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=DwIFaQ&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=DwIFaQ&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