I'd like to take the opportunity here to discuss the philosophy of creativity. No, I don't mean whether something classifies as art or not, but rather what constitutes the creative animal, as it were, of todays modern age. What are it's qualities? We have opened the door to new forms of creativity, creating works without use-value. The creativity of today is both against monetization, but also ascribes virulently to a lottery system of value. Large web-front companies make money of the creative labours of the masses, but what drives us to do it? Are we still driven to do it? Is it a form of slavery to put creative work into something to the benefit of someone else? Does this mean that creativity must be devoid of 'work'? I ask for your thoughts... — kudos

For me, creativity is not about use-value, but about sharing our subjective view of the universe in a form that pursues at least one of three aims: increased awareness, increased interconnectedness or increased overall achievement/capacity. These aims, I believe, are instinctive at the deepest level of existence, but it is in recognising my uniquely subjective view as valuable in itself to the unfolding universe that enables me to be creative.

Putting creative (uniquely personal) work into something for the benefit of others is precisely what drives creativity in the first place. It is a selfless act at its core. Monetization or any system of value is counterproductive to creativity - the moment a value system begins to influence creative labours, the original impetus is obscured and the creative animal is lured from creativity towards productivity.

Most creativity these days is hedged by the value systems we impose on all our interactions with the universe. Creativity in today’s modern age should be leading us beyond our value systems and increasing our awareness of a broader perspective of the universe.

It comes into the picture in an important way a quarter of the way through the book as an introduction to being-with-others in average everydayness and modes of language such as idle talk. In this first part of the book , discourse is fleshed out in relation to inauthentic modes of being. In second part it is connected with authentic being and temporality. — Joshs

This is where we tend to get confused about the role of language. The suggestion in the OP is that discourse “is intended to render explicit our understanding of being in the world”, but when we’re referring to average everydayness, idle talk and other inauthentic modes of being, then we’re not talking about everything we do as intended discourse.

There is a difference between intentionally rendering explicit our understanding, and making it explicit by idly ‘doing what one does’. The difference is in hearing the call of conscience, in articulating our own understanding of being the world.

I think as long as it’s clear that we’re talking about unintentional discourse and inauthentic modes of being, then I’m with you. But I’m not sure it’s possible to discuss the relationship between language and discourse in this way across both authentic and inauthentic modes of being.

That’s my view, FWIW.

I think the idea is that our whole range of abilities to deal with the "equipment" of everyday life is itself a linguistically based discourse in the sense that we know and can say what the equipment is for (the "in-order-to") and what the roles and importance of its various functions in our lives is (the "for-the-sake-of-which").

So, to use your particular example, the oven is in order to cook food, which obviously is for the sake of nutrition. — Janus

I’d have to agree with @Fooloso4, though - I don’t see this as necessarily discourse. It is entirely possible to succeed in baking the potato without being able to know or say what an oven is or what it’s for, let alone to know or say anything about nutrition. You could teach a chimpanzee to bake a potato or mow the lawn, for instance, and he could then carry out the exact same actions without too much trouble - would that be discourse?

While I understand that the actions of turning the oven to 425 degrees and mowing the lawn could be discursive, I would think that in most situations they are not: one is not often explicitly articulating their understanding of either the in-order-to or the for-the-sake-of in performing these actions, unless they were doing so expressly for-the-sake-of being helpful, for instance.

Perhaps, at best, they may be considered ‘idle talk’. This is Dasein’s everyday mode of being. Discourse, on the other hand, is a more authentic mode of being and involves interpretation - ‘taking something as’ - and then explicitly articulating that interpretation as a way of relating to others. This is not happening in these actions.

Discourse doesn’t really come into the picture until the second part of B&T. @Arne’s explanation that Heidegger was talking about the ‘average everydayness’ refers to the first part, to readiness-at-hand for instance and other inauthentic modes of being - not to discourse.

Perhaps something like this could be possible near or after the heat death of the universe (if we’re right in predicting it would happen anyway). I recall some speculation that we might be able to siphon Hawking radiation from black holes and live off of that for a while or even forever, so maybe a path to this kind of freedom would be to hold out until we can do that. Or collect all of the energy and matter in the universe and keep it in a controlled system, but assuming that the universe expands infinitely and faster than we can catch up, that might just be impossible. — TogetherTurtle

We've pulled off some pretty ridiculous things in the past that just seem normal now, so I definitely think it's possible. I wouldn't put all of my money in it ever happening though. I think it's probably ideal, but if it isn't possible, I wouldn't be too disappointed. — TogetherTurtle

I understand your reluctance to dismiss possibilities - I’ve been there. But all of science points to process as the underlying reality of our universe. This means that, despite thousands of years of denial and wishful thinking, we do NOT live in a static world. And the sooner we accept this reality and find a way to ‘roll with it’ rather than try to ‘control’ everything, the sooner we will achieve this sense of freedom we long for. To continue to believe we can put the brakes on the universe and make it first conform to our desires and then remain in that state is precisely what prevents freedom, not what contributes to it.

