Humans create the concept of forest insead of group-of-trees. Then we speak in terms of forest as if the forest actually existed. — Don Wade

Perhaps a Forrest is not the ideal analogy to make your point. Forests are different to trees in the same way that cells are different to organs. In ecology a forest is called an ecological community- the members of the community are interdependent - exchanging nutrients, and resources even communicating. I live in a swamp schlerophyll ecological community ( forrest ). The trees and plants that are members of the community always occur together, and they exclude other plant species that are not part of their community.

The largest organism in the world has survived relatively unnoticed within the Fishlake National Forest in Utah. Now, researchers are concerned that this organism, 1,000's of years old, is dying. The organism is named Pando, Latin for I spread, and is a massive grove of quaking aspens.

You seem to be to be trying to articulate how consciousness groups things, and then saying the groupings are what the things being grouped become? Yes there is an element of that occurring. Piaget's constructivism is a good example of how knowledge is accumulated, and then how that knowledge becomes the world via an idealist paradigm. No doubt the nature of consciousness ( both it's content and it's structure ) places a limitation on our perception of the world.

↪Pop A single-cell seems to be able to find all kinds of ways to communicate, or find food/sex. I study "Levels", and in levels, communication can happen between cells - as well as higher-level animals (made up of cells). However, the different levels don't seem to communicate. — Don Wade

I'm glad you have honed in on the central issue - what causes the integrity of these creatures? Traditionally it has been generally assumed that something central must coordinate all these functions, but on closer inspection no such thing exists ( in physical form at least ). So traditional analytical reductionism is of no use. Science , across the whole spectrum. turns to systems theory to try and understand it. They speak in terms of layers ( I assume this is what you mean by levels ). Systems theory can analyze gross patterns where no particular microscopic pattern can be discerned. What i have gathered of it is that at each layer there exists a synergy that coordinates the organism and gives rise to functional self organization.

The basis of self organization is not yet discernible The leading explanation is that simple energy fluctuations give rise to ultimate self organization, where the gross function is considered an emergent property. Self organization is a property of the gross organism, but also of all of its components . This understanding is the basis for the embodied movement , whose leading exponents are Maturana, Verala, Thompson, and Capra. Their mantra is; " Living systems are cognitive systems, and living as a process is a process of cognition. This statement is valid for all organisms, with or without a nervous system."

Capra goes further and states that " cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state ". In saying this he is not necessarily referring to an organism.

As for communication between layers. It is a bottom up causation, so this is a form of communication. Recent research suggests brain structure changes somewhat in line with new thinking. Lifestyle also causes epigenetics to turn some genes off and others on. I'm pretty sure there would be other feedback loops.

Eyespot apparatus


Ocelloid


Evolution of the eye

Now, as usual, a whole bunch of new questions. — Don Wade

Yeah, sorry about that, but I think it is better to ask these questions sooner rather then later - once your mind is already made up. I think it provides a really good view of how all the functions are present at a very fundamental stage, and then they evolve together.

Ain't that the truth :cool: — Amity

Shhhh! they might hear, and relegate the thread to the lounge. :grimace:

And one for the mods. :smile:

That's a lie :wink: — Amity

You have no understanding! :smile:

The eye and brain seem to work well together - but which came first - the eye, or the brain? Or, did they develop at the same time as a part of each other? — Don Wade

You might find this interesting.

I guess you guys have some history and scores to settle. I think I'd rather stay out of it. Its been good to chat. :up:

I believe this to be the best cartoon of all time... — synthesis

Its pretty good, but nobody can beat Leunig.

If we observe a phenomenon that begins in a state of lower entropy, it is clear why entropy increases - because in the process of reshuffling everything becomes disordered. But why do the phenomena that we observe around us in the cosmos begin in a state of lower entropy in the first place? — Carlo Rovelli

Is a big bang low entropy? :nerd:

So the 'shape' of the mind in the world is a product of its own mental operations (in a physical context) and not merely a physical product. — Pantagruel

:up: Yep. So, we create our own reality? We create ourselves? - within physical constraints, including the constraint of being a node in a lineage of life.

Can it be said that to be truly self-aware means to recognize, itemize, hence understand the necessary grounds of one’s mental activities? And can it be said that a theory of everything would limit itself to the exposition of those grounds, sufficient for any human, rational self to compare against?

If so, I submit Kant’s tripartite critique fits the requirements.

