---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <anartaxius@...> wrote :
Suppose, in relation to 'consciousness', even with enlightenment, this matter
could never satisfactorily be resolved? Suppose you could experience the truth,
if such be possible, but it could never be understood by the intellect and
ultimately never be reconciled logically?
That would suck but we'd have to live with it. There are problems that people
tried to solve but we now know are insoluble - like squaring the circle (as Pi
is irrational). But any *real* problem must have a rational solution. It could
be we're not smart enough to get at the answer ("God knows" as we say) but I
salute those who've tried to find one.
The least I would claim is that the attempts that have been made to attack
these fundamental issues have given us some astonishingly beautiful writings.
Perhaps in the end they are "just" poetry and we can't say anything literally
correct but I hope there are always those prepared to make further assaults on
these puzzles as each new attempt reveals a facet of the truth.
"Every thing possible to be believed is an image of truth" (William Blake)
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote :
I'm working two contradictory theses here!
1) idealism: only mind exists.
2) panpsychism: all matter *has* awareness.
They can be reconciled but it's too much like hard work to do so on a FFL
post. I answer your queries below . . .
Re "What other paradigm other than your own experience of human awareness are
you working from?":
That is my point exactly! You take *human* awareness as the paradigm of
awareness and start wagging your finger at everything that comes within your
experience that departs radically from your comfort zone.
C: No finger wagging here. My comfort zone has nothing to do with this
intellectual exercise any more that I suppose it does for you, right?
Of course planets and stars can't communicate with us - why would they need to
communicate?
C: Wait a second, are you uncomfortable with them communicating? Any finger
wagging going on? Just checking. I don't know if they can't, I just don't see
any evidence of it.
Language originated amongst humans as a survival mechanism in the struggle for
existence. A planet ain't got no enemies. Maybe planets they turn their "noses"
up at us for not being the gods they are. The philosopher Fechner made the case
for planets having awareness (see William James' quote below). He pointed out
that we think we're superior to a planet as we can move around where we wish.
But the only reason animals can move is that it gives them the edge over plants
in the search for food. Planets don't need food so why would they need to move?
And so on . . .
Our need of moving to and fro, of stretching our limbs and bending our bodies,
shows only our defect. What are our legs but crutches, by means of which, with
restless efforts, we go hunting after the things we have not inside of
ourselves. But the Earth is no such cripple; why should she who already
possesses within herself the things we so painfully pursue, have limbs
analogous to ours? Shall she mimic a small part of herself? What need has she
of arms, with nothing to reach for? of a neck, with no head to carry? of eyes
or nose when she finds her way through space without either, and has the
millions of eyes of all her animals to guide their movements on her surface,
and all their noses to smell the flowers that grow? For, as we are ourselves a
part of the earth, so our organs are her organs. She is, as it were, eye and
ear over her whole extent--all that we see and hear in separation she sees and
hears at once. She brings forth living beings of countless kinds upon her
surface, and their multitudinous conscious relations with each other she takes
up into her higher and more general conscious life.
Most of us, considering the theory that the whole terrestrial mass is animated
as our bodies are, make the mistake of working the analogy too literally, and
allowing for no differences. If the earth be a sentient organism, we say, where
are her brain and nerves? What corresponds to her heart and lungs? In other
words, we expect functions which she already performs through us, to be
performed outside of us again, and in just the same way. But we see perfectly
well how the earth performs some of these functions in a way unlike our way. If
you speak of circulation, what need has she of a heart when the sun keeps all
the showers of rain that fall upon her and all the springs and brooks and
rivers that irrigate her, going? What need has she of internal lungs, when her
whole sensitive surface is in living commerce with the atmosphere that clings
to it?
C: I see some problems with how analogies are being used here.
Re "I don't understand what the good Bishop could mean by this ("To be is to
be perceived"). Do you?":
Yes. But I've already posted on this on another thread so will copy in below
what I wrote there. Get back to me if you have an answer.
What is immediately given in consciousness is the Cartesian theatre. So we
know that that at least is real (as real as it needs to be). The idea that
there is an existing physical world independent of our being aware of it is
just a concept - a "regulating idea" that we find useful in discussing the
common aspects of our mental pictures and in doing science. But there is no way
anyone can prove there's an objective physical world of matter "behind" the
picture. Plato knew that. So did Bishop Berkeley. So did the logical
positivists. So do quantum physicists.
Ask yourself what this *real* world is supposed to be like? Let's stick to one
fact - "what is real about this orange I'm about to bite into?". Is it its
colour? Nope - my nervous system adds the sense of colour - colour doesn't
exist "out there". What about the orange's texture? My sense of touch. Its
taste? My taste buds. Its shape? My visual cortex. Its position in space and
time? Space and time are our minds' ways of organising our experience (thank
you Immanuel Kant). And so on down the line . . .
So what is left to your supposed reality? I'll bet the best you can come up
with is "structure". Reality must have a structure that matches the structure
of my conscious experience (otherwise I'd fall under a bus every time I went to
work). But what could be more *ideal* than structure? If what is real turns out
to be information then we are living in a virtual world.