So do you genuinely believe that the first method is realistically achievable?

I currently still work a day job, have a family, raise children. My epiphany arrived in the midst of these obligations, and I’m working my way around them - devoting as much of my limited spare time to ‘not being externally productive’ as I can get away with until my kids get through school. My family are getting used to it, but it takes some negotiation. Still, I’m not influenced by ‘what I should be doing and when’, but by what I consider valuable - not necessarily for me as a physical entity, but mostly in terms of my capacity to contribute to the universe as an infinite whole (not specifically to society or anyone else). When I look at it this way, the time I have physical access to, the relationships I nurture and the awareness and understanding I share are precious to me. Everything else has value only in the context of these main aspects of my life.

So when it’s important to my kids that I watch their soccer game, I’ll be there. I’ll also continue to devote time and attention to broadening their view of the world, making sure they eat well and teaching them to determine and live by their own values despite what everyone else tells them. These activities (among others) are valuable to me, but my capacity to do them has a time limit in itself. Nevertheless, I don’t feel guilty for choosing more time for my ‘research’ over a higher paying job with longer hours, or for sitting in front of a computer all day while the sun is shining. I know what I’m doing is productive for me, and not neglecting my health or my family.

Yes, I’m very conscious of time - I work on being more practical and efficient in some areas and structuring my routine so that I can find value in more moments that may seem less practical or efficient to others. I’ve given up caring what other people say I should be doing - there will always be someone or something to make you feel like you’re doing it wrong.

Fair enough - I may have to read up some more. I get that ‘for the sake of which’ can apply to discourse, but I can’t see how it applies in this case, except perhaps in writing/saying “I turn the oven to 425 degrees” - which of course defeats the purpose as an example of non-linguistic discourse.

How would you say that the action relates to being-with, such that it is performed for the sake of ‘the one’ in terms of expressing an understanding of the appropriate temperature at which to bake a potato? I don’t quite follow.

If indeed every act is an expression of understanding and therefore a discourse, then how does this relate to reflexes or subconscious/animal behaviour? I ask this because I (perhaps mistakenly) understood activity occurring at the level of understanding (skilled activity in the domain of ready-to-hand) and perhaps even intelligibility, not only beyond interpretation in explicitly taking something as something.

I’d appreciate some help with the confusion.

When I turn the oven to 425 degrees in order to bake a potato, I have just expressed my understanding of the appropriate temperature at which to bake a potato. Every act is an expression of an understanding and every such expression is discourse. — Arne

I only have a general understanding of Heidegger, so bear with me.

I would have interpreted the action of turning the oven to 425 degrees as a transparent aspect of your experience in order to bake a potato for the sake of providing food, rather than an expression of understanding that enables one to share the world with others: which is more what I understand discourse to be. You’re assuming that I’m meant to interpret your expression by this action, but is this the reason you turn the oven to 425 degrees?

While I agree that discourse is not just language or talking, it’s not just an act that demonstrates understanding, either. Discourse is tied to being-with: it includes listening or being silent as well as verbal, written or body language, facial expressions and other performative aspects of communication.

This only proves that the first approach appears more attractive - that we expend so much energy and effort towards the first approach, but it’s a largely fruitless exercise. Why is the second approach ignored?

So there are two approaches to freedom then, one where you eliminate anything that can hurt you and then put on the blindfold, and another where you use your obstacles to get where you want to go? — TogetherTurtle

The first approach assumes a controlled environment: that you CAN eliminate anything that might hurt you, and that the environment will remain free of obstacles or active oppression. This is an illusion. There is no way in real life to maintain this situation, so any sense of freedom is only temporary.

The second approach, rather than ‘use your obstacles to get where you want to go’, is about negotiating a path - understanding that you’re in a relationship with everything in the universe, and that there is always more than one way to get from here to there. Where you want to go isn’t more important than where everyone (and everything) else wants to go, and you’re capable of adjusting your own plans more efficiently than you can change someone else’s.

Assuming a static world, the first approach to freedom seems the most attractive option - but is it even possible? It requires us to have achieved independence and autonomy, as well as have our path to success already cleared. In a changing world, however, the second approach is more effective long term, and certainly more realistic, but it requires us to always be aware, interconnected and prepared to help others. And it doesn’t really look like ‘freedom’ from the outside - it just looks like life.

well, probably not blindfolded. — TogetherTurtle

Why is that? Is it because you are then aware of where you can and cannot go as you set off? When you’re blindfolded, you can initially feel free - perhaps even more free than in the same position not blindfolded - but only until you wish to move or do anything.

