Thanks, Chance. Yes, ground of agreement is always good to look for. For example, do we all agree that everything we have typed on the list can be framed by the domain of “Mind3b”? That is, the domain of overt public justification. That is what it is from the UTOK metapsychology. (Note, this might sound confusing at first, because the initial reaction to this tends to be: (a) “no, because my mind is private not public!” and (b) “No, there is much more to communication than justification”. I am happy to clarify both points if that would help). Best, Gregg From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Chance McDermott Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:58 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: TOK Three Meanings of Consciousness 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. ________________________________ [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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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]<mailto: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