[Greetings and welcome, Joan!]
Are we all on the same page about the distinction between experiential
consciousness and self-reflective narration?
It seems that Gregg and J. Vervaeke have mapped out the *template* we are
working with physiologically and then specifically how personal ontogeny *slots
into* those templates to create our phenomenological experience and
manifestation of human self-reflective consciousness.
For example, while there is indeed monistic *one* consciousness in the
sense that our individual separateness is a cultural distinction, and that
individuation itself may be prized in our Western system and not others, we
on this list seem to be glossing over *particular* features that we seem to
share as human organisms, such as *justification*. So while an octopus or
a fungal system may be on some other alien level of communal consciousness,
our particular dilemma as humans and solving it for ourselves and perhaps
others seems *contingent on our ability to recognize these specific
mechanisms and negotiate their effects with others*.
Are we there? If we are there, thank you for helping me catch up to the
conversation,
+Chance
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 7:26 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
> safe.
> ------------------------------
>
> Hi Joan,
> Thanks for the summary and plans. Looking forward to seeing your site.
> And of course, we'd love any links or references to the "Theories of
> Consciousness
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DTheories-2Dof-2DConsciousness_1-2DAgreement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=E33i8m2gvttngjloqLqbQtjj_4Ut-Ww_RW5MKlLo1gg&s=Aqi50Au2LTOPGXVnpy9KZq-3apYICJKTScEsTc2XILM&e=>"
> topic where we are building and tracking consensus around the best theories.
>
> If you haven't seen it yet, we are also working on a video describing the
> emerging consensus being built titled: "Consciousness: Not a Hard
> Problem, Just a Color Problem
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_videos_consciousness_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=E33i8m2gvttngjloqLqbQtjj_4Ut-Ww_RW5MKlLo1gg&s=NGkXoW-RzU4Sm4C4hZ1jXd5mPCNsiNc0fRo9gdugQiE&e=>
> ."
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 3:51 PM Joan Walton <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links
>> or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
>> safe.
>> ------------------------------
>> Hi Brent
>>
>> Thank you for your email, and your interest. I have had a look at what
>> you are doing, and it is very impressive.
>>
>> It is not my intention on the website to have too much content in it. I
>> am designing it at the moment, the intention being to have probably 6
>> pages, each with a 10 minute narrated powerpoint / video, addressing a
>> particular theme - provisionally 1) why research consciousness? 2)
>> Theories of consciousness 3) Methods of researching consciousness 4)
>> Researching consciousness, researching life 5) Research Paradigms 6)
>> Research Methodologies.
>>
>> 10 minute videos are around 1300 words, so the aim is to be succinct, and
>> provide an overview, rather than get lost in detail. The main aim being
>> to encourage people to think differently about their experience and
>> understanding of consciousness,and possibly encourage them to start their
>> own journey of (mainly experiential) exploration as they live their
>> daily lives, rather than to overwhelm them with masses of theories about
>> it. One of the reasons people lose interest, I think, is because writing
>> can get too wordy and obtuse.
>>
>> The website will also include a blog, and a link to other websites and
>> resources. I would be happy to include an intro to your work and a link,
>> on one of the pages. (I'm not sure when it will be completed, as I have
>> other demands on my time, so it is not progressing as quickly as I would
>> have wished!!)
>>
>> In personal terms, William James is my greatest influence in relation to
>> thinking about consciousness; especially his idea of radical empiricism -
>> only research that which you have experienced, but be prepared to research
>> any aspect of your experience. As I said in my initial email to this
>> group, my starting point is that our knowledge of consciousness starts with
>> our experience of it. Theories are an expression of consciousness, so in
>> that sense are secondary to our direct experience. I won't go into detail
>> here about what that means in practice, but if I say that in general, I am
>> a supporter of Action Research (cyclical process of engaging in experience,
>> reflecting on that experience, conceptualising our understanding of it,
>> testing out new forms of experience based on our theorising and
>> reflections, then seeing what changes in experience emerge out of that
>> process). I live my life as an action researcher, it is internalised in
>> me, so in that sense, I cannot separate out personal, professional and
>> academic interests. But then, one of my main mantras is 'separation is an
>> illusion' (the second being, 'trust the process').