So someone in a particular position in their life can feel free if they’re unaware of what lies in any direction beyond their current circumstances. As long as they have no desire to move from that position, they can retain that sense of freedom in ignorance. But the moment they desire to move in any direction, any unforeseen obstacle will undermine their freedom because they’re essentially blind to a way around it. Likewise if something changes their circumstances, then their sense of freedom is lost as they fumble around in unfamiliar territory.

A sense of freedom, then, is not so much dependent on what obstacles there are as what we understand about our ever-changing relationship to the environment and participants in general, including how we can navigate a path of least resistance in the general direction we want to go, as well as any help we can get along the way.

Like parcour, it helps to interact with everything not as an obstacle to avoid or overcome, but rather as a potential partner in achievement. This often means adjusting our plans to accommodate, even in the midst of executing them. We lose our sense of freedom when we fail to understand how a relationship has the potential for achievement from multiple perspectives.

This kind of reminds me how, at least speaking in terms of physics, everything in the universe (besides energy) is just made up of atoms. Where a wood table starts and a wood floor begins is ultimately up to us. All things, sentient or not, interact. Even with our higher awareness of this world, we are still bound by that which all other life and non-life are bound. That being the chemical reactions and laws of nature that make up the active, ever-changing world we live in. — TogetherTurtle

...and atoms are made up, ultimately, of relationships between interacting energy...and so into the quantum realm, where interaction collapses potentiality and determines probability....

I think the more we understand the role that interaction and relationships play in determining the universe at every level, the more freedom we feel to act.

Would you feel more free blindfolded or not blindfolded?

Every time I’ve tried to define what freedom means, it seems like I must affix the definition to a series of points in spacetime - the universe (and my perspective of it) continues to change around it, and everyone else enjoys a vastly different perspective of the same arrangement of points.

Freedom, I think, is a continual process of negotiation, performed by each individual in their interactions with the universe. Absolute objective freedom is simply not achievable in life. Humans above all are highly interdependent, and therefore bound by their various and complex relationships with the universe. Even a hermit is bound by his relationships with the environment, and obliged to understand and tend to those relationships in order to acquire nutrition and protection at minimum. If he simply takes what he wants then his sense of freedom is a temporary illusion, and he will soon feel oppressed by his environment.

I think a sense of freedom is achieved in harmonious relationships with the universe, as much as we understand them. The more we interact with the universe, the more we understand, including what everything and everyone needs for harmonious achievement - and so the more we feel obliged to adjust our actions in order to achieve harmony, and consequently experience freedom. More freedom allows more interaction and more understanding, but more interaction plus more understanding demands what appears to then be less freedom, relatively speaking.

Of course, we ARE free to not adjust our actions or accommodate the needs of others. But in doing so, we undermine the harmony that gives us the sense of freedom in the first place. Ignorance often feels like freedom, and understanding feels obliging from an individual point of view.

It’s also possible to achieve a personal sense of freedom in life that someone with either more OR less understanding of the universe would see as less free. Likewise, an onlooker could view someone else’s life as having freedom, but that person may not feel free themselves owing to more OR less understanding of the universe.

I suspect this is going to continue to be one-sided, so I’m going to hang onto the rest of my theory for now, if you don’t mind. But feel free to present your own ideas to the discussion, if you have any.

I want to thank you for offering so much constructive criticism and pitfalls to consider. It’s been enlightening - the biggest lesson I think I’ve learned is how to protect intellectual property on forums such as these. I see enormous value in this type of academic discussion, but I now realise obviously there’s a knack to it that I still have to work on getting the hang of. You seem clearly well versed in it yourself - it took me a long time to work out where I was being led. Call me naive. I imagine you probably don’t realise you’re doing it, and might even say I’m reading more into your approach than is intended. I don’t think I am - I’m just operating on a value system that doesn’t protect the individual, and that clearly won’t get me far in academia. I do appreciate the demonstration, though. I’ll just have to be more careful in future.

Any theory of consciousness that leans on quantum mechanics for justificatory ground carries along with it a notion of disembodied cognition(yet another mind/body dualism). That is a consequence of an inadequate understanding regarding the mental ongoings that predate and facilitate language acquisition and it's subsequent use(pre and/or nonlinguistic thought/belief). — creativesoul

Could you explain this? I’m not talking about disembodied cognition, so I’m not sure where you drew this conclusion.

