Raul, you accused me of wanting to go backward to a primitive way of thinking about the world. But I'd like offer a different analysis of our contrasting worldviews. Instead of going backwards, I have made a lateral move. In my youth, during discussions on religious topics, I was sometimes accused of being too rational & analytical -- of being a know-it-all -- making no allowance for human feelings and opinions. I was more like you then. But, over the years, I discovered that I did have some things to learn, that are not found in the textbooks of mainstream Science. Ironically, I'm now sometimes accused of being passive-aggressive.You have so many things to learn. It is evident you guys don't even have a scientific education, and you have invested all this energy writing a theory of everything — Raul
making no allowance for human feelings and opinions. — Gnomon
Yin/Yang symbol, where both halves contain a spot of the other color — Gnomon
It acknowledges that the world is characterized by opposing forces — Gnomon
I'm still not completely harmonized to the point of being genderless, but I try to be open to other points of view. — Gnomon
seems a bit too Macho for a philosophical forum, where moderation is the key to a calm, reasoned dialogue. :grin: — Gnomon
Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose. — Gnomon
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, — Gnomon
Fuzzy logic is a form of many-valued reasoning in which the truth values of variables may be any real number between 0 and 1. It is employed to handle the concept of partial truth, where the truth value may range between completely true and completely false. — Gnomon
PS___Your hyper-aggressive use of smiles ( :lol: :rofl: :lol: ) indicates a tendency to ridicule what you don't emphathize with. Please try to be cool. :cool: — Gnomon
I agree, but the metaphorical "awareness" of an atom or ant is not fully-developed. In my graph of cosmic progression, full Consciousness was attained only after Life emerged only a short time ago, on the cosmic scale. Information (EnFormAction) is the causal force of Evolution, but it only causes consciousness after a long period of complexification and integration, as in IIT. :smile:In my understanding, this is the beginning of consciousness . . . . What I'm getting at is that there is an evolving process at play always — Pop
OK. I'll accept that. In my worldview, Spiritualism was an intelligent rational response to the pre-scientific understanding of ancient people. They saw animals moving & behaving, so inferred that they were motivated by a common invisible force, that they compared to life-giving breath. But they also saw trees moving in the wind, and concluded that invisible Spirits or souls or gods were shaking them (Animism). Some even detected evidence for Spirits in crystals that sparkled with light energy. But today we would attribute those phenomena to non-conscious non-living Energy. Hence, the worldview of Panpsychism that is fashionable today among New Agers, and even some scientists, is based on an outdated understanding of causation. That "breath of the gods" notion might have been logical three thousand years ago, but now we are able to make a practical distinction between Information -- which in some forms has a mind-like quality (meaning) -- and Energy -- which sometimes has a life-like quality (motion, animation), but no human-like mental qualities. This picky distinction is necessary for the logic of my thesis to make sense. :nerd:No there is nothing spiritual about my understanding. It is entirely logical. Rigorously logical. — Pop
Everything? Are you saying that atoms have emotions, and communicate feelings? Perhaps, in a metaphorical sense. But the fine distinction I make is between non-conscious Energy Effect, and Conscious Affect. Effect is a physical (material) change due to energy input. But Affect is the meta-physical (mental) result of a meaningful input of information. It's the same difference between Motion and Emotion. :chin:We know a philosophical zombie is inert with only energy and information. It needs emotion for consciousness. Why should this not work for everything?
The logic is that it should! — Pop
I'm sorry for allowing your thread to go off-topic. But I enjoy sparring with those of different opinions. I don't really expect to change their minds, but it's good exercise for my flabby philosophical muscles. :joke:↪Gnomon
Lets not respond to trolls. — Pop
I was having a lot fun with Pop and I cannot laugh? Com'on Gnomon enjoy life :rofl: I'm maybe Macho but I'm a nice person. Aren't you? — Raul
I agree, but the metaphorical "awareness" of an atom or ant is not fully-developed. In my graph of cosmic progression, full Consciousness was attained only after Life emerged only a short time ago, on the cosmic scale. Information (EnFormAction) is the causal force of Evolution, but it only causes consciousness after a long period of complexification and integration, as in IIT. :smile: — Gnomon
Hence, the worldview of Panpsychism that is fashionable today among New Agers, and even some scientists, is based on an outdated understanding of causation. — Gnomon
This picky distinction is necessary for the logic of my thesis to make sense. :nerd: — Gnomon
Are you saying that atoms have emotions, and communicate feelings? Perhaps, in a metaphorical sense. But the fine distinction I make is between Energy Effect, and Conscious Affect. Effect is a physical (material) change due to energy input. But Affect is the meta-physical (mental) result of a meaningful input of information. It's the same difference between Motion and Emotion. :chin: — Gnomon
I agree. And I think you are referring to the self-generating systems within Nature that Deacon calls "Autogens". But, the "ordering" and "organization" of system is the Effect of a Cause.outside the sub-system (holon) that is changed. It doesn't just happen spontaneously.None of that emergent consciousness is possible without the ordered patterns of consciousness below. It is not turtles all the way down, it is patterns of order creating emergent properties, which when synergized are self ordering - they are equally an evolving process of self organization, where human consciousness = an evolving process of self organization. — Pop
In Darwinian evolution, there is no need for "awareness in molecules". As KenoshaKid pointed-out "No awareness required, just a survival advantage".The synergy of atoms creates molecules. The synergy of molecules creates amino acids. The synergy of amino acids is where animate matter emerges. It is the pattern and folding of amino acids that create protein machines that are able to carry out independent cellular functions. For some idea of this, there is the awareness in molecules thread. — Pop
