[Case]:
> I don't use the words awareness or consciousness above
> because that is explicitly NOT what I am talking about at this
> point. Sensation does not require awareness or consciousness.
> Sensation is the pre-intellectual cutting edge of reality.
> It only becomes "real" through perception and integration.
>
> You are totally missing my point. I not only acknowledge that
> sensation is subjective I am saying it defines what the term
> subjective means. Sensation can not be defined in objective
> terms because it is the opposite of objective.
I thought we had surmounted the word definition problem by 'standardizing'
our terminology. We are both using words derived from the verb "sense",
including sensibility, sensation, and sentience. I don't know about
"cutting edge of reality", which is Pirsig's phrase, but what you assert
(above) about "sensation" is what I've been saying about primary
Sensibility, which is that it is the pre-intellectual awareness of Value.
While I could have described the Self as "value-sensation", I chose
"sensibility" because it suggests the "act" rather than the passive "state"
of sensation implied by "sentience".
However, the real difference between us is that our reality perspectives are
on opposite sides of the subject/object dichotomy. That is, the essence of
your reality is physical, whereas mine is subjective or sensible. So, it's
not surprising that we see each other's epistemology as "backwards".
[Case]:
> We receive sensory input while asleep or sedated but we are not
> aware of it. People in comas have sensory input that registers in the
> brain but they are not aware or conscious of it.
If we are not "aware of it" the inputs are not sensible to us. When I shut
down my computer at night, it continues to receive inputs through a DSL
modem that are not registered on the main drive. (I know this because
indicator lights on the modem flash periodically during the night.) But the
computer is off. By your analogy it is not in a "sensation-capable" state.
It is "unconscious".
[Case]:
> As James said, the term consciousness, if it has any meaning at all,
> means that sensations, nervous impulses are being processed in the brain.
I do not accept this definition. Consciousness is "the quality or state of
being aware" (Webster's Collegiate).
Inputs (sensations?) are not made sensible merely by charging up neurons in
the brain, You can remove the brain, wire it up to energy sources in the
lab, and cause physiological changes comparable to "processing". But it
will not produce consciousness. As a psychiatrist, James should have known
better.
[Case]:
> So you think nerve bundles and electro-chemical activity are irrelevant
> to "consciousness"? Try removing them or altering them and see what
> happens to "consciousness."
I didn't say they were irrelevant to consciousness. I said they were the
"instruments" (circuitboard) of consciousness. Look at it this way: Created
things are secondary to the creator. All finite entitities are constructs
of the intellect whose primary input is Value. Therefore the physical body,
including the brain and its associative nerve networks, is the PRODUCT of
intellection, not its cause. Beingness is objectivized by the
differentiation of value by the finite subject. In order for being to
become aware it must have a locus of sensibility. The biological organism
provides that locus, and the cerebro-neural system is the objective
"correlate" of subjective awareness.
[Ham, previously]:
> Becoming aware is a differentiating process resulting from the
> finite limitations of the brain. The "integrated" sense data are
> selectively and incrementally filtered in the process of cognition.
> The brain and nervous system reduce the whole of essential value
> to the fractional appearance of finitude.
[Case]:
> This is a point you should seriously rethink. The mind can not by
> definition create objectivity. Objectivity arises when we compare
> notes with someone else. All sensation, integration of sensation
> into perception, all awareness occurs inside the individual. It is
> subjective through and through. This is the sense in which I take
> solipsism very seriously. I am trapped in this world of my own making.
> I accept the existence of things that are not a part of me even though
> everything I "know" about them IS a part of me. As I have said I
> can not justify this rationally. The existence of anything outside of
> me can not be proved in a formally logical sense. Acceptance of an
> objective reality arises as an axiom from outside of the system just
> as Gödel said certain statements in any proof must do.
Not that I expect you to accept my concept of experiential differentiation,
but you should at least understand it. Again, consider how Lanza and Steven
Weinberg explain the emergence of conscious awareness:
"The mystery is plain. Neuroscientists have developed theories that might
help to explain how separate pieces of information are integrated in the
brain and thus succeed in elucidating how different attributes of a single
perceived object-such as the shape, color, and smell of a flower-are merged
into a coherent whole. These theories reflect some of the important work
that is occurring in the fields of neuroscience and psychology, but they are
theories of structure and function. They tell us nothing about how the
performance of these functions is accompanied by a conscious experience; and
yet the difficulty in understanding consciousness lies precisely here, in
this gap in our understanding of how a subjective experience emerges from a
physical process. Even Steven Weinberg concedes that although consciousness
may have a neural correlate, its existence does not seem to be derivable
from physical laws."
-- [Robert Lanza: "A New Theory of the Universe"]
"Consciousness, because of the poor understanding by the scientific and
physics community, is generally thought of as a 'fragmented' phenomenon. It
is the understanding of some scientists within the scientific circle that
consciousness is a manifestation brought into fruition by the chemical
reactions of the brain - humanity, to these scientists, are therefore
'solitary conscious bubbles', each surrounded by a nothingness. It is this
poor understanding regarding the nature of consciousness by science, that
creates problems when trying to explain the universe and it's beginnings.
In some areas of science, when explaining the emergence of energy and the
universe, they talk of 'fields' or 'waves' clashing together and creating a
kind of 'pulse' - the word scientists use is 'Soliton.' This 'soliton'
being the elementary energy particles - gluons, protons, electrons etc..
But with the idea of consciousness being a fragmented phenomenon, and all
theories about the nature of the universe being based on this assumption,
then the truth of the universe and it's nature will forever be incomplete."
-- [Weinberg: Professor of physics and astronomy, at the university
of Texas at Austin]
Cheers,
Ham
moq_discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