Having acquired a good grasp of what all human thought/belief consists of, I'm subsequently acquiring a relatively good grasp of how human thought/belief emerges, serves as a basis for subsequent thought/belief, is accrued, and gains complexity. — creativesoul

How do you see it, then?

There’s an interesting book called ‘The Hidden Life of Trees’ by Peter Wohlleben that offers a different perspective on the capacity of plants and fungi to experience and their capacity for ‘autonomous action’. I also wonder if you’ve considered chemotaxis in bacteria as evidence of experience. I understand your qualification of ‘externally observable’ indicators, but do you really mean observable to the naked human eye?

Personally, I question this focus on ‘autonomy’ as a value, given how dependent humans are on the rest of the universe (particularly plants, bacteria and fungi) in order to achieve life, let alone anything else. What you refer to as ‘autonomous action’ is highly debatable as such - particularly if you take into account microscopic activity.

FWIW, I don’t believe drawing an objective line between living and non-living is as important as it seems. The value we each attribute to this distinction both informs and is informed by how we personally interact with the universe above and below the line, rendering it highly subjective at best and dependent on our awareness of certain indicators. Biologists who define a living thing as ‘a collection of cells which replicate themselves’ consider these two indicators to be valuable for life at a microscopic level because it informs their work. You interact with the universe at a different level, and so you draw the line differently. I’m fairly confident that if you spent more time interacting with plants, bacteria and fungi and striving to understand how they interact with the universe, you would view their living/non-living status differently.

This has been an interesting discussion - one of the most interesting things has been the recognition that categories such as living/non-living are not as definitive as we once believed.

I’m trying to make sense of your position: the line you’ve drawn between living and non-living comes from your value system. Autonomous action renders an entity ‘interesting’ to you, worthy of your attention and interaction. The existence or action of everything else, including plants, bacteria and fungi, appear to have little to no significance in relation to your own existence as you see it. It’s not important to you whether a plant grows and develops or not - or at least not as important as the growth and development of animals, humans and computer systems. Your interaction with the universe is determined by a multi-dimensional awareness of VALUE to the ‘self’ - and autonomy appears to be your highest value...am I close?

I like the notion of consciousness being existentially dependent upon groupings of basic elements(consciousness "requires"...). There seems a potential issue with talking about the groupings 'making a difference to themselves', and then calling that making of a difference to themselves "integrated information". Leaves me guessing how we can possible say that certain groupings of certain elements are even capable of 'making a difference to themselves'. — creativesoul

I noticed this, too. As I said, it’s a work in progress. And I think relying on Descartes does the theory more harm than good. My earlier quote from Rovelli offers a different way of looking at it, by pointing out that we can only talk about ourselves in relation to our interaction with a system that is not ourselves. This is grounded in quantum mechanics and Shannon’s information theory. Applied to consciousness, it’ll make your head spin - but you may notice it doesn’t sit well with Descartes.

In my view, the ‘groupings making a difference to themselves’ make more sense understood in terms of basic chemistry. With physical stimulus-response, the interaction is instantaneous: there is no experience of time. But chemical process (as I see it) establishes a relationship of interaction between particles (I prefer to call it a relationship system) that produces entropy (‘awareness’ of time directional ‘time’ information). This relationship is finite and dependent on the elements involved, their respective positions and velocity in spacetime, available energy, etc. While the process is active, the relationship system (or ‘grouping’) functions as an entity: it is able to interact with other particles or relationship systems and integrate information - and all of its elements have potential access to that information (ie. awareness) for as long as the chemical process lasts. Depending on the nature of that process, it could be over in an instant or last long enough for the relationship system to interact with several other entities across spacetime - and possibly even engage in other chemical processes, establishing a complex relationship system that has relationship systems operating within it...

My use of terminology might need refining, but hopefully you get the idea of where I’m going.

(EDIT: entropy is not ‘awareness’ of time at the initial level. This occurs in a relationship system of relationship systems, according to Rovelli’s statement.)

can we only find a trace of a form of experience which would be the proper term for the root of experience? Like we're trapped in our vessel by an event that keeps encircling us, so the original force is now only traceable.

It's likely sexual energy is the intelligence of sperm, so to speak, and it's how babies form, static created by sperm species in the womb mechanism. — Schzophr

I’m not sure I follow what you’re asking here. This reads like a cut and paste from Google translate.

It always seems to me that people misunderstand what Nietzsche meant by ‘will to power’. This term was a reaction against the pessimism and nihilism of Schopenhauer’s ‘will to life’, and seems to me to refer more to potency, or potential than superiority. Nietzsche’s use of ‘power’ doesn’t come across as a specifically comparative or competitive sense of power, but as achievement, ambition, internally directed self-control and development of cultural excellence, or a tendency towards growth, strength, expansion, etc.