Keyword, of course....theory. — Mww

Perhaps I should have said a theory of everything , that everybody agrees on, like E=mc2. :smile:

"Kant had a tripartite doctrine of the a priori. He held that some features of the mind and its knowledge had a priori origins, i.e., must be in the mind prior to experience (because using them is necessary to have experience). That mind and knowledge have these features are a priori truths, i.e., necessary and universal (B3/4)[1]. And we can come to know these truths, or that they are a priori at any rate, only by using a priori methods, i.e., we cannot learn these things from experience " - SEP

I think, in present times this a priori knowledge would be DNA data forming brain structure. At birth we have a certain DNA profile, which over time epigenetics changes ( turns some genes on, and others off ) in relation to experience, which in turn changes brain structure, which in turn changes the a priori knowledge, and so on, and on. ( to some extent ). ** This is also consistent with Piaget's theory of cognitive development - where perception improves in stages.

A theory of everything would explain why this self organization occurs. I don't see how Kant explains this? Most of my knowledge is derived from outside of philosophy. I have only read a little of Kant's views on Aesthetics, which seemed dated to me. So no doubt I am missing something?

This makes me think of the distinctions between objective truth and subjective truth. We can assume objectively that we all have self-awareness, but we know with a higher degree of certainty that our own truth is pure subjectivity. — 3017amen

Yeah, Its like within our belief system we have a self awareness, but belief systems are not fact / truth systems. They have a probabilistic validity, so that seems to imply we really have a probabilistic self awareness, which is not a true self awareness. It may be however, that this situation can never be improved upon given each individual consciousness is unique, and given the evolving / emerging nature of the universe.

So, all are good, depending of what we're parsing. We must know which hats to wear when questions are posed. Ironically enough, being reasonable essentially means treating like cases likely, different cases differently.

To this end, can you describe your thoughts and interpretations relative to dualism v. monism? — 3017amen

Yes, I think all consciousness is good :smile: provided it confers survival. To this end, some are better then others , but we wont know which are better for sure and why until some future time, when they have proven themselves, given the probabilistic nature of the future.

I cannot find a conceptual pathway for the existence of dualism that I can have faith in. Having a conceptual pathway that can, to some extent at least can be verified is important to me. Understanding consciousness as self organization, within a self organizing universe, seems like a viable monistic pathway towards a big picture understanding. Personally, its not quite there yet, but it seems close.

I would be interested in how you justify dualism?

↪Pop Yeah, I'm familiar with all kinds of complexity / systems theories. What Wolfram set out to do, however, is truly radical and much more fundamental than biological or ecological 'self-organization'. I'm not completely sold, however, on his grand project but I've kept an eye on (some of) his work for over a decade now and, as I've learned more from him and physicists like Carlo Rovelli, David Deutsch and Max Tegmark (among others), I've become more interested in the lines of inquiry they're pursuing. — 180 Proof

Yeah, I will definitely look into him some more, Thanks.

He talks complexity , but it seems he really wants to analyze and reduce, and who wouldn't, but I wonder whether AI will be so concerned with what it concludes at the most fundamental level. Fluctuating energy waves is not very satisfying from an anthropocentric point of view. I prefer to call it information and energy causing the emergence of matter. The question is why should it self organize in the first place? Forces acting on things does nor necessarily mean things have to integrate - but they do.
As a monist ( where everything is made of the same stuff ) and a believer in phenomenology I wonder If emotions play a role at the fundamental level in the same way they do in consciousness, causing integrity. The best way that I can currently put it is that things are biased to integrate, and a bias is an emotion! It sounds crazy in our time, but I can not absolutely exclude it, and I am attracted to the idea of a world where everything is conscious and emotional. I think it would be an improvement on the world we currently have. Any thoughts?

Thanks for the comprehensive explanation. This is to do with epistemology. I take my cue from Piaget's constructivism which was developed mainly through a study of childhood cognitive development. Piaget observed that children of certain ages were capable of perceiving certain things, which they were not capable of perceiving at a younger age. He narrowed it down to stages of perceptual development, linking brain growth with perception, but also the accumulation of knowledge piece by piece - the greater the body of knowledge, the greater the ability to analyze and perceive. It has been extensively studied across countries and cultures, and the prevailing view is that perceptual abilities develop in stages, where stage one needs to be experienced in order to go onto stage two, etc. Each stage resulting in a better functioning perception.

I have confidence in this approach as it is scientific and has been replicated by others . Kant is a Genius , of course, but I have doubts about some of these older philosophers because they simply did not have this extra information available to them in their time.

I believe consciousness is composed of DNA data, experience, and point in space time ( relativity ). When a bush turkey hatches it leaves its nest straight away, already knowing all it needs to survive, all of its knowledge is contained in DNA. This would not work for humanity, since each generation is born into a quite different social environment. It takes some time for experience to imprint its stamp on brain development and for a functional consciousness to develop, such that can effectively partake in our complex societies. DNA, I think, would contribute to the form of thought, but the content would mostly come from experience, and point in space.

