TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
This is not a logical conclusion from your argument. The logical conclusion should be a neutral stance from the logic of your argument. — Pop
Since I have a well-worked-out theory of how Information works in the world -- like a progressive computer program -- for me the "logical conclusion" is to reserve the label "consciousness" only for the most highly developed forms of Generic Information (self-consciousness), and to assume that lower level objects & organisms are not conscious enough to warrant that label. The Aristotelian Potential for consciousness exists at all levels of evolution, but only in the later stages does Actual Consciousness" emerge.
But, since your worldview begins with Consciousness at the beginning, the logical conclusion might be to assume that everything in the world is aware, from the bottom-up. It's all a matter of degrees of development, yet the all-things-are-conscious stance opens the door to Magical Thinking. And I prefer to stay as close as possible to Scientific Thinking. To me, "Information" is a more "neutral" term, with fewer implications for Animism & Spiritualism.
Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects.
Magical thinking is a child's belief that what he or she wishes or expects can affect what really happens.
PS__Actually, my worldview also begins with something like Consciousness, before the beginning. That's what I call G*D. But, apart from a form of self-consciousness, I can't imagine what an eternal deity would be conscious of. I can guess that G*D is aware of the goings-on in He/r creation. But that's not the same as what some imagine as Cosmic Consciousness. So, again, I try not to waste too much time speculating on such things, that we can never know, except via direct revelation. And I remain skeptical of the various biblical or traditional claims to speak for God.
PPS__At the early stages of development of Consciousness, as in atoms, I call those primitive exchanges of Information : "Energy".
Since I have a well-worked-out theory of how Information works in the world -- like a progressive computer program -- for me the "logical conclusion" is to reserve the label "consciousness" only for the most highly developed forms of Generic Information (self-consciousness), and to assume that lower level objects & organisms are not conscious enough to warrant that label. The Aristotelian Potential for consciousness exists at all levels of evolution, but only in the later stages does Actual Consciousness" emerge.
But, since your worldview begins with Consciousness at the beginning, the logical conclusion might be to assume that everything in the world is aware, from the bottom-up. It's all a matter of degrees of development, yet the all-things-are-conscious stance opens the door to Magical Thinking. And I prefer to stay as close as possible to Scientific Thinking. To me, "Information" is a more "neutral" term, with fewer implications for Animism & Spiritualism.
Magical thinking, or superstitious thinking, is the belief that unrelated events are causally connected despite the absence of any plausible causal link between them, particularly as a result of supernatural effects.
Magical thinking is a child's belief that what he or she wishes or expects can affect what really happens.
PS__Actually, my worldview also begins with something like Consciousness, before the beginning. That's what I call G*D. But, apart from a form of self-consciousness, I can't imagine what an eternal deity would be conscious of. I can guess that G*D is aware of the goings-on in He/r creation. But that's not the same as what some imagine as Cosmic Consciousness. So, again, I try not to waste too much time speculating on such things, that we can never know, except via direct revelation. And I remain skeptical of the various biblical or traditional claims to speak for God.
PPS__At the early stages of development of Consciousness, as in atoms, I call those primitive exchanges of Information : "Energy".
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
The interaction places evolutionary pressure on the system, and its environment. It is what we are presently ( in this discussion ) involved in, and it is what a rock is also involved in. — Pop
I agree. But the last time I had a discussion with a rock, it had nothing interesting to say. That was a one-way conversation between Rocky & me. :razz:
Seriously though, the evolutionary dialog in my view is essentially what Hegel called "The Dialectic" : action provokes reaction, which provokes the next action.
** Fritjof Capra states "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state". — Pop
I don't remember the context of that assertion. But I think "cognition" is a bit more than "a reaction to a disturbance". Where does the awareness come in? Where is the knowledge stored? And what does the understanding of a rock consist of? :chin:
Cognition : the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
I agree. But the last time I had a discussion with a rock, it had nothing interesting to say. That was a one-way conversation between Rocky & me. :razz:
Seriously though, the evolutionary dialog in my view is essentially what Hegel called "The Dialectic" : action provokes reaction, which provokes the next action.
** Fritjof Capra states "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state". — Pop
I don't remember the context of that assertion. But I think "cognition" is a bit more than "a reaction to a disturbance". Where does the awareness come in? Where is the knowledge stored? And what does the understanding of a rock consist of? :chin:
Cognition : the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses.
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
I thought you might see it this way. But thanks for all the background, very very interesting. — Pop
You sound disappointed. Was it the godless, meaningless implication of "the appearance of design"? The rest of Blog Post 45 has a less mechanistic conclusion.