It’s certainly possible to interpret this as a drive to maximise overall achievement, rather than individual power.

Perhaps it’s in the translation...?

Criterion, criterion, criterion...

What do all known examples of thought/belief have in common such that it makes them what they are? What does all thought/belief consist of such that it can autonomously emerge onto the world stage in it's entirety in the simplest possible 'form' and continue to autonomously grow and/or gain in it's complexity all the way up to and/or including common language acquisition and/or mastery?

Would you at least agree with positing that there are such basic requirements, given the subject matter is human experience and consciousness? — creativesoul

I agree with this so far. At this point I’ll go back to my earlier reference to the way that matter integrates information. My thoughts/beliefs on this topic have been difficult for me to translate into suitable terminology, but they relate in the simplest possible ‘form’ to some elements of Integrated Information Theory (IIT) (as a work in progress), and also to Carlo Rovelli’s ‘Reality is Not What You Think’ - in particular Chapter 12: Information.

In any case, I disagree with your earlier statement that biology is required for experience, so I expect we have some discussion coming there. In my view, the simplest possible ‘form’ of experience emerges from the simplest possible interaction of matter. In reference to quantum mechanics:

A physical system manifests itself only by interacting with another. The description of a physical system, then, is always given in relation to another physical system, one with which it interacts. Any description of a system is therefore always a description of the information which a system has about another system, that is to say, the correlation between the two systems. — Carlo Rovelli

How experience then evolves and develops from the interaction of protons to multi-dimensional human experience and consciousness is a wild ride...

Avoiding anthropomorphism is imperative on my view, and that is not an easy task. In order to avoid attributing human qualities, features, and traits to non-human creatures we must be able to compare/contrast between human qualities, features, and traits and non-human. Without getting too far into the details yet, in this discussion we're talking about the differences between human experience and non-human experience.

To do this, we must know what human experience consists of and/or is existentially dependent upon. We must have some basic understanding of human experience. Once that criterion is established to our satisfaction, we must then assess whether or not the candidate under consideration has what it takes. — creativesoul

First I have to clarify that I’m talking about anthropocentrism, rather than anthropomorphism, because I think the distinction is important before we continue. By anthropocentrism, I’m referring to the tendency to distinguish humans (us) as separate from non-humans (them). This leads to a difference in our terminology for qualities, features and traits that blinds us to what may be common to both/and - particularly when it comes to experience and the development of thought/belief. Recognising primitive pre-cursors to thought/belief without labelling them as such is tricky business when you have ‘human experience’ and all our related features and traits up on a pedestal.

You say that you typically reject dichotomies - I’m proposing we reject the human/non-human dichotomy for the purpose of this discussion. This means we either we embrace/forgive anthropomorphism (and I understand your resistance), OR we abandon ‘human’ as a distinct category (along with all its anthropocentric terms). I find there is very little common terminology available to explore the gradual development of experience and consciousness between the two.

In my view, it’s more important in this discussion to talk about the similarities and development of ALL experience: both human and non-human.

To say that bacteria use trial and error is to impute/imply intention that is devoid of agency. Bayesian reasoning requires quite a bit more complexity in thought/belief than such simple cellular structures facilitate and/or will allow.

Flower petals tumble through the air at times. Other times they glide. Some things exhibit more than one behavioural pattern. It does not follow from that and that alone that they are engaged in trial and error activities.

Bacteria? — creativesoul

Granted, this is not technically ‘trial and error’ - it’s the description given in science journals, mind you. Given the initial concentration reading of chemoattractant as A, if the subsequent reading B shows that B<A, the bacteria will tumble before going straight, whereas if the reading shows B>A it will continue straight. It’s not moving like a petal in the air, at the mercy of external forces or physical ‘stimulus’. It’s integrating chemical information about the environment in spacetime, correlating A and B for an internal chemical response, which produces a physical response.

I’m not trying to imply that bacteria employ reasoning. But they do employ basic correlation in the way they integrate information through chemical processes. At the very least, they’re aware of a distinction between two stimuli in spacetime. This is the foundation of awareness in all living things, as I see it.

Ok, I think I’m following you now. Your criticisms are fair, and I do appreciate you pointing out and challenging my language use. Blame an Arts degree and years of writing for PR and marketing - I will try to be more precise.

To be meaningful is to be meaningful to a creature. Current convention shows that all theories of meaning presuppose symbolism. That presupposes something to become sign/symbol, something to become symbolized/significant, and a creature capable of drawing a correlation between the two.<-------------that is thought/belief formation. The content of the correlation exists in it's entirety prior to becoming part of the correlation.