Why can't lower life forms develop their evolutionary math skills into those of homo sapiens? Is it because we are self-aware Beings (lower life forms have little so-called self-awareness v. pure instinct)? What is self-awareness? Is it something to do with metaphysical Will? An intrinsic need to know something? A sixth sense? — 3017amen

These are big questions. Lets instead ask how self aware are human beings? To be truly self aware, I think, one needs a theory of everything to compare oneself against. We don't have that - we have various beliefs, and beliefs are not part of the set of truths. If I am self aware one way and you are self aware in another way, can it be said we are self aware?

Is ignorance bliss? Why should we care? Sorry I got carried away :joke: — 3017amen

I think about this myself - If you could find a theory of everything but it was ugly, would you want it? Wouldn't it be wiser to take the Yogic cue and just create a pleasant reality, for no reason at all? Personally, thinking about all this stuff is not entirely unpleasant, and I guess ultimately it gives me more options of how to self organize. :razz:

↪Pop Are you familiar with Stephen Wolfram's
computational-complexity theses and book exploring them A New Kind of Science? — 180 Proof

Thanks for the referral. Wolfram is an interesting thinker, I will pursue his ideas some more. He doesn't quite use the words self organization, but is interested in the rules that cause the order from which the universe grows out of. Reading between the lines, I think he believes an AI can sift through the mountains of data to find the few simple fundamental rules that everything is based on. Perhaps that will be so. The experience at CERN , 51 Hedrons later and still going, is that the standard model is very deep indeed, and it will be some time yet, If ever, that we might reach the bottom. But I wonder even at the current level of resolution, are we looking at matter, or is this really just patterns of energy and information interacting to ultimately cause matter? What do you think?

Are you familiar with mathematical biology and ecology? These are subjects that have recently emerged on the back of Turing patterns. The short story is that that chemicals interacting self organize to form functional patterns - that give protection to the animal / creature. And what is really exciting is that patterns underlie nature, and they may be mathematically modelled. The great advantage of a mathematical model is that if the model does not align with observation, parameters can be adjusted, and continually adjusted until the model aligns. This is great news for philosophy as it validates the view that patterns of interacting energy and chemistry are fundamental, and it seems mathematics will bring this point home.

All this generally aligns with complexity theory and the view that fluctuating patterns of energy are fundamental. What is not normally stated is that these fluctuating patterns of energy are self organizing within an evolutionary framework, where natural selection picks what survives and what doesn't. And then the question arises - is this a form of mind? If this is fundamental, then it is present in everything subsequent to it, including human consciousness, and not excluding anything.

Are you familiar with Stephen Wolfram's
computational-complexity theses and book exploring them A New Kind of Science? — 180 Proof

Thanks, I'll check it out tonight.

we have some pockets where this "order" appears. — Manuel

That is how I understand it also - there are pockets of order. The entropy argument needs a universal boundary, and as I mentioned to 3017amen John Wheeler could not find one - the logical problem being a boundary of a boundary, but, imo, there is just not enough information about this whole area to make any definite conclusions. That the universe is self organized is a fair enough statement, imo. What we see of it is organized, but evolving and changing of course.

I'm not sure speaking of objects or creatures organizing is clear. Maybe they do, but what does organize mean in this situation? — Manuel

This video is a little long - sorry, but if you are really interested it gives a good idea of the current state of research.

Unfortunately, using logic, the subconscious and conscious mind would transcend common logic. Like the law of bivalence, one cannot clearly delineate the object perceived as being unitary, or describe it in a unitary fashion without contradiction. For instance, driving while daydreaming, then crashing and dying, provides for the phenomenon of the mind performing two functions simultaneously. In that case, either the conscious or subconscious mind was driving, not dreaming of a beach in the Med.. And so in that strict sense neither the conscious nor the subconscious was driving, there was some combination of both at work.

And that suggests, although a great description (yours!) in its own right, a self-organized mind or entity is nonetheless incomplete, in a strict logical sense. And accordingly, we know Heisenberg and /Gödel demonstrated the flaws in logic's completeness and resulting randomness, which perhaps leads us to this... . — 3017amen

Good point. I guess this is based on Kant's pure reason? This is applicable to all and every thought. It is really a criticism of dualism. As a monist I assume every thought has its physical basis ( perhaps as quantum permutations in microtubules, as per Penrose ) so there is no contradiction for me. The system that we are is self organizing and integrated. Extra cellular consciousness does the driving / navigating of the external world, whilst intracellular consciousness takes care of internal organization. My thoughts and actions change epigenetics and brain structure which in turn change my thoughts and actions - in a self consistent loop.

I am currently reassessing the uncertainty principle in light of decoherence, which can provide a probabilistic prediction of an electrons position, so may well change this whole story.
We have no choice but to go with logic, as an alternative does not exist. I am aware of a couple of instances where logic fails, but these exceptions are few and far between. So I go with logic, and then rigorous scrutiny by others.