>>
>> In terms of my belief system? I think the best I can do here is copy
>> the ending of my PhD thesis, which was an account and analysis of my
>> 'spiritual journey' (entitled *Ways of Knowing: can I find a way of
>> knowing that satisfies my search for meaning?)*, including an
>> in-depth investigation of consciousness, completed 12 years ago. What I
>> wrote then hasn't changed, though.
>>
>> With all best wishes
>>
>> Joan
>>
>> *Thirdly, the evidence gained through this enquiry supports the notion
>> that any claims made within either science or religion about final or
>> universal truths are misleading. I repeat here a quotation from Ferrer,
>> which summarises well my own experience: *
>>
>>
>>
>> *I believe that we are in direct contact with an always dynamic and
>> indeterminate Mystery through our most vital energy. When the various
>> levels of the person are cleared out from interferences…, this energy
>> naturally flows and gestates within us, undergoing a process of
>> transformation through our bodies and hearts, ultimately illuminating the
>> mind with a knowing that is both grounded in and coherent with the
>> Mystery. Because of the dynamic nature of the Mystery, as well as our
>> historically and culturally situated condition, this knowing is never
>> final, but always in constant evolution. (2002: 169)*
>>
>>
>>
>> *I started the enquiry being aware of my own ignorance, and with a strong
>> motivation to eradicate it. I reach this stage, having experienced great
>> learning - and indeed see myself in my research, both on my own and in the
>> company of others, as a creator of knowledge and theory. However, the
>> greatest learning is that complete knowledge is not possible, and that life
>> has mystery at its essence. It is in embracing this mystery rather than in
>> denying it that I have been able to create a way of knowing which satisfies
>> my search for meaning. *
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 20:05, Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>> content is safe.
>>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Dear Joan,
>>> I'm glad you saw this thread and it is exciting to see someone else
>>> interested in consciousness, as am I. So much so, that we're building and
>>> tracking consensus around the best theories over here
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DTheories-2Dof-2DConsciousness_1-2DAgreement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=j6BBIXQWM8drZu6nXt1JsSetnHTLOyoaJ3pax8Gx4d0&s=i7LQpNXG3WYI8_rgDohd3cWTtjqjgx5OxbJQH73inVU&e=>.
>>> I'm looking forward to seeing your new website and learning more about your
>>> beliefs on this. We'd love to include your thoughts in the canonizer
>>> project, and work to build and track consensus around your ideas, also.
>>>
>>> A quick question to get me started, when you say: "There are
>>> ontological, unprovable issues here, dependent only on beliefs, not
>>> evidence." it almost sounds like you are saying consciousness is not "Approachable via
>>> Science
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DTheories-2Dof-2DConsciousness_2-2DApproachable-2DVia-2DScience&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=j6BBIXQWM8drZu6nXt1JsSetnHTLOyoaJ3pax8Gx4d0&s=0pkvIqNaPtUIxwI_sIXJBpu2w6JnRC6e_7kWB0r9nnk&e=>".
>>> Do your beliefs go this far? For example, could your 'unprovable' claim by
>>> falsified, or factually demonstrated to be otherwise, ever?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 4:48 PM Joan Walton <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
>>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>>> content is safe.
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> Dear All
>>>>
>>>> I'm not a regular reader of these emails, due to lack of time, not lack
>>>> of interest. But I was attracted to the title of this 'Three meanings of
>>>> consciousness'. I have been interested in the subject of consciousness for
>>>> years, explored it as part of my PhD, and am in the process of creating the
>>>> website www.scienceofconsciousness.com
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.scienceofconsciousness.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=W-9SbUWs995IgEGcIVng3kdHlMwBCmsLfjb59x0M3z8&s=wL48txZuKpY9ZYpJ5RR7r5PkRQWUdqye2xtYP2Q5w78&e=>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> However, the overriding principle to me is quite simple. We will not
>>>> be able to agree a meaning of consciousness, because we do not know what
>>>> consciousness is. There are ontological, unprovable issues here, dependent
>>>> only on beliefs, not evidence. To quote a short extract from my PhD:
>>>>
>>>> *George Miller summarises the difficulty:*
>>>>
>>>> *Consciousness is a word worn smooth by a million tongues. Depending
>>>> upon the figure of speech chosen it is a state of being, a substance, a
>>>> process, a place, an epiphenomenon, an emergent aspect of matter, or the
>>>> only true reality’. (1962:25) *
>>>>
>>>> *We only need to look at two of the possibilities that Miller
>>>> mentions, – firstly, consciousness as an epiphenomenon (that is, in this
>>>> context, a by-product of brain activity); and secondly, consciousness as
>>>> the only true reality, to realise that to agree a definition is extremely
>>>> problematic. People’s understanding of consciousness – and in a similar
>>>> way, of the unconscious, will be influenced by the world view they hold.