Natural versus Supernatural Teleology : Functions versus Goals
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page60.html
You sound disappointed. Was it the godless, meaningless implication of "the appearance of design"? The rest of Blog Post 45 has a less mechanistic conclusion.
Natural versus Supernatural Teleology : Functions versus Goals
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page60.html
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
You have a logical problem with your conception - you cannot define human consciousness. — Pop
Actually, I can define "human consciousness". It's the uniquely human perspective of the world, that homo sapiens have in common. Every other worldview remains a mystery, unless they speak my language. But some people still project their own inner views onto alien consciousnesses.
what you are really saying is, only anthropocentric self awareness counts as self awarness — Pop
That's not what I meant to imply. But I do think that "anthropocentric self awareness" is the only kind I can identify with, due to the human ability to put their awareness into conceptual words, instead of just behavioral actions. I assume that the higher mammals, that have a lot in common with human mammalian physiology (e.g. centralized brains), are self-aware to some degree. That typical feeling has been corroborated by the Mirror Test. But even that experiment gets less & less indications of self-conception as they go further down the food chain. If an Octopus is self-aware, does that mean that Calamari is murder? :joke:
At that point one can relate to the universe on a peer to peer basis, as we relate to each other. — Pop
My worldview is inherently hierarchical, so I don't relate to Octopi as peers. They don't apeer to me as moral equals. My view has a fairly clear pecking order. So I can justify being a carnivore, who eats the flesh of living sentient creatures. Although, I'm not a fan of tentacles : raw, fried, or boiled.
Peer : noun. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.
Moral Agent : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... age%2Fjpeg
Actually, I can define "human consciousness". It's the uniquely human perspective of the world, that homo sapiens have in common. Every other worldview remains a mystery, unless they speak my language. But some people still project their own inner views onto alien consciousnesses.
what you are really saying is, only anthropocentric self awareness counts as self awarness — Pop
That's not what I meant to imply. But I do think that "anthropocentric self awareness" is the only kind I can identify with, due to the human ability to put their awareness into conceptual words, instead of just behavioral actions. I assume that the higher mammals, that have a lot in common with human mammalian physiology (e.g. centralized brains), are self-aware to some degree. That typical feeling has been corroborated by the Mirror Test. But even that experiment gets less & less indications of self-conception as they go further down the food chain. If an Octopus is self-aware, does that mean that Calamari is murder? :joke:
At that point one can relate to the universe on a peer to peer basis, as we relate to each other. — Pop
My worldview is inherently hierarchical, so I don't relate to Octopi as peers. They don't apeer to me as moral equals. My view has a fairly clear pecking order. So I can justify being a carnivore, who eats the flesh of living sentient creatures. Although, I'm not a fan of tentacles : raw, fried, or boiled.
Peer : noun. a person of the same legal status: a jury of one's peers. a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.
Moral Agent : A moral agent is a person who has the ability to discern right from wrong and to be held accountable for his or her own actions.
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/cont ... age%2Fjpeg
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
Its up to the higher consciousness to speak to the lower one in terms it understands. Give the rock a kick next time and see what it says. I'm sure it will acknowledge a response. — Pop
My last relationship with a Rock, of lower social status, was rather rocky. And it ended in stony silence. :love:
My last relationship with a Rock, of lower social status, was rather rocky. And it ended in stony silence. :love:
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
Trying to convince you of a better alternative understanding is like banging my head against a brick wall, and the same for you in trying to convince me. So this reality is a bit disappointing. — Pop
Hey! That's just philosophy. Philosophers have been arguing over the same big questions for thousands of years. And made little progress on the really "hard questions" : the ones that have little hard evidence to base an opinion on. The easier ones we turn over to empirical science. But, stubborn as rocks, we keep on trying. Your worldview is very close to mine, except for a few quibbles. So, keep on pounding those bricks into dust.
Hey! That's just philosophy. Philosophers have been arguing over the same big questions for thousands of years. And made little progress on the really "hard questions" : the ones that have little hard evidence to base an opinion on. The easier ones we turn over to empirical science. But, stubborn as rocks, we keep on trying. Your worldview is very close to mine, except for a few quibbles. So, keep on pounding those bricks into dust.
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
That all things are conscious because they arise from the same process - interrelational evolution, is the most important consideration to me. Human consciousness is not something special or set apart from that process. Of course human consciousness is the most evolved and complex expression of that process. Closing the door on all-things-are-conscious, without proof, on the basis of ancient assumptions seems like magical thinking to me. — Pop
I agree, up to the last sentence.