QM (and to some degree double slits and PAP-see John Wheeler) has also taught us that there is such a thing as an open system in the universe. — 3017amen

Wheeler was stumped at defining the boundary of a boundary. - If the universe is a closed system, how thick is its boundary? It could be infinitely thin or infinitely thick. It can not be defined - what is the boundary of a boundary? :smile: Huge problem for entropy based understanding, imo.

I have appropriated the determinism of Neil Theise, which is determinism with a slight element of randomness. The randomness is necessary for emergence. The domino must fall, but may fall with a slight tilt to the left or right, thus causing emergence in its path. We can see this play out with Covid19, there is a general thrust with a slight random element causing mutation and novel attributes. This works well for organic systems - for evolution and natural selection. I think it would fit with how you have put it.

I imagine thoughts in consciousness are subject to the same determinism. They depend on already established knowledge ( main thrust ) but there must be an element of randomness given the complexity we are dealing with, and given new information is always being accumulated. I think it is important to understand that it is not a fixed, but a dynamically evolving system.

But what do these thoughts represent? Are they images, and intellectual concepts (among other things) from sense experience only coming back to 'haunt us'? Or are they innate features of consciousness (novel synthetic a priori knowledge), where in this case, they may simply be both. Does the hard drive represent Kantian intuition? — 3017amen

My understanding most closely aligns with idealism. It's a natural progression from constructivism, where knowledge is accumulated piece by piece, and any subsequent knowledge has to fit into the already constructed system of knowledge. This system of knowledge really is the world - the world being understood in terms of this knowledge. But this is just one way to put it together, and we all self organize in relation to the many and varied information surrounding us, so consciousness being the integrated form of this information is incredibly varied. The thoughts and images in your mind are relevant to your self organization, but perhaps not mine? or visa versa. Communication is the natural regulator of this.

Thanks for the kind words. I can say I also enjoy reading your philosophy. Tell me more about Kantian intuition, and perhaps I can add more.

Perhaps consciousness is only as convoluted as the myriad of metaphysical systems under which it is viewed. Favor a system, find consciousness in it, define its parameters or its logical relations......done deal. — Mww

I wonder what your definition of metaphysics is? The difficulty is that any definition of consciousness has to work for all instances of consciousness regardless of the underlying belief system, and it has to trump competing definitions.

What I was really getting at is that consciousness need not be logical. It is free to incorporate fantasy alongside facts to construct a world view. And I don't think anybody's consciousness is totally immune to this - given the weight of beliefs composing consciousness.

Self-organization carries the implication that consciousness is some sort of cognitive faculty susceptible to reason, but I rather think consciousness is the quality of the manifold of that which is reasoned about, which makes consciousness passive rather than the active self-organization implies. — Mww

:up: Self Organization is the constituent attribute of consciousness for all lifeforms, and maybe beyond.. It fits absolutely all instances of consciousness, as an explanation of what is being observed - as far as I can see. It need not be about facts and logic. Much of social life is beyond facts and logic. :smile:

Much as red-ness is the quality of the state of being red, fit-ness is the quality of the state of being fit, so too consciousness is the quality of the state of being conscious. — Mww

But this is not very useful knowledge, whereas you can insert self organization into any sentence containing consciousness, and avail yourself of a slightly different take on what is being said, whilst not disturbing the logical consistency of the sentence.

for otherwise I must have as many-coloured and various a self as are the representations of which I am conscious....” — Mww

Yeah, it doesn't really work does it? So I prefer the embodied approach - it makes more sense -
and then these momentary evolving manifestations are instances of self organization, which will evolve and progress as more information becomes available.

Given this (favored) rendition of what consciousness is, the rest of your comment can be seen as otherwise, re: we have no consciousness at birth, consciousness has nothing whatsoever to do with perceived truth, consciousness does evolve over the course of a life time, it does remain faithful to the established self, because it is the established self — Mww

We have self organization all the way through - what guides a sperm and egg, and their subsequent development?

Consciousness is self organization - it organizes the self! At all levels of what constitutes the self. And the self as a whole is conscious! - in a self organizing non hierarchical loop.
Now we get to the really interesting nitty gritty, because whilst consciousness / self organization creates the self, it cannot initiate this itself, it must be initially caused. Then in pondering this we start to look at consciousness beyond life. :smile:

You must have missed this link I provided in my previous post – Autopoiesis. It's a physical topic and not metaphysical except, maybe, analogously. Thoughts? — 180 Proof

Sorry, I did miss that. @Pantagruel put me onto Autopoisis some time ago, and I am was very grateful to learn of the embodied movement. Matera, Thompson, Capra etc, are all biologists come philosophers, and it is easy to see why this would arise. Anybody with an interest in microbiology, or cellular biology can plainly see that what is happening at that level is far beyond the capability of dumb chemical reactions. They use a systems logic to arrive at self organization, but as originators of an embodied world view ( in the late 70s ) they are reluctant to call it self organization, preferring the term Autopoiesis. :smile: It seems politically expedient, as their world view is quite a challenge to the prevailing Cartesian dualism of the seventies. In the last ten years or so, other biologists come Philosophers like Neil Theise have been more forthright in the statements they make: The self organizing universe.