>>>> If a materialist, then consciousness has to be explained as an emergence
>>>> from matter; if not a materialist, then the options widen in terms of
>>>> there being a range of possibilities as to the exact nature of the
>>>> relationship between consciousness and matter, including a question mark
>>>> over whether consciousness can exist independently of matter. *
>>>>
>>>> As far as I am concerned, consciousness is what we all experience. A
>>>> prerequisite of reading and responding to these emails is consciousness.
>>>> Without consciousness, that would not be possible. I know absolutely
>>>> nothing about you, the person who is reading this email (age, gender, where
>>>> you live, interests, beliefs, values, qualifications, personality,
>>>> absolutely nothing), other than you experience consciousness. That is rock
>>>> solid certain. (Oh - and that you speak English).
>>>>
>>>> But is this consciousness that we experience a by-product of the
>>>> brain? Or is it the infinite, eternal source of all that exists? Or
>>>> something in-between? There is no such thing as a consciousness monitor,
>>>> which lets us know where consciousness is present, and where it is not. We
>>>> may assume. We may think that we know. We may feel we are certain. But
>>>> actually, we don't have a clue!
>>>>
>>>> However, what is clear is: we firstly have our experience of
>>>> consciousness; and then, an aspect of that experience of consciousness is
>>>> our ability to theorise about what consciousness is (or is not). Our
>>>> definitions or meanings are an expression of our experience, as are our
>>>> values, beliefs, assumed certainties, etc. But in the end, our definitions
>>>> and meanings are completely speculative, with no means of providing
>>>> evidence to support or negate any of them - because, to repeat, we
>>>> actually don't know where, what we experience as consciousness, starts and
>>>> ends.
>>>>
>>>> Having reached that conclusion a long time ago, and not having a
>>>> particular need to continuously bang my head against a metaphorical brick
>>>> wall, I'm actually more interested in exploring what consciousness is
>>>> capable of, and the methods we can use to investigate its potential.
>>>> Perhaps if we were to do that rather more, we may discover more about its
>>>> potential. An important aspect of this, for me, is, how can we use our
>>>> consciousness to prevent us conscious beings from destroying ourselves and
>>>> our planet, and instead, doing what we can to contribute to the flourishing
>>>> and wellbeing of all living beings and the world we live in? Getting
>>>> bogged down in abstract theories about what consciousness is, or isn't,
>>>> whether that is about the 'hard problem' or the 'easy problem', may be
>>>> intellectually stimulating (rather like doing a crossword), but because of
>>>> the ontological implications, not a particularly productive use of our
>>>> scarcest resource - i.e. time.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes
>>>>
>>>> Joan
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 9 Apr 2021 at 23:06, Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
>>>>> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>>>> content is safe.
>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2021 at 3:46 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> My general reply is no. I do see qualia as a key ingredient, but an
>>>>>> isolated disembodied qualia?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not disembodied. Composed of whatever qualia are, like our
>>>>> consciousness, just a small amount of it. How would you define the minimum
>>>>> necessary to be considered conscious?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, my journey with John oriented me more toward adverbial qualia
>>>>>> (the hereness-nowness-togetherness) than adjectival qualia (properties like
>>>>>> redness).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting. Can you help me understand what you mean by "adverbial
>>>>> qualia"? To be more specific, if consciousness was remaining static,
>>>>> except for one pixel on the surface of the brain changing between redness
>>>>> and greenness, what would the objectively observable change in the brain be
>>>>> like which was that awareness of only that one-pixel change? Adverbs are
>>>>> about verbs, and verbs are about things performing actions, more of a
>>>>> computation about the things doing such, and such and such an adverbial
>>>>> manner. What is it, that is representing the thing that is doing the verb
>>>>> action in that manner? To me, the knowledge of the thing doing something,
>>>>> is the qualia, the action computation meaning, and how all that is being
>>>>> done, is the computation done by the binding of all that.
>>>>>
>>>>> When redness is specified in Wikipedia, as THE example of a qualia
>>>>> most used, how is that redness adverbial?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ############################
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>> following link:
>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>
>>>> ############################
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>> following link:
>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>> following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|