https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-else/p1
And if you don't like that neither then tell me, is consciousness a type of feeling at all, and if not, then what in the world is it? — Zelebg
If you're looking for a philosophical definition of "Consciousness", you may find that each poster has his own opinion. But if you're looking for a cutting-edge treatment of the latest scientific research on the Mind/Body question, check out Christof Koch's latest book : The Feeling of Life Itself. The title expresses Koch's personal answer to your question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christof_Koch
"Consciousness is experience. . . . consciousness is lived reality. It is the feeling of life itself. It is the only bit of eternity to which I am entitled."
".. . experience. It is the one fact I am absolutely certain of. Everything else is conjecture, including the existence of an external world."
Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?
Re: Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-else/p1
How about I say consciousness is a separate feeling with its own sense, its own receptors like that of taste or smell? — Zelebg
If you're saying that the brain is a sensory organ for meaning, that pretty well sums it up. But there are no dedicated sensors (like eyes) specifically for Consciousness. Some have postulated that the brain works like an antenna to receive transmissions from out in the ether. That may be a crude analogy, but there are no aliens out there trying to contact us: it's just Mother Nature calling. Besides, the "feelings" associated with meanings are ordinary emotions evoked by their relevance to me.
IMHO, Consciousness is not a thing or a signal or a sensation, or a soul, but a holistic process. It's merely what highly organized brains do --- as a whole system. All of your physical senses detect energy in various wavelengths and the brain interprets the dots & dashes into meaning. As in Morse code, the interpreter must already know the code. We are born decoders of meaning. If you want something more technical than that, check out Koch's book.
How about I say consciousness is a separate feeling with its own sense, its own receptors like that of taste or smell? — Zelebg
If you're saying that the brain is a sensory organ for meaning, that pretty well sums it up. But there are no dedicated sensors (like eyes) specifically for Consciousness. Some have postulated that the brain works like an antenna to receive transmissions from out in the ether. That may be a crude analogy, but there are no aliens out there trying to contact us: it's just Mother Nature calling. Besides, the "feelings" associated with meanings are ordinary emotions evoked by their relevance to me.
IMHO, Consciousness is not a thing or a signal or a sensation, or a soul, but a holistic process. It's merely what highly organized brains do --- as a whole system. All of your physical senses detect energy in various wavelengths and the brain interprets the dots & dashes into meaning. As in Morse code, the interpreter must already know the code. We are born decoders of meaning. If you want something more technical than that, check out Koch's book.
Re: Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-else/p2
Is there any other referrence to "antenna" in relation to mind or sentience you know of? — Zelebg
I'm sure there are plenty of "antenna" references out there but I haven't taken the time to look for them, since I think they are taking the analogy too literally.
A similar concept is that of the HIndu "Akashic Field" theory, which Ervin Laszlo has updated as a reference to the universal Quantum Field. Yet again, I can accept it as a metaphor, but not as a mechanism. It proposes that the field is like a universal mind, including memory, that humans can tune into. I don't know how you could verify such a theory empirically. I'm much more interested in how the human brain generates consciousness. And Christof Koch's book is the latest and best I've seen on that topic.
Is there any other referrence to "antenna" in relation to mind or sentience you know of? — Zelebg
I'm sure there are plenty of "antenna" references out there but I haven't taken the time to look for them, since I think they are taking the analogy too literally.
A similar concept is that of the HIndu "Akashic Field" theory, which Ervin Laszlo has updated as a reference to the universal Quantum Field. Yet again, I can accept it as a metaphor, but not as a mechanism. It proposes that the field is like a universal mind, including memory, that humans can tune into. I don't know how you could verify such a theory empirically. I'm much more interested in how the human brain generates consciousness. And Christof Koch's book is the latest and best I've seen on that topic.
Re: Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-else/p2
And the definition of consciousness is: "act of self-observation". — Zelebg
FWIW, I think feedback loops and self-reference are necessary, but not sufficient, to produce consciousness. Again Koch's book gets into the details of how that works.
