The infodynamic closest equivalent [to awareness as a first-person point of view] might be agreeing that every material event or degree of freedom is like an informational point of view.
[...]
But this is a metaphorical rather than literal description. The having of a point of view is not about awareness as such (awareness not being a substantial thing). [...] — apokrisis
Again, the intended theme here is how one can logically go from inanimate matter to conscious agency.] — javra
This miracle of chemicals developing awareness is in every sense of the phrase a Tall Tale. — Rich
Still, the scientific method is not the culprit here. — javra
I in a substantive sense agree with this. It’s easy to then declare myself a panpsychist of sorts, but the truth is that my current gut feelings (which can always be wrong) find a sharp division between inanimate identities and animate ones; logically, I’ve no idea how panspsychism would work. This is what I’m diggin’ in the dirt for. What attribute would an inanimate identity hold that, though not itself being the awareness of life, could be logically presented not as a divide but as a continuum. — javra
The so-called scientific method only exists in textbooks. It has no counterpart anywhere in the world whether in academia or industry. Science had morphed into part goal seeking for monetary benefits and party religion promising people some utopian dreams. It's really instructive to observe how science has become quite a religion in its own right with adherents who embrace it for the same reasons any religion is embraced, a combination of money, hope, and social benefits. — Rich
Bergson is the go to person for great insight into these ideas. Stephen Robbins in his videos on YouTube does a great job in elucidating on some of Bergson's thoughts. Rupert Sheldrake also takes a partial cut at it. — Rich
Even though I have long thought that life came about in some sort of sloppy environment -- hot smoky vent, warm mud hole, clay mush -- whatever -- there are some practical problems with this idea that I can't get around.
The simplest form of life would need several components which alone might happen by chance, but would have to link up in just the right way, also by chance, more or less all at once. A life form needs a template. Life on earth uses DNA and/or RNA. The life form needs machinery of some kind to build itself and carry out making a copy of the template, and cutting the copy off. In order to have all this machinery, it needs yet another piece of machinery -- it's exterior package.
I can sort of imagine chemistry getting more complicated, but for more complicated life-chemistry to form stuff that could fall together, stay together, and make something more or less alive, seems to be on the outside of possibility. It seems like the ur-life form would have to pop into existence, rather than crawl into existence.
On the other hand, I don't want to invoke an exterior agent -- God, for instance, or some sort of cosmic will.
Solutions? — Bitter Crank
This, though, is a people interacting with people issue; not a methodology issue. — javra
Do you know of a better means of figuring out what occurs in our phenomenal/physical world in a way that is minimally clouded by hearsay, personal tall tales, and, sometimes, power seeking deceptions? — javra
He who knows absolute truths is the authority all bow down to, right? — javra
OK, so you hold that consciousness is not substance but rather that some vague matter/info/stuff is — javra
Still, last I recall, we can both agree that life and non-life are qualitatively different. — javra
To my mind, the physical plane is the closest communal proximity that all co-existent agents hold to the grand finale. It deterministically (again, derived teleologically) constrains our various freewill intentions to a set of possibilities that we all abide by (e.g., nature says: thou shalt not act out one’s fantasies of flying off of tall cliffs/buildings through the flapping of hands lest one fall and loose one’s identity to this world … kind of thing). — javra
Thing is, there’s a bridge that I have a hard time traversing. I’m very set on affirming that life and non-life are substantially different, with the difference being that of awareness. What I’m considering, though, is the possibility of there being an underlying factor to both non-life and life—one that would yet be present in the final end—which when held in large enough degrees forms the gestalt of a first-person point of view as can be defined by perception and perceiver (no homunculus). — javra
Here, there’s yet a duality, as you might call it, between the ontically real “agency” and the information that, despite its causal influence upon agency, is nevertheless an illusion which vanishes in the final end. Though this is from my interpretation, I believe you’ll find it parallels your own: in the Heat Death you uphold, information as we know it, together with all natural laws as we know them, all causal processes as we know them, etc., vanish, leaving instead … well, that’s your territory. — javra
[For those who deny that bacteria hold any awareness and some minimal degree of freewill, the transition nevertheless happened somewhere along the way toward being human; I pick at this level for my own reasons … As for myself, I’ll not here again debate where the transition first occurred, nor on whether reality is all determinist v. indeterminist. Again, the intended theme here is how one can logically go from inanimate matter to conscious agency.] — javra
Again, the intended theme here is how one can logically go from inanimate matter to conscious agency. — javra
It’s easy to then declare myself a panpsychist of sorts, but the truth is that my current gut feelings (which can always be wrong) find a sharp division between inanimate identities and animate ones; logically, I’ve no idea how panspsychism would work. This is what I’m diggin’ in the dirt for. What attribute would an inanimate identity hold that, though not itself being the awareness of life, could be logically presented not as a divide but as a continuum. — javra
The point is that if we actually look at the ground level of life, there is just no mystery. You get intelligent behaviour due to semiotics. A mechanical chain of events connects information to action as a hardwired interpretive habit. — apokrisis
Let's count the number of traits of the mind that this statement attributes to a soup of chemicals: — Rich
Where was "the mind" said or implied? — apokrisis
The mystery is not: How is there Consciousness? but How is there Unconsciousness? That's the thing that's unprovable, unreachable, unimaginable. — Dominic Osborn
Very odd. — Bitter Crank
The difference between life and non-life is quite distinguishable in the extremes, as when we compare a rock to a human being. As we move further back in time, back to where the distinction isn't so clear, we find objects that have the features of life and non-life, like truffles which is more than a rock but less than a mushroom. Just like everything else, the boundaries are blurred when we get at the root of it. The same can be said about the differences between man and ape when we begin to look at the origin of man.[For those who deny that bacteria hold any awareness and some minimal degree of freewill, the transition nevertheless happened somewhere along the way toward being human; I pick at this level for my own reasons … As for myself, I’ll not here again debate where the transition first occurred, nor on whether reality is all determinist v. indeterminist. Again, the intended theme here is how one can logically go from inanimate matter to conscious agency.] — javra
Suppose someone said "Bacteria are unconscious because in lacking a nervous system they lack the capacity for certain stimulus-response behavioural dispositions"
Does Is (sic) it ["because"] mean 'by empirical implication' or 'by definition'? — sime
Good question. Given the following tentative definitions:
1) Conscious: fully responsive and fully aware.
2) Responsive: receptive and/or reactive.
3) Aware: sensitive and perceptive.
4) Sensation: the mental experience of interoception.
5) Perception: the mental experience of sensory stimulation.
6) Interoception: the reception of a physiological stimulus by an internal organ which transmits neural signals to the brain, resulting in sensation.
7) Sensory Stimulation: the reception of a physical stimulus from the environment by a sense organ, which transmits neural signals to the brain, resulting in perception.
If bacteria do not have a brain and sense organs, is there any point in trying to devise an experiment to test the hypothesis? — Galuchat
Since a living human has a functional brain and sensory organs, is there any point in trying to devise an experiment to test the hypothesis that a human is conscious, given the fact a human is *by definition* said to be conscious in virtue of possessing a functioning brain and sensory organs? — sime
A good experimenter will creatively design experiments that transcend human biases. — Rich
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.