I think an interest in, and the study of microbiology, and cellular biology leads to a monistic understanding inevitably!

Interesting. What is constructivist psychology? — 3017amen

Psychology originated by Piaget and Kelly. Very popular outside the US.

1. The point I'm making is that if we consider consciousness a self-organized being, then it implies Kantian pure reason. Graph with all the change and in our discussion pure reason has its limitations viz. Heisenberg, Godel, etc..

2. And so if we were to use this logic, our own sense of logic, it would not be able to explain the nature in this case of [your] self-organization. For that reason it transcends our sense of logic. (The conscious and subconscious mind all working together of course is a whole nother discussion/distinction.) — 3017amen

The conscious and the subconscious are not necessarily in conflict. Recent research shows brain structure changes in response to new ideas. Gene profiles change in response to lifestyle. At the same time our consciousness changes in response to this knowledge, as well as these physical changes. There is relational evolution occurring even at this level. There will be a lot that we cannot answer for sure, but inroads are always made, albeit small ones.

We risk going off topic with Heisenberg and Gödel. There are good arguments now that dispute the traditional interpretation of both of these.

In any event I was wondering if you we're going to try to link subjectivity and objectivity (in every sense) to some sort of dualism mind-body problem. You know, making a connection between the physical world which is inanimate, purposeless yet determined, whereas the mental world involves consciousness, self-awareness, planning, willing, desiring, etc. — 3017amen

Self organization is now well established in abiogenesis, systems and complexity theory, biology, ecology, sociology, etc. There is the question of is the universe self organizing? If so, then how could we possibly be any different , given we are an element of it?
Issues such as self awareness, planning, willing, etc are all aspects of self organization, so I'm wondering what is its underlying logic? How do others understand it? What can they tell me?

Complexity theory would have it that self organization arises fundamentally from fluctuating patterns of energy. Is this all there is to it? Is it arbitrary?

Self organization creates a self - from elements entirely external to self. It is ubiquitous, and If everything in the universe is self organizing, it is this concept that is responsible for everything's existence.

No, we can define it any way we'd like precisely because we don't understand it. Something we don't understand isn't "hard to define" -- it's just nonsense. So the "its" in your sentence refers to nothing. — Xtrix

I'm not sure I understand you. As a living organism you need to self organize. You need to create a self, If you are to avoid fragmentation. Internally you are self organized, down to the smallest particle , and externally you organize the whole in relation to the information effecting you, so you are self organizing.
Metaphysically something can only exist in relation to something else, and a living organism exists in relation to much external information. The externalities are cognized by way of energy waves reaching the senses to be interpreted as information. The state of integrated information is consciousness and it facilitates self organization. Now possessing a state of integrated information you can act on it. Thus achieving self organization.
Where is the nonsense?

If we're talking in ordinary conversation, fine -- then everyone knows what consciousness is — Xtrix

This is the interesting thing, If consciousness is endlessly variable and open ended then each manifestation of consciousness is unique, hence at least slightly different. So when we refer to consciousness, and assume it is the same thing for everyone, we are wrong. We only have full access to one consciousness - our own, and what we really do is project that consciousness onto another. This is why self organization is a more fitting term, it acknowledges that each consciousness is unique, but at the same time, regardless of uniqueness, it acknowledges that what is being facilitated is self organization.

You've been going on and on about "self-organization" for a while now, yet have no idea what it means. So now we have two terms we don't understand — Xtrix

My understanding has evolved - consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. :smile:

If negation is always required for thought, but there is a way out, such that negations are not always required, then some system must be possible that is not a (human) system of thought.

I’m beginning to find that out. Amazing to me, how many people don’t know what it is to think, or, knowing that, choose to re-name it and thereby justify their insistence that that’s not really what they’re actually doing. — Mww

Consciousness is a convoluted thing indeed. This is why I prefer to call it self organization. We are not entirely free to self organize according to the perceived truth but must continue the consciousness we are given at birth, which then slowly evolves over the course of a life time, but must remain to some extent faithful to the established self. The next thought is dependent on all the previous ones. The domino like consciousness must fall and random information can sway its direction, but at the same time we need to be able to cope with, and this may mean exclude, the information that has a significant disintegrative effect on self. And we have this ability in abundance, and it makes for some interesting psychology.

Thus while the rejection of mind-body dualism opens the door to various other ideas, the rejection of all dualism leads ineluctably to mysticism and the single, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism. — FrancisRay

Materialism rejects dualism, but I don't think it could be called mystical?

Consciousness can be anything we define it as, because we don’t understand it. — Xtrix

Actually consciousness is extremely difficult to define, because its manifestations are endlessly variable and open ended. We can not define it in terms of its end result, as that will continue to evolve, but I think, we can characterize it to some extent via a model that agrees with observation
That consciousness is an evolving process of self organization seems difficult to dispute. so this may be pathway to understand it. - to some extent. There will be those whose self organization will demand it not be understood under any circumstances, and this needs to be respected as this too is a valid form of consciousness if it aids survival.

If a dualist believes in the necessary phenomenon of subjective and objective truth, does that in itself imply a dichotomous cognition?

In constructivist psychology, holding two contradictory concepts as being equally true is the model for mental illness.

for the sake of discussion, this question derived from them definitely works for me. — 180 Proof

Great, then we can discuss / speculate on what causes self organization?

The only concern on my part is that we try to avoid attributing self organization to the world, when it could be the case that we are the one's doing the organizing e.g. "starmaking", "ways of talking", etc. — Manuel

Certainly we are the ones integrating the information at our disposal ( which is always limited ) and drawing a picture / conclusion from it. This is how self organization ( consciousness ) works. For the moment lets just agree that all living creatures self organize this way, though ultimately we need to consider whether it is a self organizing universe that we live in.

It's not so clear to me how to distinguish these two when speaking about the world. The phenomena that arise fleeting in my consciousness seem to be fragmented, incomplete, sometimes random and repetitive. But it could be that when we write or speak to others, we are organizing whatever goes on in the head, in a more structured manner.

I assume something like this happens to other people. — Manuel

I can verify that it is the same for me, but I find conceptual models that agree with observation can be created and over time augmented and improved. Self organization is the primary role of consciousness.
Consciousness performs an immensely complicated task of integrating the information effecting it, and then formulating a response that maintains the self. Over time as novel information becomes available, the self has to adjust as the integrated world view changes - the world view being information about the self.

This again assumes the there's nothing that transcends the logic associated with the mind, or Being. In other words, if we say the essence of consciousness is self-organization then we can easily refer to say Heisenberg uncertainty principle and see that it is something beyond pure reason. — 3017amen

In recent years Heisenberg's uncertainty has been challenged by decoherence - this story is yet to pan out, imo.
By transcendent I assume you mean subconscious. Self organization is largely subconscious, but this doesn't mean its totally beyond understanding.

(why do we have this need to wonder about things like causation, etc.), the Will, and other fixed,/innate/intrinsic abstract features of consciousness and self-awareness. — 3017amen

We need to self organize, If we are to survive, and that is what we are hard wired to do. We are born with a certain set of DNA instructions, but as we live our lives epigenetics turns certain genes on and others off, so our lifestyle contributes to our DNA makeup, which in turn contributes to our consciousness - it is all an integrated process of self organization.
What is epigenetics? - we don't know precisely. It is something that interacts with DNA, seemingly it can interact between consciousness and DNA creating an integrated loop. This, as well as many other similar such insights, leads me to think of consciousness as a whole body integrated loop. That brain structure changes in response to new ideas is another similar example.

The question, though, is do we have a consciousness or does consciousness have us? — Apollodorus

:up: I think that hits the nail on the head .

It's a great topic, but I agree with @Xtrix in that it lacks definition. We are considering one indefinite term ( metaphysics ) as it relates to another indefinite term ( Philosophy ), as it relates to another indefinite term ( consciousness ). The result is frustratingly vague for me.

Philosophy is information about a philosophers consciousness ( absolutely and definitively ) - this is all it reliably is - every time it is uttered. That it alludes to some truth or other is unreliable. All that is reliable and enduring about philosophy is that it reflects the philosophers thinking ( consciousness ). This you can take to the bank, as it has always been so and must always continue to be so.

Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization. Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. Life expresses a singular thing - a process called consciousness, but this may be easier to understand if we say life expresses self organization. The words consciousness and self - organization are interchangeable -

I can't help but ask questions because it is as if they explode into my [ self organization ] — Jack Cummins

. What, as a part of [ self organization ], is considered a timeless truth? — 3017amen

But there are facets of [ self organization ] that are interesting, even if they're not "theories" in the modern sense — Manuel

Metaphysics, for me at least, is the underlying and fundamental logic that causes various phenomena.

So, If you agree with these definitions, then the question of metaphysics and philosophy reduces to - what is the underlying logic of self organization? And, I think, along these lines some progress in understanding can be made. If you do not agree with the definitions then that can be discussed.

