Hey Brent, Just curious, how many people actually use the canonizer? Eric On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 12:05 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. > ------------------------------ > > 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