C: I believe we do share some structure from the physical world we evolved
from. That makes sense to me that it would be that way. But I don't go along
with the way you are using the word "reality" here. We have enough consensus
for the functional basics to figure some stuff out. Looking for reality in a
more ultimate sense seems a bit out of reach even conceptually so far. But
there is much work we can do to make us optimistic with our expansion of
knowledge. That works for me.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote :
Is awareness dependent upon a (human or otherwise) nervous system?
C: I don't see any counterexamples for this but it might be unknowable.
S: Because you take your own human awareness as the paradigm case and look for
similar instances.
C: I am open to hearing about what the options are. What other paradigm other
than your own experience of human awareness are you working from?
Cats and dogs seem to have similarities in their behaviour to you (with
apologies!) so you grant some awareness to them. The further down the
evolutionary ladder you go the less human it is so the likelihood of your
granting it awareness diminishes. When you hit rocks you say they are inorganic
and insentient.
C: It is because they lack any way to communicate if they have any awareness as
rocks. Plus I have learned from biology that the complexity of the nervous
system is tied to the style of awareness. But I accept that we do feel the
most affinity with mammals in the animal kingdom who have the emotional brain.
I have so much more in common with cats and dogs than lizards because of that
shared neurology. How would you know that a rock was aware in any way?
Where evolutionists see life and then consciousness arising at some point in
time just indicates where they can start to recognize themselves in the mirror
of nature. They aren't describing an objective fact but indicating their own
(and my!) subjective limits. What kind of awareness could a rock have? It's
beyond our comprehension but what we can know is that it isn't unhappy! To be
miserable you have to compare your present state with an imagined alternative
and rocks can't think (no language). Maybe our Sun is in a constant state of
ecstasy as it dances across the sky.
C: If you are arguing for the possible, I am with you. If you are arguing for
the likely, I am gunna have to bow out. At least until I see one example of
awareness not tied to the complexity of a nervous system. Right now the
correlation is too intense to ignore.
Did awareness exist before the the Big Bang / formation of the universe?
S: "To be is to be perceived" (Bishop Berkeley)
C: That seems a bit theistic. I think there are things that exist that are not
being perceived. Lots of things. Maybe most things. I guess I don't understand
what the good Bishop could mean by this. Do you, I would love to hear.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
I'll pick a few to mumble about.
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <seerdope@...> wrote :
Is awareness dependent upon a (human or otherwise) nervous system?
C: I don't see any counterexamples for this but it might be unknowable.
Is awareness the same for all who possess awareness?
C: You might have to qualify in what way you mean. Awareness is obviously
different for different creatures on the planet who demonstrate qualities of
awareness.
Do some have more awareness even if the awareness is the "same" for all?
C: I think this is one of the claims of Maharishi that is the most problematic
for me. It lacks definitions that are meaningful for me these days.
Does awareness change? Evolve? Devolve? Fluctuate?
C: I used to believe that my "awareness" was more variable than I do today. I
think I can show up with the same "amount" of awareness in the way that has
meaning for me these days. I can enhance what I am aware of with choice and
direction of my attention. That occupies me more.
DIdi awareness exist before the mergence of homsapiens? (100,000 years or so
ago)
C: I believe animals demonstrate plenty of awareness. Early man certainly had
plenty. Even Neanderthal was putting flowers in graves.
If so, how far back?
Do plants have awareness of the degree and magnitude (posited) that humans do?
C: I don't see any evidence for that. But their lives have qualities of life
worth respecting even if we don't think of them as conscious like us.
Do rocks?
C: That seems like a stretch. It might require mushrooms to see them that way.
Could artificial intelligence "machines" ever become aware?
C: They might, we need to keep an eye on that.
Can awareness morph into other things?
C: Lacks definitions I can follow.
Did awareness exist before the earth was formed?
Did awareness exist before the the Big Bang / formation of the universe?
Does gravitation affect awareness like it does space and light?
Does awareness travel at some speed?
C: This all seems unknowable or too undefined for me.
Is awareness interconnected between (allegedly) aware individuals?
C: Interesting concept. I don't believe the jury is in on this. I am open to
this possibility but I have not seen any convincing evidence yet.
If awareness once did not exist, what was the process of awareness coming into
existence?
C: The nervous system that could support it?
Does awareness abide by the known laws of nature?
C: So far it seems to. Kill a brain, awareness is nill.
Does awareness have an end?
C: It has for many people that I loved.
If awareness is suggested to exist forever / eternally, can you suggest a
falsifiable experiment for this hypothesis?
C: It is unfalsifiable and unprovable which adds to its popularity for some.
If awareness has not and does not exist forever, why is is more substantial
than any transient phenomenon?
C: I have not found that to be the case. Take a little propophol before
surgery and you our out out out.
Can awareness be aware of itself?
C: This lacks definitions in what way if you mean it beyond the obvious. I am
aware that I am aware.
If so, then what are the "mechanics"?
C: It seems to have this inherent property. Some of it may be the way the
different parts of our brain communicate to each other creating experiences.
Does awareness being aware of itself imply movement, fluctuation, energy
transfers, change?
C: Not to me.
Great thought exercise, how would you answer them?