Below is a personal computer hardware configuration for which I claim is conscious, self-aware, and free willing. — Zelebg
The subtitle to Koch's book, The Feeling Of Life Itself, is Why Consciousness is Widespread but Can't Be Computed.
And the definition of consciousness is: "act of self-observation". — Zelebg
FWIW, I think feedback loops and self-reference are necessary, but not sufficient, to produce consciousness. Again Koch's book gets into the details of how that works.
Below is a personal computer hardware configuration for which I claim is conscious, self-aware, and free willing. — Zelebg
The subtitle to Koch's book, The Feeling Of Life Itself, is Why Consciousness is Widespread but Can't Be Computed.
Re: Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-else/p2
Perhaps experiments could be designed to test that fascinating theory. The problem is that no "respectable" scientists would want to challenge the current it's-all-in-the-brain paradigm. — Chris Hughes
Actually, there are plenty of respectable scientists who are challenging the materialist paradigm. But their tests are necessarily thought experiments, which don't carry much weight with empirical scientists.
For example, Bernardo Kastrup is a computer scientist who has worked at CERN in Switzerland. He is a proponent of an Idealist explanation for Consciousness. Based on his Artificial Intelligence research, he concludes that, "one universal consciousness gives rise to multiple, private but concurrently conscious centers of cognition," Along with two psychiatry researchers, he explains in a Scientific American magazine article that the unitary Cosmic Mind produces individual human minds by analogy with Dissociative Identity Disorder.
I'm not so sure about the validity of that comparison, but he has arrived at an Idealist worldview similar to mine, but coming from a different direction. His Universal Consciousness concept also has some similarities to Akashic Field and Quantum Field theories. Which are likewise approaching the Hard Problem of Consciousness from divergent directions.
Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe and Everything? :
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... verything/
Reality is Ideality : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html
Thats why it's a metaphor not an analogy. — Chris Hughes
"The brain is like an antenna" is an analogy. "The brain is an antenna" is a metaphor. And metaphors are too often taken literally, leading to erroneous conclusions.
Perhaps experiments could be designed to test that fascinating theory. The problem is that no "respectable" scientists would want to challenge the current it's-all-in-the-brain paradigm. — Chris Hughes
Actually, there are plenty of respectable scientists who are challenging the materialist paradigm. But their tests are necessarily thought experiments, which don't carry much weight with empirical scientists.
For example, Bernardo Kastrup is a computer scientist who has worked at CERN in Switzerland. He is a proponent of an Idealist explanation for Consciousness. Based on his Artificial Intelligence research, he concludes that, "one universal consciousness gives rise to multiple, private but concurrently conscious centers of cognition," Along with two psychiatry researchers, he explains in a Scientific American magazine article that the unitary Cosmic Mind produces individual human minds by analogy with Dissociative Identity Disorder.
I'm not so sure about the validity of that comparison, but he has arrived at an Idealist worldview similar to mine, but coming from a different direction. His Universal Consciousness concept also has some similarities to Akashic Field and Quantum Field theories. Which are likewise approaching the Hard Problem of Consciousness from divergent directions.
Could Multiple Personality Disorder Explain Life, the Universe and Everything? :
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... verything/
Reality is Ideality : http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page17.html
Thats why it's a metaphor not an analogy. — Chris Hughes
"The brain is like an antenna" is an analogy. "The brain is an antenna" is a metaphor. And metaphors are too often taken literally, leading to erroneous conclusions.
Re: Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?
Having read and agreed with radical biologist Rupert Sheldake, whose views, I'd say, coinicide with Idealism, I’d be interested to know - if it's not a diversion - what you (and others here) think of his morphic resonance idea, which hypothesises that self-organising systems inherit memory and habit from previous similar systems. — Chris Hughes
Years ago, I was impressed by Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Resonance, when he observed that cells of growing plants appear to know what to do, and where to go, in order to construct the characteristic final form of its species. It's as-if the cells were following a blueprint. Since then, he has broadly expanded his theory into some pretty far-out notions, such as "the feeling of being stared at". But empirical Science is not content with weaving stories around "as-if" metaphors. Instead, it looks for "as-is" mechanisms.