I wouldn't call the spontaneous emergence of new forms an "observation", but an interpretation. For example, the sudden crystallization of liquid water into a snowflake might look like magic to someone inclined to think in such terms. But, to a scientist, the unseen steps between liquid & solid are merely due to the "nature" (enthalpy) of water. By that I mean, the water is Programmed to respond to loss of latent heat energy by forming crystals that require less energy to maintain their geometric form. And the "magic" is merely the subtraction of mundane Energy (EnFormAction). :chin:Sorry but Panpsychism is based in observations like these, not as you have assumed it above. — Pop
I know what my emotions are, implicitly. But you can't know my emotional state, except by explicit descriptions of what those feelings mean to me. Or, by judging (conceptualizing) from my behavior compared to yours. So, I'd say that we can "conceptualize" another person's feelings, even though we can't actually feel them. That's what words are for : to share concepts in my mind with you. Ask your wife if she'd like to share her feelings with you. :grin:We don't know what emotions are. We have agreed we cannot conceptualize them. We cannot feel each others emotions. If we don't know what something is, how can we say something does not have it? Why would information not contain emotion? An empirical assumption is not a good enough answer. — Pop
But, the "ordering" and "organization" of system is the Effect of a Cause.outside the sub-system (holon) that is changed. It doesn't just happen spontaneously. — Gnomon
But logically, since Consciousness has emerged from pre-conscious evolution processes, the Enformer must have possessed the Potential for consciousness. — Gnomon
However, some people have a tendency to impute their own feelings onto things that shouldn't, by definition, have any visceral emotions. That defense mechanism is what Freud called "projection". :nerd: — Gnomon
The "things" I was referring to are inorganic objects, and don't have any viscera, no brains, no neurotransmitters, no subjective consciousness, etc. For example, people have been known to attribute feelings to toys, dolls, cars, and especially to therapeutic robots that simulate emotions. But even low-level organisms (amoeba), with some internal organs & neurotransmitters, cannot convey their subjective awareness of feelings to us. So, in the absence of verbal evidence, or mind-reading, they are presumed to be robotic (or zombies). Hence, we infer that their reactions to external stimuli are programmed, scripted, automatic -- with no reflective cognition. They may behave as-if they have subjective feelings, but we'll never know for sure that the observer's subjective impressions are as-is.However, some people have a tendency to impute their own feelings onto things that shouldn't, by definition, have any visceral emotions. That defense mechanism is what Freud called "projection". :nerd: — Gnomon
Proof of definition please. — Pop
That's why I conclude that Human Consciousness is merely the current stage of a continuous on-going evolutionary process of complexification & integration. Perhaps, even mind-reading silicon-based beings in the future may be more empathetic & conscious than our primitive 21st century Awareness. But, I don't dwell on such speculative notions that are beyond my comprehension.No it doesn't occur spontaneously. But neither dose human consciousness. As I see it we are still locked into this singular way of being as an evolving biological system. We have not disconnected from those turtles causing us, we still depend on those turtles. This leads to an impression of a multilayered being in a pocket of order, or a being in the universe. — Pop
What do you suppose is "outside the system", constantly "interacting" with components of the system to cause energy exchanges to evolve into self-awareness?Or perhaps what is outside the system is a cause of consciousness. The system interacting with what is outside of itself causes consciousness. — Pop
So, in the absence of verbal evidence, or mind-reading, they are presumed to be robotic (or zombies). — Gnomon
Consequently, only since the emergence of organisms with language have we been able to share the feelings of others rationally, as opposed to the vague non-verbal sensations of emotional Empathy. :love: — Gnomon
What do you suppose is "outside the system", constantly "interacting" with components of the system to cause energy exchanges to evolve into self-awareness? — Gnomon
This latter is a return to the notion that the future goal & purpose was set by the creator or designer or programmer. Thus, the “appearance” of design is an inference from a mechanical system that works as-if it was created for some practical reason, just as a clock serves a purpose that is not found in the mechanism — Gnomon
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.This is not a logical conclusion from your argument. The logical conclusion should be a neutral stance from the logic of your argument. — Pop
I can generally agree with that assessment. But I still like to reserve the term "consciousness" for the higher levels, and use "information" or "energy" to describe the early steps toward full self-awareness. Also, I admit that my worldview is similar to Panpsychism. But, because of the Magical & Spiritual implications of that term, I prefer to find other ways to describe the notion that "everything is Information". For me, all Magic is in the believing Mind, not in external powers. :smile:There were however elements of it at every level, and as we have mentioned previously, it is based in externalities, in a "pocket of order" causing it. Hence panpsychism, in my view. — Pop
yet the all-things-are-conscious stance opens the door to Magical Thinking — Gnomon
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: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 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:** Fritjof Capra states "cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state". — 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. :yum:I thought you might see it this way. :smile: But thanks for all the background, very very interesting. — Pop
Where does the awareness come in? Where is the knowledge stored? And what does the understanding of a rock consist of? :chin: — Gnomon
You sound disappointed. — Gnomon
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: — Gnomon
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. :smile:You have a logical problem with your conception - you cannot define human consciousness. — 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:what you are really saying is, only anthropocentric self awareness counts as self awarness — 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. :yum:At that point one can relate to the universe on a peer to peer basis, as we relate to each other. — Pop
My last relationship with a Rock, of lower social status, was rather rocky. And it ended in stony silence. :love: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
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.