. Primordial irreducibility – Nothing can really be said to exist if it isn’t sensed by something or made sense of by something. Nonsense is a category of sense, sense isn’t a category of nonsense, or really anything else. To explain sense is to explain explanation. No further terms add any more, uh, sense to it.

      2. First person subjectivity – The literal usage of sense, as in ‘sensation’ helps with this. It gives a breadth of range as well, from the clearly corporeal kinds of touch and feel to the subtle levels of feeling and intuition..I sense.

      3. Semiotic coherence – Making sense is a strong synonym for what consciousness does for us. On the human level at least, the joining of semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic senses is at the heart of what we might call sanity. The idiom itself, ‘making sense’ is a metaphor which actually refers to metaphor…it’s a meta-metaphor which hints at our participatory role in extending our awareness beyond its native limits using figurative or virtual experience.

      4. Qualitative charge – Other terms like ‘energy’ or ‘field’ cover the same territory, but to me they seem to mention the experience as a de-presentational fact rather than evoking it directly as it is presented to the subject. Sense includes the qualitative satisfaction of an subjective inner completion and understanding (under-standing comes from the same root as inter or entero… an inner resting or settling within). ‘Makes sense’ feels like a lock and key. That feeling I think is the orienting principle of all that is. It is nature.

      5. Taxonomy – The use of sense ‘in this particular sense’ makes another good reason to consider it. The idea of selecting one channel of semantic decoding from a continuum directly reflects my model of consciousness-comsos as a graduated continuum of directly and indirectly sensed texts.

      6. Syzygy – The different meanings of the word sense range from the literal to the figurative, so that the word itself is a syzygy – a unity of two opposites. The taxonomic sense adds to that the narrative, self-reflexive aspect which hints at the transparency of sense and its power to both tolerate and penetrate ambiguity. There is a meta-continuity which hints at unity as well as symmetry, sequence, and pragmatic realism, all of which are essential features of the overlap between cosmos and psyche.

  7. September 17, 2012 at 5:53 am

    Joe: “Are you saying “energy” is a quantified abstraction?”

    Craig: Yes. Energy is no more absolute reality than ‘money’.

    Joe: If I say consciousness is composed of energy, you would say no, right? Why does it matter to you one way or the other? You do not say what consciousness is, or why it is, so why do you then need to go on to say what it is not, not energy.

    How did you come to the conclusion that energy is not real? What things seem to you does not always reflect what is really going on. I cannot disagree that it seems that way to you. But, some things are true whether you believe them or not, right?

    • September 17, 2012 at 12:05 pm

      “You do not say what consciousness is, or why it is, so why do you then need to go on to say what it is not, not energy. ”

      I don’t say that consciousness isn’t energy, I say that the way that you are using the word energy detracts from the immediacy and realism of what is actually awareness or sense. What is your definition of ‘energy’? Why does it help to insist that consciousness is a kind of whatever you think that is?

      Why do you keep saying that I don’t say what consciousness is? I explain that human consciousness is a meta-recapitulation of other awarenesses, and that awarenesses are sensorimotive experiences or afferent and efferent phenomenology. There is nothing more universal than that, no simpler terms to explain it in. What is ‘charge’? What is ‘mass’ or ‘energy’? Why would any of them be a better term for breaking down consciousness than sense or feeling itself?

      “How did you come to the conclusion that energy is not real?”

      By re-interpreting light so that instead of being streams of structures flying through a vacuum, there is instead a sharing of an event at both ends of the illumination experience. If I am doing a spacewalk and turn on a flashlight on the outside of my spaceship, I am saying that the lightbulb illuminates the hull of the spaceship directly, as well as my eyes/brain/mind. There is no energy that is literally traveling through empty space. The idea of energy would then be entirely a figurative concept, like accounting. Such and such a quantity of potential work is credited from the lightbulb and debited to my eyes and the metal wall. If we stick some kind of light meter in front of the flashlight, then it will be illuminated instead and express that in whatever way the meter expresses it (a moving needle, counting LCD digits, etc). There is no translation. The flashlight doesn’t know whether it’s experience of illumination is being experienced as a needle moving or a brightness through human eyes. The idea of energy is just to control the cause and effect of experiences, but it’s ultimately a figure of speech. There is no actual projectiles or waves propagated through space, it is a pantomime directly between experiential nodes. If you understand what I’m saying, you will know because it will be as startling a revelation as ‘the Earth is round’.