Although his thesis is ultimately Idealistic, in the sense of Plato's eternal Forms, and it has a role for Information similar to my own worldview, I'm not convinced that his interpretation is correct. It provides a rationale for psychic and magical phenomena, that I think are better explained in terms of human psychology, and statistical probability. Admittedly, his metaphors are easier for the average person to grasp, but I'm currently pursuing my own abstruse Theory of Everything that I call Enformationism. Unfortunately, that TOE has no place for magic in the real world.
Years ago, I was impressed by Sheldrake's theory of Morphic Resonance, when he observed that cells of growing plants appear to know what to do, and where to go, in order to construct the characteristic final form of its species. It's as-if the cells were following a blueprint. Since then, he has broadly expanded his theory into some pretty far-out notions, such as "the feeling of being stared at". But empirical Science is not content with weaving stories around "as-if" metaphors. Instead, it looks for "as-is" mechanisms.
Although his thesis is ultimately Idealistic, in the sense of Plato's eternal Forms, and it has a role for Information similar to my own worldview, I'm not convinced that his interpretation is correct. It provides a rationale for psychic and magical phenomena, that I think are better explained in terms of human psychology, and statistical probability. Admittedly, his metaphors are easier for the average person to grasp, but I'm currently pursuing my own abstruse Theory of Everything that I call Enformationism. Unfortunately, that TOE has no place for magic in the real world.
Re: Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/350694
So...intelligent design? — Chris Hughes
No. Intelligent Evolution.
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf
"Enformity" is a coined term defined as the essential quality of an enformed system (e.g. a designed universe as opposed to an accidental universe) — Gnomon
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
https://panendeism.forumotion.com/t626- ... panendeism
So...intelligent design? — Chris Hughes
No. Intelligent Evolution.
http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Essay ... 120106.pdf
"Enformity" is a coined term defined as the essential quality of an enformed system (e.g. a designed universe as opposed to an accidental universe) — Gnomon
Enformy :
In the Enformationism theory, Enformy is a hypothetical, holistic, metaphysical, natural trend or force, that counteracts Entropy & Randomness to produce complexity & progress. [ see post 63 for graph ]
1. I'm not aware of any "supernatural force" in the world. But my Enformationism theory postulates that there is a meta-physical force behind Time's Arrow and the positive progress of evolution. Just as Entropy is sometimes referred to as a "force" causing energy to dissipate (negative effect), Enformy is the antithesis, which causes energy to agglomerate (additive effect).
2. Of course, neither of those phenomena is a physical Force, or a direct Cause, in the usual sense. But the term "force" is applied to such holistic causes as a metaphor drawn from our experience with physics.
3. "Entropy" and "Enformy" are scientific/technical terms that are equivalent to the religious/moralistic terms "Evil" and "Good". So, while those forces are completely natural, the ultimate source of the power behind them may be supernatural, in the sense that the First Cause logically existed before the Big Bang. http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html
https://panendeism.forumotion.com/t626- ... panendeism
Re: Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-else/p2
I've barely started reading Koch's 'The Feeling of Life Itself', and can already see that a certain part of the brain has been identified to be involved with consciousness, this at least localizing thee 'mystery'. — PoeticUniverse
Yes, but Koch still maintains that Consciousness is a holistic function of the body/brain. The "correlates of consciousness" are locations on a map, not the Terrain itself.
The Whole can also be well spoken of
To communicate with others, (as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For the nonconscious knows not what it made.) — PoeticUniverse
The conscious whole is experienced as the "feeling of being", but is represented to others as the Self -- symbolized as a homunculus : a Mini-Me. The Self functions as the CEO of the corporate body, accepting or rejecting policies (ideas) and plans of action (feelings) submitted by the sub-conscious VP's in charge of various sub-functions of the body. Only the CEO is conscious of the whole system, but even then, only in a general, superficial sense. The Boss may not know exactly where those ideas and feelings came from, but merely judges : "sounds good to me", or "no, that will conflict with other goals".