So, while we ought take care in our discrimination between candidates, we must take care to not redefine common terms as a means to support our thought/belief.

You are wanting me to agree to a criterion for experience that does not include thought/belief.

I cannot. — creativesoul

I don’t believe I’m redefining the term, rather highlighting one particular dictionary definition of meaningful that suggests ‘current convention’ may be limiting our understanding of the topic in favour of anthropocentrism. It wouldn’t be the first time.

I agree that meaning presupposes both a sign and what it signifies. But in my view the creature need not have sufficient awareness to correlate between the sign and what it signifies for the creature in order for the sign to be meaningful to the creature.

Humans perform acts or pursue experiences every day, which they claim ‘bring meaning to their lives’ without understanding why - only that it gives them a sense that they’re ‘on the right track’, that it gives them ‘purpose’, etc. Like bacteria, they may have insufficient awareness to make a correlation between an experience that means something to them and the specific something that it means - but they maintain that the experience is meaningful, nonetheless.

Many of us are uncomfortable with this situation of not knowing, though. Either we find or attribute meaning in relation to our thoughts/beliefs, or we deny the experience on the grounds that it has no meaning, because we can’t find one that fits with our awareness/thoughts/beliefs. We simply cannot imagine being unaware of what the significance of our experience might be for us, even though we’re certain that bacteria is unaware of the significance of the chemical stimulus it pursues.

In order for a creature to relate a chemical stimulus to direction it has to make a connection, draw an association/correlation between the two. Amoebas cannot do this. They have no notion of direction. They have no notions at all. Talking about what they can experience requires the strongest possible justificatory ground. — creativesoul

You seem adamant that amoeba and bacteria cannot relate chemical stimulus to direction, and yet the process of chemotaxis disputes this. I’m talking about the most basic information processing systems - not ‘notion’ but chemical process. Bacteria without polarity employ a trial-and-error process, by which they can alternate between tumbling and straight line action, effecting random changes in direction until they ‘sense’ an increase in chemical stimulus. They have the capacity for temporal sensing: they relate chemical stimulus changes over time. Those with polarity, however, are able to adjust their ‘facing’ direction until it aligns with the chemical gradient: a recognition of change in chemical stimulus received between a ‘front’ and ‘back’ of the cell. In both cases, two bits of information can be correlated upon integration.

This is not imagination. It’s biochemistry. I’m not going to conclusively prove experience in order to disprove your assumptions about amoeba and bacteria. I’m only suggesting you keep an open mind and remember that experience and consciousness must have evolved from something that we don’t currently refer to as ‘experience’ or ‘consciousness’.

I'm just curious here. The "not necessarily" part above... are you going to argue/reject the criterion I've put forth based upon possible world semantics and/or modality(necessity/contingency)?

You realize that it does not follow from the fact that one has imagined that Donald Trump is not the president, that Donald Trump is not the president.

The criterion aspect needs to be discussed more. — creativesoul

The ‘not necessarily’ part was in reference to your leap from “all experience takes a creature to whom the experience is meaningful” to “all experience consists of and/or requires thought/belief about what’s happening”. It helps in this discussion to be mindful of anthropocentric assumptions and language, so we don’t seal off areas without searching them first. To be meaningful is to have an important or worthwhile quality. No thought/belief about ‘what’s happening’ is necessary.

We’re a long way from being able to decide or judge who/what is/isn’t ‘conscious’ besides ourselves. We’re always so keen to rush out and make judgements and decisions based on what little information or awareness we have. It’s a constant source of suffering in the world. I’ve rejected all criterion on the grounds that they tend to be more of a barrier to understanding than a tool. I realise you’re keen to get to the decisive stage, but I think it’s going to take some time being more open minded first, if you’re willing.

But the universe is a mix of lawful activity and randomness. No getting around that.

The universe has no purpose whatsoever and a life has only the purpose you give it. — Unseen

Cosmic sorcerer and magic aside (you look like you’re having fun here), what if there were more lawful activity and less randomness than we currently realise? What if the purpose we think we are choosing to give our life actually stems from laws that we have yet to discover because they require a broader awareness of the universe than we currently have?

The way I see it, it comes down to awareness of potential.

As humans we are constructed a certain way: not for individual survival, but for maximising information processing, interconnectedness and collaborative achievement (through which we can attain greater chances of survival). Our physical construction suggests that survival should be the least of our concerns.

But as long as we see our greatest potential as ‘survival’, in our growing awareness of the universe we will feel caged by our comparative fragility and dependence, by what we cannot achieve alone. And in the end, we realise that our survival is only ever a temporary achievement anyway.

So what’s the point in gaining awareness of the universe beyond our physical existence, in building such diverse relationships and striving for collaborative achievement? If this is what we’re physically maximised to achieve, why are so many of us continuing to live like a penguin trying to fly?

I agree. I’ve chosen to ignore the side argument - feel free to continue with the main discussion, if you can find it back there...

An event that leaves an impression on someone needs to be parsed in terms of what such an impression consists of and what those things are themselves existentially dependent upon.

Some impressions are left in a fluent listener by hurtful language use of a fluent speaker. Those impressions are existentially dependent upon language use. Such experience cannot be had by a language less creature, let alone an amoeba. — creativesoul

I understand what you’re saying here, and I do agree - however if we’re trying to get to an understanding of what consciousness is and how it emerges or evolves/develops, then exploring it (or experience) from the top down, so to speak, is a bit like trying to understand algebra by reading an advanced level university textbook on the subject, starting with the final chapter. It might be possible to eventually work it out, but that’s gotta be one of the most difficult and convoluted ways to do it, in my view. To parse an impression left on someone at such a complex level of experiencing without grasping what happens at the most basic level of ‘someone’ (however you may interpret this) during the simplest ‘experience’ (event that leaves an impression) is going to be guesswork at best.

I say that - at a bare minimum - all experience takes a creature to whom the experience is meaningful. In short, all experience consists of and/or requires thought/belief about what's happening. — creativesoul

Not necessarily. If we go back to the example of bacteria chemotaxing towards a chemical gradient, the experience of receiving the chemical gradient stimulus would have to be ‘meaningful’ to the bacteria in order for it to respond in this way, even without thought/belief about what’s happening. The event leaves an impression because the bacteria expends energy (an irreversible process) in changing its movement action according to two-dimensional information received: relating a chemical stimulus to direction.

I readily agree that experience comes in 'degrees'(for lack of a better description). — creativesoul

FWIW I tend to see experience as coming not just in degrees but in dimensions of awareness.

By ‘that God’, I was referring to our culpability, not to our importance or value. But as a statement taken out of context, I agree with your edits.

What is the criterion for consciousness such that when it is met by any and all candidates, those candidates and only those candidates are the ones sensibly said to have consciousness whereas any and all candidates that do not meet the criterion are likewise sensibly denied to have consciousness? — creativesoul

This is where the problem has been in this, and continues to be in many discussions about consciousness. The OP defined consciousness as ‘having experiences’, yet the impression I got from the discussion was that ‘being aware of having experiences’ was what they meant. I only wanted to clear up the confusion.

If ‘consciousness’ is defined as ‘having experiences’, then I would argue that all living entities may be considered conscious. If, however, consciousness was defined as ‘being aware of having experiences’, then only those animals that exhibit self-awareness would be considered ‘conscious’.

Stimulus/response is inadequate. Experience takes more than that. The definition you've invoked references impressions on humans. — creativesoul

I agree on both counts. The term ‘someone’ implies human only, but doesn’t state it explicitly enough to rule out non-humans, in my opinion. The definition was quoted from the Oxford dictionary, and invoked to try and clear up the confusion I described above.

Personally, I don’t see consciousness as defined by a set of criterion or a line below which nothing is conscious. To me, consciousness describes a gradual development in the way that matter integrates information.

I understand the resistance to this train of thought. It feels like such a slippery slope. And you’ve clearly pointed out that not every instance of stimulus and response involves an experience for the system in question.

It makes sense to assume that a stimulus and response involves the system as a whole, but it’s a different story in reality, when you think about it.

It’s likely that a reverse bias photodiode enables an electrical current when the sunlight level drops (or something similar), switching your outdoor lights on at night. The essence of the stimulus and response you’re referring to occurs at the level of the electrons in the space between the anode and cathode. The event leaves no impression on any part of the lighting system itself.

In an amoeba, however, irreversible chemical process takes place within the integrated system as a direct result of an event outside the system. You cannot say that the event leaves no impression on the amoeba. This is the essence of an experience, whether it’s possible for the amoeba itself to be aware of having the experience or not (I don’t think it is aware, mind you - but that’s not the question).

What is the difference of being taught online by videos than reading a textbook and teaching yourself? And would one be better/more challenging than the other? — Zilian

That depends on how you learn best, and your attitude toward the information you receive.

Not everyone learns better the same way, and not everyone is challenged to think about the information they receive in the same way.

One person may find it difficult to retain information by reading it, for any number of reasons, but may find that a particular video enables them to absorb the same information more effectively.