      “But, some things are true whether you believe them or not, right?”

      Of course. That’s my point. Just because most everyone believes in ‘energy’ as a literal thing doesn’t mean that it’s true.

  8. September 17, 2012 at 5:04 pm

    [I thought this was forum-worthy so I posted it to jcs-online]

    SEP/Phenomenology: Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object. An experience is directed toward an object by virtue of its content or meaning (which represents the object) together with appropriate enabling conditions. end SEP

    I know how to ride a bike, and I want/desire to ride a bike. That is different than actually riding a bike.

    Thinking, feeling, imagining, and knowing are inner experiences? vs. actually doing what you are thinking, feeling, imagining, and knowing.

    The movie, “Good Will Hunting” makes these distinctions. Sean (Robin Williams) tells Will that he(Will) knows a lot of things, but has not actually experienced much. For example, Sean tells Will that, although Will probably knows all about love, can recite Shakespeare’s sonnets etc., Will has never experienced the love of a woman.

    In order to distinguish knowing, from experience, from yourself, they all need to be objectified, separated from each other.

    “Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view.” The problem is that there are no structures with consciousness of self. So, phenomenology imaginatively created them.

    I re-state my claim that consciousness of self is consciousness sans experience: Consciousness of self is identity that knows itself as itself, not as its parts. It had not occurred to me that what you are doing, and without me being aware of it, is attempting to objectify inner experience. You attempt to separate your thoughts, feelings, emotions etc, from yourself. Doing that results in awareness of awareness, what I have called ego consciousness. It is the attempt, on the part of consciousness of self to separate itself from the action of itself. An attempt on the part of consciousness to perceive actions, such as thinking, feeling, knowing, as objects, and to perceive the actions as initiated by the ego as a result, rather than as a cause, of ego’s own existence.

    In attempting to do this, consciousness of self can then seem to experience. That is what experience is, consciousness of self experiencing itself as itself. Consciousness of self attempts to tear itself apart (your words Craig, if I remember correctly). But this is impossible.

    Ego consciousness, and Phenomenology, involves a state in which consciousness of self attempts to divorce self from action. In this case, the action is knowing, feeling, thinking, etc.

    My awareness of my own experience of myself is me knowing myself as myself. There is no real separate “I”. There is no real separate concept. There is only awareness of myself as myself. Consciousness of self cannot be defined and limited to objective parts. They can only be expressed and released.

    I would like to go back and review our exchange on this issue.

    #66: Craig: If I know where my shoes are, then there is an experience of my shoes which I have the experience of knowing.

    Joe (new): You have objectified your knowing as that which you know, and you have objectified the shoes.

    Joe: “Not when the only thing you know is that All I am is all there is”

    Joe(new): I have inadvertently objectified what YOU know. This is similar to the problem Lao-tzu spoke of, “The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.” And so I have emphasized in my model, that the only way to understand consciousness is by experiencing it in as many ways as possible.

    Craig: It’s still awareness. It is still an experience of being, even if there is no second order reflection of that experience as awareness of being.

    Joe: When we say, “It” ,”Awareness”, “experience”, we are attempting to objectify consciousness of self. We can use words like “It”, “awareness”, and “experience”. But, they are not It, awareness, or experience itself. They only symbolize It, awareness, and experience. They are not the truth. They are not the real thing. “It”, “awareness” and “experience” ARE second order reflections of It, awareness, and experience. Experience as awareness of being is a second order reflection. Consciousness of self is not a reflection of experience. It is the by-product of the imbalance between action and identity.

    Craig: Your initial explanation begs the question (Latin petitio principii, “assuming the initial point”). You assume that there could be a ‘soul’ which is ‘conscious’ but has no experience of being conscious to begin with.

    Joe(new): I only assume action and identity, and the desire of the inner vitality of the inner universe to fully materialize itself. There only seems to be a soul, or ANY identity, which is conscious. These are Illusions, Maya. Realism is an illusion. If words were to be used, I would say that it is the Tao that is absolutely real, the inner vitality that is absolutely real. It is energy that is absolutely real, contrary to Kant’s claim, and Leon Maurer’s claim, and your claim, that energy is “the external manifestation of the state of a body.” (Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces, section 3)

    Craig: Your example here assumes that consciousness can be like other things.

    Joe(new): O.K. Let’s take another look at my poor example. : )

    Craig: I have tried to explain why it is that consciousness cannot be defined in that way.