I've barely started reading Koch's 'The Feeling of Life Itself', and can already see that a certain part of the brain has been identified to be involved with consciousness, this at least localizing thee 'mystery'. — PoeticUniverse
Yes, but Koch still maintains that Consciousness is a holistic function of the body/brain. The "correlates of consciousness" are locations on a map, not the Terrain itself.
The Whole can also be well spoken of
To communicate with others, (as well as
Globally informing other brain states,
For the nonconscious knows not what it made.) — PoeticUniverse
The conscious whole is experienced as the "feeling of being", but is represented to others as the Self -- symbolized as a homunculus : a Mini-Me. The Self functions as the CEO of the corporate body, accepting or rejecting policies (ideas) and plans of action (feelings) submitted by the sub-conscious VP's in charge of various sub-functions of the body. Only the CEO is conscious of the whole system, but even then, only in a general, superficial sense. The Boss may not know exactly where those ideas and feelings came from, but merely judges : "sounds good to me", or "no, that will conflict with other goals".
Re: Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-else/p2
Very interesting! May I refer you to my thread, "The significance of meaning" which asks if DNA could be the result of random events? — Chris Hughes
The Chinese Room thought experiment illustrates that randomness can simulate intelligence (as-if), but cannot create meaning (as-is). So, while DNA most likely evolved via Random processes, any meaning encoded in the chemistry is a product of Selection, which implements Intention.
Chinese Room : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Very interesting! May I refer you to my thread, "The significance of meaning" which asks if DNA could be the result of random events? — Chris Hughes
The Chinese Room thought experiment illustrates that randomness can simulate intelligence (as-if), but cannot create meaning (as-is). So, while DNA most likely evolved via Random processes, any meaning encoded in the chemistry is a product of Selection, which implements Intention.
Chinese Room : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room
Re: Phil Forum : Consciousness a Feeling?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ng-else/p3
How could it have? There's no agreed possible process via which DNA could have appeared. It certainly didn't evolve, as evolution depends on self-replication, only possible with DNA! — Chris Hughes
I was talking about DeoxyRibonucleicAcid. The organic molecule that acts as a carrier of information (instructions, recipe) for construction of an organism.
I assume you are talking about the coded Information itself, which is immaterial. IMHO generic Information (EnFormAction) is the essence and cause of reality itself. Metaphorically, it functions as the "Will of G*D", if you will. But your personal DNA is the physical result of a 14 million year chain of cause & effect development (Intelligent Evolution). It is unique only in the sense that any particular thing is unique : it is characterized by a difference-that-makes-a-difference (specified information). The mathematical code that creates and maintains your material body is not a miraculous addition to a soul-less husk, but is the algorithmic essence of your Self, both Physical and Metaphysical.
EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Intelligent Evolution : The Program of Development for creation of a world via random heuristics and the Programmer's selection criteria.
How could it have? There's no agreed possible process via which DNA could have appeared. It certainly didn't evolve, as evolution depends on self-replication, only possible with DNA! — Chris Hughes
I was talking about DeoxyRibonucleicAcid. The organic molecule that acts as a carrier of information (instructions, recipe) for construction of an organism.
I assume you are talking about the coded Information itself, which is immaterial. IMHO generic Information (EnFormAction) is the essence and cause of reality itself. Metaphorically, it functions as the "Will of G*D", if you will. But your personal DNA is the physical result of a 14 million year chain of cause & effect development (Intelligent Evolution). It is unique only in the sense that any particular thing is unique : it is characterized by a difference-that-makes-a-difference (specified information). The mathematical code that creates and maintains your material body is not a miraculous addition to a soul-less husk, but is the algorithmic essence of your Self, both Physical and Metaphysical.
EnFormAction : http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page29.html
Intelligent Evolution : The Program of Development for creation of a world via random heuristics and the Programmer's selection criteria.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests