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