    Joe: If I remember correctly, we both agreed that consciousness cannot be defined and limited.

    Craig: Something cannot almost be itself. There is no “I am 50 miles from being me”. Saying “I” means that you already “are”. You are experiencing the state of your own capacity to experience, regardless of the content. This is awareness. If you have a capacity to notice that you are having an experience, then you have an awareness of your awareness and are therefore conscious. end#60

    Joe(new): I would clarify that by saying that an unactualized possibility of me is almost me. It is Plato’s distinction expressed as the Form of me in his “real” intelligible world of Ideas, and the world of sensible phenomena. It is Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena. It is Leibniz’s distinction between all possible worlds and the real world. Almost me is not me BEING myself, it is me, as an unactualized possibility.

    Me, 50 miles from Grand Central, is the possibility of me BEING IN NYC. If there was not even the possibility of a me, being 50 miles from Grand Central, there would be NO possibility of me being in NYC.

    And this is critical, I believe consciousness creates the possible, and it makes the possible actual. That’s what consciousness does. Consciousness is the infinitely creative source of the universe. By analogy, I think of consciousness as the living force that collapses the wave function, making the possible real, making the unactualized actualized.

    Joe(older) Consciousness of self has no outside, no reference point outside itself, as I said.

    Craig: I agree. That’s why I am saying you wouldn’t want to blindly accept an imitation of consciousness, because an imitation can only be based on some reference point outside of itself.

    Joe(new): Does your expression of consciousness, the term “awareness of awareness”, presuppose a reference point outside of awareness? If the consciousness you speak of is awareness of awareness, then that consciousness is the imitation? It is what I have called “ego consciousness”.

    Joe: You can have a non-experiential state that makes experience possible. ”

    Craig: No. You cannot have a non-experiential state.

    Joe: Since we are forced to use words to communicate, I claim that consciousness of self is a non-experiential state. However, consciousness of self is not Kant’s ding an sich, it is a dimension of action. It is only the possibility of experience. It is not the experience itself.

    Identities, such as experiential states and non-experiential states are never constant things, as you yourself are not the same consciously or unconsciously from one moment to the next. Every action is a termination. And yet without the termination, identity would cease to exist, for consciousness without action would cease to be conscious.

    Craig: There can be experiential states which are not experienced by you, and which can make your experience possible, but that doesn’t mean that the state is not an experience of some kind to some thing.

    Joe(new): There can SEEM to be experiential states that are not experienced by me or you. The difficulty is in separating the boundary of the rest of that experienced world from the observer.
    Ultimately, no such separation exists. This is best expressed in the phrase, “We are all one.” Ultimately all that is real is All That Is. Call it the “Tao”, “God”, “The inside vitality of the Inner Universe”, or even just “energy”, in its broadest sense.

    Craig: I don’t experience my DNA transcription, but that doesn’t mean that atoms or DNA or cells don’t have an experience which corresponds to DNA transcription.

    Joe: You, as your conscious mind, do not experience your DNA transcription consciously, but you as your body, and you as your soul, does so experience.

    Craig: : Knowing is an experience. It doesn’t matter if what it is that you know, sense, detect, feel, etc is only yourself, you are still that experience – that stillness, stasis, insoluble solitude, solid solace, solid, strong, etc.

    Joe(new): “Knowing” is the phenomenological attempt to objectify consciousness of self. The attempt to perceive knowing as an object, an experience, to perceive knowing as an experience initiated by you, the ego, as a result of your existence, rather than as a cause of your existence, which it is.

    Craig: It’s a phenomenological quality which inherently juxtaposes to the absence of that quality: receptivity, loneliness, isolation, weakness, nihilism, etc.

    Joe: It seems like that. It is supposed to seem like that. It is the sole/soul’s whole meaning and purpose to experience.

    Craig: Sol is soul. Sol is solar. Orienting, anchored.

    Joe: Not sure where you are deriving your analogy from. “Sol” seems to refer to the sun, the diatonic scale, an old French coin, and the uncountable.

    Craig: There is no ‘in the beginning’ since causality itself supervenes on time, on sequence and memory, sense of multiple experiences which can be ordered to lend significance to a ‘first cause’. Cause is not primary. Primary-ness prefigures cause.

    Joe: I agree. It was just a way of forming a framework within which to discuss these subjects.