The earth’s core generates an electro magnetic force which passes through everything on the surface of the earth and extends for miles beyond the surface. This electro magnetic force protects the ozone layer from being stripped away by the solar wind, and it’s protective action is visible in the northern lights. Perhaps this electro magnetic force, passing through the grey matter in the skull, results in what we call consciousness, by the stimulation of neurons in the brain? — Present awareness

Something like you suggest is a very distinct possibility, in my opinion. There seems to be a mechanism that drives integrity, or order from the word go, and this is necessary for life to evolve. Some would say that the entropic principle within a cell is enough to drive life, but whilst this drives greater molecular complexity, there is no compulsion for the molecular complexity to become ordered and integrated - quite the opposite.

A force, or multiplicity of forces, of some sort seems to drive integrity in the universe - in the pockets that are ordered, and life seems to evolve due to it. The simplest way to put it is that the universe is self organizing, and life evolved from this, and consciousness is a form of self organization. But I can only speculate as to the cause ( forces ) of self organization. The Earth's magnetic field would have to be in place for the present form of life to evolve, so it plays a role, but integrity is present everywhere in the universe. Why is there integrity everywhere in the universe? I think you would ultimately have to say because the universe is biased to self organize, and to the best of my ability to analyze it, a bias is an emotion.


From this perspective a universe biased to self organize is acting very similarly to human consciousness, as described by phenomenology - where emotions ( as a force ) drive integrity, whilst perception is a disintegrative force ( perception disrupts an integrated state ).

You sum it up very nicely here! — Present awareness

I'm glad that you agree. :smile:

What I don’t understand is that if this is the case where has the energy gone? — Benj96

It hasn't gone anywhere. It has equalized: Wikipedia -" Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other processes may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches thermodynamic equilibrium (maximum entropy)."

This wont be happening any time soon :smile: If at all. Its very speculative - It would necessitate the universe being a closed system for a start.

What is more interesting is, as the earth heats up how will the increase in entropy effect everything? Is it already having an effect?

If it is true that energy may not be created or destroyed, but simply changes forms, then all that is here now, must have always been here now, only in different forms. — Present awareness

I think you have answered your own question. You are a pattern of energy / matter at any given moment ( now ) . It is not a fixed pattern, it evolves over time - something like a tornado, or a whirlpool in a fast flowing stream - a self composed of non self.

I’m not looking to base my philosophy in empirical facts, but in a priori truths. — TheGreatArcanum

Good luck with that. :smile:

My goal is to create my own system of philosophy, so I’ve taken bits and pieces from both of their philosophies to construct my own philosophical system using an original analytic method which allows me to infer, from particular to universal, with absolute certainty. — TheGreatArcanum

I would be interested in an example?

I'm looking for books on the logical form and process of thought and its relationship to the logical form of the mind considered in itself, but cannot seem to find any. I'm not looking for books on the relationship between thought and neural or physical processes. Is there even such a thing? — TheGreatArcanum

Phenomenology may be a topic of interest to you.

Thanks for the link. You must see something more in this then I do. I cant help thinking CERN in its 11 years and 51 Hedrons has not achieved much. At best we see a picture of endlessly smaller components making up matter, and now perhaps an extra force or two. I suppose these things have to be explored, but so far the exploration has not yielded much that is of practical use, except that matter is composed of energy and information.

At least, for myself, it strengthens the view that matter is a state of integrated energy and information, and this is what consciousness also is - a state of integrated energy and information embedded in matter.

Vagueness also seems to be an integral part of our thinking even though we believe we are being precise. So, is vagueness itself a philosophy? — Don Wade

Philosophy is information about the philosophers consciousness. So it is not so much that philosophy is vague, but that the consciousness of the philosopher is. Consciousness is not a fixed quantity. It is an ever evolving process of self organization, so somewhat vague! What is not understood today may well be understood tomorrow. In the meantime there is a transition period where information is integrated and understanding adjusted such that the object of understanding fits into total understanding, this may take minutes, hours, days or years, and whilst it proceeds there exists a vagueness - that disappears once the information is integrated into total understanding, and persists if this never occurs. I think there would be an element of this gong on for all of us always, in some respect.

Consciousness is also anticipative. This has a main thrust to it, but then it allows for a certain amount of variation, such as to allow for a probabilistic emergent future. If it was always exacting in what it anticipates, then when it was wrong, would suffer a major breakdown. So understanding necessarily needs to be flexible in anticipation of various probabilistic future possibilities. Hence, in this respect, vagueness is wise and normal, and certainty of understanding is rare, and risky, imo. :smile:

PanEnDeism — Gnomon

:up: Thanks for that.

I think there is a misunderstanding about Dualism here. — Gary Enfield

Reading over my previous comment I can see where the misunderstanding is. I was really meaning Cartesian dualism, where the mind is immaterial, and all else is material / mechanical, as the materialism that pervades western culture. You are correct, strictly speaking materialism is monist.