Closing the door to magical thinking is a basic tenet of open-minded skepticism. It's like slamming the lid on Pandora's Box, after you see what kind of demons are flying out of it. The "proof" of the magical pudding is the eating thereof. If it tastes like fantasy & fiction, don't swallow it, expecting nutritious facts & reality . Magical thinking doesn't require evidence, only faith & imagination.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"
___Carl Sagan
But then, absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
PS__I'm not saying that your Theory of Consciousness is based on Magical Cognition. But the implicit notion of Universal Consciousness is common among those who feel free to attribute meaning & significance to coincidences & accidents. Also, to Those who see meaningful patterns in tea leaves & animal entrails & lines on palms. All I'm saying is, don't be so open-minded that your lie-detector compass gets blown about by every wind of doctrine.
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
― Carl Sagan
I agree, up to the last sentence.
Closing the door to magical thinking is a basic tenet of open-minded skepticism. It's like slamming the lid on Pandora's Box, after you see what kind of demons are flying out of it. The "proof" of the magical pudding is the eating thereof. If it tastes like fantasy & fiction, don't swallow it, expecting nutritious facts & reality . Magical thinking doesn't require evidence, only faith & imagination.
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,"
___Carl Sagan
But then, absence of evidence is not evidence of anything.
PS__I'm not saying that your Theory of Consciousness is based on Magical Cognition. But the implicit notion of Universal Consciousness is common among those who feel free to attribute meaning & significance to coincidences & accidents. Also, to Those who see meaningful patterns in tea leaves & animal entrails & lines on palms. All I'm saying is, don't be so open-minded that your lie-detector compass gets blown about by every wind of doctrine.
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”
― Carl Sagan
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
My worldview is inherently hierarchical — Gnomon
Biblical? — Pop
No. Scientific. And Rational. Emotion and Sentiment sometimes motivate well-intentioned, but futile, attempts to turn the stratified & ranked system upside-down -- as in Marxism. Perhaps, in the distant future, artificial human culture will achieve some measure of Egalitarianism. But even then, I suspect that the little fish will be at the bottom of the food chain. Fortunately, the prey can sometimes turn the tables on the predators, as in the Musk Ox Defense.
Hierarchy is an important concept in a wide variety of fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, organizational theory, systems theory, systematic biology, and the social sciences (especially political philosophy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy
Note : Enlightenment-era science dropped the catholic hierarchies of church authorities, for good reasons. But the hierarchical structures of nature are god-made, not man-made.
LITTLE FISH OF THE SEA, UNITE !!!
https://workerjustice.org/wp-content/up ... e-fish.jpg
MUSK OX DEFENSE
https://i.imgur.com/gIc2CJ2.jpg
Biblical? — Pop
No. Scientific. And Rational. Emotion and Sentiment sometimes motivate well-intentioned, but futile, attempts to turn the stratified & ranked system upside-down -- as in Marxism. Perhaps, in the distant future, artificial human culture will achieve some measure of Egalitarianism. But even then, I suspect that the little fish will be at the bottom of the food chain. Fortunately, the prey can sometimes turn the tables on the predators, as in the Musk Ox Defense.
Hierarchy is an important concept in a wide variety of fields, such as philosophy, mathematics, computer science, organizational theory, systems theory, systematic biology, and the social sciences (especially political philosophy).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy
Note : Enlightenment-era science dropped the catholic hierarchies of church authorities, for good reasons. But the hierarchical structures of nature are god-made, not man-made.
LITTLE FISH OF THE SEA, UNITE !!!
https://workerjustice.org/wp-content/up ... e-fish.jpg
MUSK OX DEFENSE
https://i.imgur.com/gIc2CJ2.jpg
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
My worldview is inherently hierarchical — Gnomon
Biblical? — Pop
I was surprised that you found my hierarchical worldview to be a biblical or political prejudice. So, I want to clarify my usage of the term. In my current book review, about Modern Science versus Aristotelian Philosophy, the topic of Natural Hierarchies came up. And in response to your forum question, I added a note to differentiate between socio-cultural organization (military & priesthood ranking ; political power) of human importance & power, and the natural organization of organic complexity (degree of enformation ; self-organization) as exemplified in food chains. Here's the note I added :
Note :
John Locke denied that social hierarchies are natural phenomena. So, they can be changed via political or revolutionary means.
NATURAL HIERARCHY OF ORGANIZATION
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... medium.gif
SOCIAL HIERARCHY PYRAMID
https://sites.google.com/site/learnabou ... archy3.jpg
Biblical? — Pop
I was surprised that you found my hierarchical worldview to be a biblical or political prejudice. So, I want to clarify my usage of the term. In my current book review, about Modern Science versus Aristotelian Philosophy, the topic of Natural Hierarchies came up. And in response to your forum question, I added a note to differentiate between socio-cultural organization (military & priesthood ranking ; political power) of human importance & power, and the natural organization of organic complexity (degree of enformation ; self-organization) as exemplified in food chains. Here's the note I added :
Note :
John Locke denied that social hierarchies are natural phenomena. So, they can be changed via political or revolutionary means.