    Craig: You can’t have an experience unless you can tell the difference (2-1=1) between the presence (1) and absence (1-1=0) of that experience. The experience of being able to tell the difference then becomes a second experience – a memory or history of the first.

    Joe(new); Yes. Consciousness of self involves, as I said, a termination. There is no continuity of perception with consciousness of self, for example. There is only continuity of identity.

    Thank-you Craig

    • September 17, 2012 at 7:02 pm

      ” I know how to ride a bike, and I want/desire to ride a bike. That is different than actually riding a bike.”

      The difference is that actually riding a bike involves a publicly accessible presentation involving a human body and a physical object that is considered by people to be a bicycle. The experience of knowing, wanting, desiring is still an experience though. Again, this is just semantic quibbling over word definitions.

      ” In order to distinguish knowing, from experience, from yourself, they all need to be objectified, separated from each other.”

      Knowing something and being someone are both experiences. Being yourself and knowing something are distinct, but neither can occur without there being a subjective experience of them. You are defining experience as necessarily involving public realism, but I don’t. If I ride a bike in a dream, I am having an experience of riding a bike in a dream, no?

      ” The problem is that there are no structures with consciousness of self. So, phenomenology imaginatively created them.”

      I don’t see the lack of structures in phenomenology as a problem. Structures aren’t necessary for subjectivity, rather structures are a reflection of it.

      ” Consciousness of self is identity that knows itself as itself, not as its parts. It had not occurred to me that what you are doing, and without me being aware of it, is attempting to objectify inner experience.”

      In order to talk about inner experience, you have to objectify it to some extent – just as you do when you objectify self as “identity” that knows itself as itself. All of these things…self, identity, knowing, etc are all inner experiences. I objectify experience only to the extent that I have to to communicate what it is I am referring to. Beyond that, experience is nothing more or less than what can be privately perceived and participated in.

      “You attempt to separate your thoughts, feelings, emotions etc, from yourself. ”

      Multisense realism isn’t about myself or my feelings, it’s conjectures about what consciousness is.

      ” Doing that results in awareness of awareness, what I have called ego consciousness. It is the attempt, on the part of consciousness of self to separate itself from the action of itself. An attempt on the part of consciousness to perceive actions, such as thinking, feeling, knowing, as objects, and to perceive the actions as initiated by the ego as a result, rather than as a cause, of ego’s own existence.”

      The ego is an experience of human psychology. I’m not trying to get into that area in particular. I am trying to explain how I think consciousness in general works. What perception and participation are. I am describing the bricks and mortar, you are accusing me of not accounting for the Taj Mahal.

      ” In attempting to do this, consciousness of self can then seem to experience. That is what experience is, consciousness of self experiencing itself as itself. Consciousness of self attempts to tear itself apart (your words Craig, if I remember correctly). But this is impossible.”

      No, I don’t think that you remember correctly. It sounds like your ego is tearing your consciousness apart to me. Why are you angry at me Otmar? Why do you deny it?

      ” My awareness of my own experience of myself is me knowing myself as myself. ”

      This is redundant. “My awareness of my own experience” is restating the same thing. If you have an experience, you are aware of it already. If you are aware of something, you are having an experience. To say that self awareness is knowing yourself as yourself is tautological. What else would it be?

      ” There is no real separate “I”. There is no real separate concept. There is only awareness of myself as myself. Consciousness of self cannot be defined and limited to objective parts. They can only be expressed and released.”

      By saying that there is no separate concept (of the concept which you have just objectified as the concept of “I”), you are separating it yourself. My view is that the I is neither separate nor non-separate. Subjectivity works differently. It is non-mereological and transrational-gestalt. We are seeing it all in reflection because we can be ourselves and observe that being objectively at the same time. When we try to overlay topological structures on phenomenology, we end up chasing our tails.

      ” I would like to go back and review our exchange on this issue.

      #66: Craig: If I know where my shoes are, then there is an experience of my shoes which I have the experience of knowing.

      Joe (new): You have objectified your knowing as that which you know, and you have objectified the shoes.”

      There’s no objectification. I’m saying knowing is an experience of human cognitive sense. Blue is an experience of human visual sense. They have no object qualities other than being named as discernible from other subjects.

      ” Joe: When we say, “It” ,”Awareness”, “experience”, we are attempting to objectify consciousness of self. We can use words like “It”, “awareness”, and “experience”. But, they are not It, awareness, or experience itself. They only symbolize It, awareness, and experience. They are not the truth. They are not the real thing.”

      Why do you think that word like ‘the truth’ or ‘the real thing’ are not symbolizing ‘It’ in the exact same way. To me, those are more of an aloof and elite way of elevating ‘It’ beyond ordinary life. Which is ok…that’s part of consciousness too, but I think that my approach is more concrete and accessible.

      ” “It”, “awareness” and “experience” ARE second order reflections of It, awareness, and experience. Experience as awareness of being is a second order reflection. ”

      Yes, of course I agree. That’s why I say consciousness is an awareness of awareness – i.e. a second order reflection of awareness.

      ” Consciousness of self is not a reflection of experience. It is the by-product of the imbalance between action and identity.”

      Sounds like you are injecting an ideology here. Self consciousness is not an illness. Action and identity are both aspects of experience.

      ” Joe(new): I only assume action and identity, and the desire of the inner vitality of the inner universe to fully materialize itself. There only seems to be a soul, or ANY identity, which is conscious. ”

      The whole universe only seems to be. That’s what multisense realism is all about. The experience of a consensus of perceptions and participations. Your head is stuck in Eastern idealism. Which is ok, I’m just working with a new view which recontextualizes the assumptions of both East and West.

      ” These are Illusions, Maya. Realism is an illusion.”

      So is the idea of Maya an illusion. Unrealism is an illusion. Maya shaped like bullets kills even the most advanced yogi.

      ” If words were to be used, I would say that it is the Tao that is absolutely real, the inner vitality that is absolutely real.”

      I say that inner vitality is an experience of and a capacity for experience, and that it is absolutely true, but is the essence of what is ‘unreal’. Realism comes from the dilution of ideals into an empirical world of public interaction that is non-ideal.

      ” It is energy that is absolutely real, contrary to Kant’s claim, and Leon Maurer’s claim, and your claim, that energy is “the external manifestation of the state of a body.” (Thoughts on the True Estimation of Living Forces, section 3)”

      I don’t say that energy has any external manifestation at all. Energy is an accounting of changes among bodies. When those changes are experienced first hand, they are experiences.

      ” Joe: If I remember correctly, we both agreed that consciousness cannot be defined and limited.”

      Even that is a limitation on consciousness you are imposing. I say that it is both true, not true, both true and not true, and neither true nor untrue that consciousness can be defined. If you are unconscious in a hospital, that has a very definite and ordinary meaning.

      ” Joe(new): I would clarify that by saying that an unactualized possibility of me is almost me. It is Plato’s distinction expressed as the Form of me in his “real” intelligible world of Ideas, and the world of sensible phenomena. It is Kant’s distinction between phenomena and noumena. It is Leibniz’s distinction between all possible worlds and the real world. Almost me is not me BEING myself, it is me, as an unactualized possibility.”

      Unactualized abstractions aren’t anything. You are performing accrual accounting on the concept of ‘me’. To what end?

      ” Joe(new): Does your expression of consciousness, the term “awareness of awareness”, presuppose a reference point outside of awareness? ”

      No. It describes the nesting of groups of awareness within other groups of awareness (only not literal groups because they are subjects not objects).

      ” If the consciousness you speak of is awareness of awareness, then that consciousness is the imitation? It is what I have called “ego consciousness”.”

      The consciousness I speak of is ordinary consciousness. Are you awake? Are you aware of these letters? Are you aware of my bringing these letter to your awareness? Then you have experience an awareness of awareness and are therefore conscious. Why bring ‘ego’ into it? Do enlightened people not need to know they are awake?

      ” Joe: You can have a non-experiential state that makes experience possible. ”

      Craig: No. You cannot have a non-experiential state.

      Joe: Since we are forced to use words to communicate, I claim that consciousness of self is a non-experiential state. However, consciousness of self is not Kant’s ding an sich, it is a dimension of action. It is only the possibility of experience. It is not the experience itself.”

      There is nothing that isn’t an experience to something. When you are asleep, you may not experience anything, but that doesn’t mean that something in yourself doesn’t experience something…which is why you might wake up if you are cold or have to go to the bathroom. Something is having an experience.

      ” Identities, such as experiential states and non-experiential states are never constant things, as you yourself are not the same consciously or unconsciously from one moment to the next. ”

      I am the same, and I am not the same, and both and neither.