My understanding is panpsychic, in that there is an element of mind in all matter due to it being self organizing, either on its own or as part of a larger system.

Thanks for the link. You are a little difficult to follow once you get going, but on the whole I was quite impressed. We agree on a systems / embodied approach. I would disagree on pantheism, but I think @Gnomon would agree with you.

I haven't elaborated much either way, because the point was to defend naturalistically compatible emergence of phenomenological experience. — simeonz

This is something I have thought about myself, I wonder if emotion is an emergent property or something that exists for all the layers of a complex multilayered biological system in some form. But this would be off topic.

I do not postulate any new empirical relations — simeonz

I'm not sure I do either. I try to, but mostly I'm late to the party. :smile: That consciousness = self organization is consistent with complexity theory. I probably should qualify every comment with - " in my understanding". I tend to assume comments made here are propositional, and will be scrutinized.

On the other hand, it is well known that thermodynamic entropy is bound to increase globally. Therefore conditional entropy between systems will increase, and information expressiveness, or order is to be lost. Terrestrial life sustains order, because we still have low entropy energy sources. For biological systems, it is predominantly from solar radiation, and for our technology, it is predominantly fossil fuel and atomic energy. — simeonz

It is now generally recognized that in many important fields of research a state of true thermodynamic equilibrium is only attained in exceptional conditions. Experiments with radioactive tracers, for example, have shown that the nucleic acids contained in living cells continuously exchange matter with their surroundings. It is also well known that the steady flow of energy which originates in the sun and the stars prevents the atmosphere of the earth or stars from reaching a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.Obviously then, the majority of the phenomena studied in biology, meteorology, astrophysics and other subjects are irreversible processes which take place outside the equilibrium state.These few examples may serve to illustrate the urgent need for an extension of the methods of thermodynamics so as to include irreversible processes.

I can see how entropy might play a role in cellular evolution in closed systems - driving more complex molecular configurations. But natural systems are open. The overwhelming impression is that they self organize despite all the obstacles they face, including entropy.

That is why I was excited by the recent preliminary findings from CERN, about a 5th force in nature that was previously unknown. — Gary Enfield

Can you provide a link or summary please?

Your interacting waves of energy are similar to Turing patterns.

To not think there is a collective of some kind seems somewhat absurd to me. I know that I create my own reality but I know I am not the only one creating my own reality. I am also not the only one participating to the destruction of this planet. — Thinking

I think there is a collective of some kind, be it culture, or humanity, perhaps now social media, but we relate to it individually. As you say, you create your own reality from the beliefs you hold to be true, as does everyone else, either knowingly or unknowingly.

This woman was living a lie and the lie was keeping her alive. — TheMadFool

I think there is a little bit of this in all of us. Royalty is a little absurd, but given the weight of beliefs ( not facts ) creating human consciousness, it seems unlikely all the beliefs can possibly be true, so there is a certain amount of delusion in us all.

Your leap to an information layer of existence, (plus some factor that can rationalise and shape it), may be true - but it is a big leap none-the-less, given the level of evidence available. — Gary Enfield

I don't think it is such a big leap. I think the complexity being described by cellular imaging in recent years really brings home the fact that Dualism and the materialism that follows are logically flawed. Cellular biology is far too complex to be the result of chance alone. There is an underlying element of self organization - that materialism does not acknowledge - can not acknowledge if it is to preserve Dualism!
One truly wonders when will the penny drop? For the biologist philosophers I previously mentioned, the penny dropped quite some time ago!

I don't want to butt into the discussion. I took a peek and realized that what you describe as consciousness is very similar to how I would describe it in panpsychic and pantheistic terms. That is how I should convey their idea, if I were to elaborate it today. I even wrote a post some days after yours, where I summarized my position. I am merely entertaining the idea as a hypothesis, not a claim. Not even a conjecture. — simeonz

Please feel free to add to the discussion, and please provide a link to your description of consciousness.
In my understanding, self organization = consciousness. Self organization is a god like term, as far as I can see, in that it can fill all of the explanatory gaps traditionally filled by god.

Note that what you called information here, if I have understood you correctly, is probably better termed state. It is a small concern, but I think that conventionally information is considered a relation. And in information theory, there are two related terms, mutual information, and conditional entropy. — simeonz

Yes I am referring to a state, that has self organized due to relational evolution. @Adughep has suggested that it is information that is being preserved, and I would agree, in that the preservation of information is necessary to create a state. So fundamentally it is the 'preserved information' ( as a state ) that is evolving relationally. The preserved information creates the self in self organization.

In complexity theory it is local interaction, energy fluctuation, or vibration, that spreads throughout the system causing a system wide state, which then has to evolve to a meaningful self sustaining process, in order to survive.

So in the end it is a panpsychism that I'm trying to describe, so I would be interested in how you have described it.