Another person may find the video presenter, the language, editing or visual representation of the information distracts them from the information itself, is off-putting or otherwise counter-productive, but will read a certain book and relate to that format better.

Others may partially understand the book, but be unable to fully grasp the concept until it’s presented visually or in a slightly different way. A combination of the two formats might enable them to learn the material more comprehensively than one or other of the formats alone.

‘God’ as a label is unnecessary. As a concept, God allows us to conceive of ‘self’ beyond our physical existence: as encompassing all aspects of the universe across spacetime. But as a label, ‘God’ also tempts us to separate our physical, social, genetic, ideological, etc existence as ‘self’ from the pantheistic concept of God, and act in conflict with ‘God’ to protect a more limited notion of ‘self’.

For me, to be conscious is to be having experiences, and they are given to me by my pre-conscious mind. My brain. The only "contact" is the passive one in which the brain offers up an experience. In the case of conscious actions, the brain gives me the impression of both initiation and follow through. — Unseen

You seem to make a marked distinction between ‘me’ and ‘my brain’, as if they were two separate entities. How do you justify this, and what do you think ‘me’ is if it is not the brain or body?

So, if you have a point, make it again briefly and in plain language. Remember that Einstein once said "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself." — Unseen

For the record, this is a poor justification for insistence on brief and plain language. Clearly we are not attempting to explain this to a six year old, but to an adult who stubbornly refuses to accept anything he doesn’t already know. There’s a big difference. Have you even read any of Einstein’s papers?

Based on everything we know, it's a reasonable a justifiable assumption that amoeba can't have experience. I can't make assumptions on what I don't know. — Unseen

Based on a definition of experience as ‘an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone’, it’s a reasonable and justifiable assumption that amoeba CAN have experiences. We know that because we can reliably attribute a specific activity of amoeba as a physical response to a specific event or occurrence. The response is evidence that this event leaves an impression on the amoeba.

So what is it that prevents you from recognising response to stimuli as experience?

That depends how you approach the concept of God. Deists see no need to worship or interact with God personally because ‘his’ involvement in the universe was only in the initial formation.

But the idea of a personal God (as opposed to God as a person) is still possible for pantheism in my view. David Bentley Hart once explained ‘personal’ as the notion “that God really knows and loves and is related to us”, and he recognised that God doesn’t need to be a person to fulfill this description. What he didn’t recognise was that the very act of realising or actualising potentiality - as the capacity to develop, achieve and succeed - is an act of unconditional love. God as the potentiality that underlies every process in the universe (past, present and future) not only points to its necessary being and its fundamental involvement in the ‘creation’ of the universe, but also its continual involvement and necessity in the unfolding of the universe across spacetime.

God as potentiality then encompasses omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence - it is our own individual and collective ignorance of that potentiality in our day to day interaction with the universe that impairs its current physical realisation. This is not something we can blame on God as a person in pantheism, because we are included in that notion of God, and therefore equally culpable. That as humans we are falling well short of our potential to understand, to achieve and to do good for the universe is not something we can simply ask the God of pantheism to fix. We are that God, and more so than animals and trees and the forces of nature because we are aware of that truth.

What does self-awareness consist of, factually? If I'm having experiences, they are given to me by my brain, my pre-conscious "mind." The only sense in which they are "mine" is that I'm experiencing them, but perhaps I'm being fed someone else's experiences or artificially-produced experiences. — Unseen

Ok then - I’ll rephrase the question:

Given that an experience is defined as ‘practical contact with and observation of facts or events’ or ‘an event or occurrence which leaves an impression on someone’, do you believe it is possible to have an experience without self-awareness?

Humans have developed the capacity to quantify, measure and evaluate information in relation to other information. With this capacity, we evaluate everything we encounter in the universe as an evolved method of making sense of it. So all information about the world is assigned a hierarchy of value in relation to everything else (faster, higher, stronger, good, better, best, etc).

What we determine from these values is that often the ‘greatest’ feature may be a pinnacle of value in relation to our understanding of the universe, but may be deemed one of the ‘worst’ things to encounter in relation to the organism (ourselves), as a possible threat to life. The discrepancy between these values leads to the identification of ‘self’, and our attempts to reconcile the conflicts that arise lead to the formulation of ‘morality’.

What is deemed ‘good’ is good for the self identity and/or good for what little we understand about the universe. What is deemed ‘evil’ is harmful to the self identity and/or harmful to what we deem to be ‘good’ about our limited understanding of the universe.

As we develop the advanced capacity to interact with our understanding of the universe beyond our physical existence (4-dimensional awareness), the protection of the self identity becomes either less important or more broadly defined, and the concept of ‘evil’ is diminished, possibly even eradicated.