My question is, if we are conscious, and additionally conscious of ours and others consciousness, but not conscious of unconsciousness, are we not ourselves exactly what consciousness is? In this regard there is no use discussing hard or easy, physical or mental, red or green, these are all dualistic abstractions of consciousness attempting to find itself outside of itself, which is quite impossible. In this sense we can also see that consciousness is not a property of the body or brain as we are conscious of both. Yes we are conscious of our own brains, from many different epistemological frames. I know most don't (fully) agree with this, but I am not aware of any process by which I can exist at all without being both inside and outside of a "me" that "owns" consciousness. I don't know precisely what it is. But whatever it is, I am that, and that is the ground and the ceiling of being. I am that I am. And out of that nondual observer "Am-ness" the entire Tok arises and collapses in an infinitely entropic and negentropic process that allows for consciousness to experience, but effectively amounts to absolutely no thing at all. Regards, Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. On Fri, Apr 9, 2021, 5:47 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