      ” Joe(new): There can SEEM to be experiential states that are not experienced by me or you.”

      Experiences are what they seem to be. The idea that they aren’t arises only in hindsight in the context of a new experience that SEEMS to be.

      ” The difficulty is in separating the boundary of the rest of that experienced world from the observer.
      Ultimately, no such separation exists. This is best expressed in the phrase, “We are all one.” Ultimately all that is real is All That Is. Call it the “Tao”, “God”, “The inside vitality of the Inner Universe”, or even just “energy”, in its broadest sense.”

      I call it sense or the Totality/singularity, the Absolute, etc.

      http://s33light.org/post/29198849117

      ” Joe: You, as your conscious mind, do not experience your DNA transcription consciously, but you as your body, and you as your soul, does so experience.”

      What I am is/is not what I experience. There are other experiences which can be discovered if I change what I am, but since I do not have any way of relating to molecular phosphorylation in direct terms I do not experience that in ordinary states of consciousness.

      ” Joe(new): “Knowing” is the phenomenological attempt to objectify consciousness of self. The attempt to perceive knowing as an object, an experience, to perceive knowing as an experience initiated by you, the ego, as a result of your existence, rather than as a cause of your existence, which it is.”

      Knowing isn’t an active attempt to do anything. It is access to cognitive experience – memories, understandings, associations. If I walk outside in the rain, I know that it is raining. If someone asks ‘does anyone know if it’s raining outside’, I can honestly say ‘yes’, without invoking the blasphemous stench of the ego which is the blight on the pristine majesty of all that is. Knowing that it is raining doesn’t cause my existence. Knowing that is raining is initiated by my perception of rain and my understanding of that perception and its implications for participation.

      ” Joe: It seems like that. It is supposed to seem like that. It is the sole/soul’s whole meaning and purpose to experience.”

      To experience is the whole meaning and purpose of everything in the universe. What other meaning or purpose would there be?

      ” Craig: Sol is soul. Sol is solar. Orienting, anchored.

      Joe: Not sure where you are deriving your analogy from. “Sol” seems to refer to the sun, the diatonic scale, an old French coin, and the uncountable.”

      I’m referring to the underlying theme of words that include ‘sol’: solid. insoluble. solution. solace. solitude. etc. Comes from the word for sun, yes, but the meanings that have evolved are more revealing.

      Thank-you Craig

      Eh, sure. Thank you “Joe”

      • September 18, 2012 at 6:37 pm

        I am not trying to quibble. I am trying to express a distinction between our subjective inner experience and our objective outer experience. O.K. Can we call them both experience with a difference?

        Knowing, like all inner experiences is a psychological event, is as alive in its own framework as animals. We react to them and they react to us. They move, often without observable shape. They possess an impetus that is ours.

        We react to objective outer experience. They do not seem to react to us. Often we feel at the mercy of events that always seem imposed on us from without.

        In deference to you, I am saying there is a subjective inner experience, and objective outer experience, and there are steps between them. When we understand this, I believe we can trace the steps from one to the other by examining the nature of consciousness.

        Our private experience happens in the context of our own psychological and biological status, and basically cannot be separated from each of our religious and philosophical beliefs and sentiments, and our cultural environment and political framework.

        As I see it, the distinction is not just mine. Block’s distinction between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness parallels outer experience and inner experience, parallels primary experience and secondary experience that I mentioned before.

      • September 18, 2012 at 8:29 pm

        “Can we call them both experience with a difference?”

        Sure, although the most important part is not *that* there is a difference, but the symmetrical sense of what the difference is like.

        “there is a subjective inner experience, and objective outer experience, and there are steps between them. ”

        Exactly. In my model, there are three kinds of ‘betweens’ – a spectrum of steps as you say, and a single fold (subject-object) and a vanishing edge (nondual awareness, transcendence, etc).

        “As I see it, the distinction is not just mine. Block’s distinction between phenomenal consciousness and access consciousness parallels outer experience and inner experience, parallels primary experience and secondary experience that I mentioned before.”

        There are a lot of theories that have been proposed on how to divide it up. I think multisense is an improvement because for the first time that I know of, it specifically juxtaposes bodies in public space against experiences through private time. That is the split that has real consequences for interpreting physics.

      • September 18, 2012 at 6:45 pm

        Craig: Structures aren’t necessary for subjectivity, rather structures are a reflection of it.