NATURAL HIERARCHY OF ORGANIZATION
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... medium.gif
SOCIAL HIERARCHY PYRAMID
https://sites.google.com/site/learnabou ... archy3.jpg
Re: TPF : Short Theory of Consciousness
↪Gnomon
Your theory preserves the status quo. I'm not interested in that. I think it is destructive and unsustainable. You affirm the pharaoh / slave hierarchy mentality, whereas I am trying to promote a scribe / farmer mentality. — Pop
I'm offended that you are still laboring under that mistaken attribution. That's just the opposite of my intention. My thesis proposes a Paradigm Shift in science, not a status quo of social organization. In the quoted post, I made a clear distinction between Natural Hierarchy and Social Hierarchy. The status quo of Nature is always evolving, but there's not much that humans can do about it. Yet Social organizations are also evolving, and humans can do something about its inequities.
That's what the Social Contract philosopher was saying in the quote : "John Locke denied that social hierarchies are natural phenomena. So, they can be changed via political or revolutionary means." And his ideas influenced the American Revolution against " the pharaoh / slave hierarchy mentality" So, your interpretation of my post is exactly the opposite of my intention. And I await your apology.
However, when I said that my worldview is "inherently hierarchical", I was referring -- not to politics -- but to the obvious evolutionary pyramid of species from single-cell organisms to res cogitans. You may not like the natural food-chain of apex predators at the top, with herbivores in the middle, and vegetation near the bottom. But, hey, that's life : "red in tooth & claw".
However, If you accept the First Cause or Creator Deity explanation for the contingent existence of our world, then you must accept that the natural hierarchy of Life, is inherent in whatever plan is being worked-out in the on-going sequence of Cause & Effect. If you don't accept such intentional causes, then it's all random, and there's nothing that res cogitans can do about the status quo.
PS__I was just kidding about being offended. I am not so easily upset by the verbal tug-of-war of philosophical dialog. And I apologize, if I gave you the wrong impression.
PPS__So, you are " trying to promote a scribe / farmer mentality". That reminds me of a saying in the former socially-stratified plantations of America after the Civil War freed the slaves : "bottom rail's on top" (referring to fence rails). By that, they meant the social order had been turned upside-down. Ironically, a century later, the "bottom rail" still has not made it to the top of the pyramid.
Your theory preserves the status quo. I'm not interested in that. I think it is destructive and unsustainable. You affirm the pharaoh / slave hierarchy mentality, whereas I am trying to promote a scribe / farmer mentality. — Pop
I'm offended that you are still laboring under that mistaken attribution. That's just the opposite of my intention. My thesis proposes a Paradigm Shift in science, not a status quo of social organization. In the quoted post, I made a clear distinction between Natural Hierarchy and Social Hierarchy. The status quo of Nature is always evolving, but there's not much that humans can do about it. Yet Social organizations are also evolving, and humans can do something about its inequities.
That's what the Social Contract philosopher was saying in the quote : "John Locke denied that social hierarchies are natural phenomena. So, they can be changed via political or revolutionary means." And his ideas influenced the American Revolution against " the pharaoh / slave hierarchy mentality" So, your interpretation of my post is exactly the opposite of my intention. And I await your apology.
However, when I said that my worldview is "inherently hierarchical", I was referring -- not to politics -- but to the obvious evolutionary pyramid of species from single-cell organisms to res cogitans. You may not like the natural food-chain of apex predators at the top, with herbivores in the middle, and vegetation near the bottom. But, hey, that's life : "red in tooth & claw".
However, If you accept the First Cause or Creator Deity explanation for the contingent existence of our world, then you must accept that the natural hierarchy of Life, is inherent in whatever plan is being worked-out in the on-going sequence of Cause & Effect. If you don't accept such intentional causes, then it's all random, and there's nothing that res cogitans can do about the status quo.
PS__I was just kidding about being offended. I am not so easily upset by the verbal tug-of-war of philosophical dialog. And I apologize, if I gave you the wrong impression.
PPS__So, you are " trying to promote a scribe / farmer mentality". That reminds me of a saying in the former socially-stratified plantations of America after the Civil War freed the slaves : "bottom rail's on top" (referring to fence rails). By that, they meant the social order had been turned upside-down. Ironically, a century later, the "bottom rail" still has not made it to the top of the pyramid.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests