[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