        Joe: Do you take inner thoughts, feelings and emotions to be structures in the mind?

      • September 18, 2012 at 8:31 pm

        “Joe: Do you take inner thoughts, feelings and emotions to be structures in the mind?”

        No, they are the opposite of structures. Neither structural nor non-structural. They are exactly what we experience them to be. Themes, motives, obsessions, distractions, etc.

      • September 18, 2012 at 6:51 pm

        Craig: In order to talk about inner experience, you have to objectify it to some extent – just as you do when you objectify self as “identity” that knows itself as itself.

        Joe: Yes, in order to talk about it. But, are you saying that you do not experience inner experiences as objects? Are you your mind?, as Descartes seems to be saying? Or, is the mind a tool you use? Hence the previous question about “structures”.

        Craig: All of these things…self, identity, knowing, etc are all inner experiences. I objectify experience only to the extent that I have to to communicate what it is I am referring to. Beyond that, experience is nothing more or less than what can be privately perceived and participated in.

        Joe: That which is privately experienced is not some mental object?

      • September 18, 2012 at 8:40 pm

        “But, are you saying that you do not experience inner experiences as objects? Are you your mind?, as Descartes seems to be saying? Or, is the mind a tool you use? Hence the previous question about “structures”.”

        I am and am not my mind. My mind is the cognitive layer of my lifetime. Whenever I am tempted to refer to any subjective phenomenon as an object, I remind myself that it is not anything like a subject – it is more like a dream that has fallen out of time into space.

        “Joe: That which is privately experienced is not some mental object?”

        No I don’t think it is. It’s a subject. Objectivity arises out of the subjective, so you can get pretty objective in your private experience, but it still lacks the qualities of an object. I think something can only be an object if it is publicly accessible. That is what makes it an object – they are the same thing.

      • September 18, 2012 at 10:17 pm

        Craig: If I ride a bike in a dream, I am having an experience of riding a bike in a dream, no?

        Joe: Are we talking lucid dreaming here, actual dreaming consciousness which your conscious mind is not consciously aware of, or are we talking about your memory of the dream upon awakening?

        I agree they are all experiences, just different kinds.

        By the way, what is your dream bicycle composed of? Mine is carbon fiber. So, my dream bike bike is now my real dream bike.

      • September 18, 2012 at 10:34 pm

        It’s real in some sense but its not ‘really’ carbon fiber, because carbon fiber has publicly accessible properties. A real bike stays where you put it, but a dream bike can turn into a wagon or show up in your swimming pool.

      • September 19, 2012 at 2:31 am

        Craig: Why are you angry at me Otmar?

        Joe: I find I get angry when I am trying to do something, like open a door that is stuck. It is a natural emotion. It gives me extra energy to make an all-out effort. Then I let go of the anger, move through it as they say.

        I don’t know that I have been abusive to you, or damaged you, have I?

        It reminds me of someone talking about Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. He was a wonderful dancer, but she had to do it backwards and in high heels.

      • September 19, 2012 at 3:08 am

        That’s cool, it just seems like you were being duplicitous and targeting me but were in denial about it at the same time. I don’t mind debating, but it threw me after all this time to be misinterpreted and accused on the list.. If it helps promote understanding though, maybe it works?

  9. September 18, 2012 at 10:36 pm

    If everything was the same color, would we experience color?

  10. September 19, 2012 at 2:46 am

    Does the incommensurability of pi and sqrt2 make sense?

    • September 19, 2012 at 3:14 am

      I don’t know so much about math. I like this though:

      x = 0.9999…
      10x = 9.9999…
      10x – x = 9.9999… – 0.9999….
      9x = 9
      x = 1

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

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

This is a blog where I explore spiritual and personal development themes and ideas. © JAMES MICHAEL J. LOVELL, MUSINGS AND THOUGHTS ON THE UNIVERSE, PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CURRENT TOPICS, 2016-2020, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

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.”

absolutephilosophy

An idealistic blog where those who are searching/wandering/questioning can find an absolute qualia.

zumpoems

Zumwalt Poems Online

The Traditionalist

Revolt Against The Modern World

dhamma footsteps

postcards from the present moment

chandleur

Bagatelle

OthmanMUT

Observational Tranquillity.

Gray Matters

Traversing the blood-brain-barrier.

Writings By Ender

The Writer's Adventure

birddogbooks

The greatest WordPress.com site in all the land!

%d bloggers like this: