Why would "we each only have one way to do it with, though" ? I am not aware of any compelling argument for that conclusion. — Janus

According to Piaget's constructivism, knowledge is accumulated piece by piece, where the next piece is constructed upon the previous piece. The theory is rock solid in my mind. It has been extensively studied since the sixties. I would put it on par with E=mc2. The theory implies that there is only one system of knowledge accumulation and interpretation at play, so when we say we perceive something, we have only one way of doing it. This is consistent with being a singular self, which psychedelic's may indeed challenge?

I think novel constructions are possible; indeed commonplace. — Janus

I agree, but they always have to be constructions, so an addition to previous knowledge, constructed in accordance to the already existing structure / system of understanding in place. The information has to be integrated to the whole of knowledge, and in order to do this it must use the whole of knowledge to interpret the information.

where the feeling is of universal inter-connectedness — Janus

I don' get a feeling of universal connectedness from mindfulness at all. I get that feeling from a knowledge that self organization is a singularity everything is involved in and everything arises out of.

If you reject a theory on the basis that its originators have a vested interest in it, you would be rejecting most, if not all, theories it seems. — Janus

I try to scrutinize everything to the nth degree, as much as I'm able to. There is more to it, but its a bit much to unload here.

I think the same kinds of altered states may be realized with meditation as with psychedelics, but perhaps not as reliably :wink: . — Janus

That may be so. I tend to think that headspace is limitless. I think meditation can be practiced in many different ways and with many different results. I tend to use it more for personal mind control ( to turn off thinking ), rather then for exploring altered states.

I'm glad you have found something that gives you a feeling of universal interconnectedness. I feel sad that we should have to look to altered states for such a feeling. :cry:

My experience is that the unexpected connections are precisely not made in the "normal" way, they don't feel 'normal' at all. Having said that I'm not sure what your conception of "being made in the normal way" is. It may be different for each person, so if you say it is like that for you, I can only accept your word on it. — Janus

I take your point. It may well be that we construe differently, but consistent with constructivist theory and phenomenology we would each have only one way to do it with. So if something is construed - it was done in our normal way. We could not have invented a whole different system of comprehension on the spot and used that to understand something about our situation - according t the theory. Joshs described the theory very well previously, but basically we can only construct upon what has already been constructed, or we can only understand that which we are familiar with already - that can e understood in terms of our already established understanding. When something falls partially outside our established understanding, then we have to reorganize our understanding to account for it. But when something falls totally outside our established understanding, then we are blind to it, which might be the case when mindfulness is close to or ineffable.
You may be describing a situation close to ineffable and somehow an impression stuck, so I have to take your word for it. I would be hesitant to take Varela and Thompson's word for it as they, as originators of the theory have a vested interest, and they seem to describe a fairly superficial situation, that can be variously accounted for.

It is ineffable only insofar as nothing propositional or determinate can be said about, or on the basis of, the experience. For me this is what poesis (making) is all about; evoking (showing) what cannot be literally said. — Janus

You previously mentioned psychedelics, and perhaps this is the cause of our dissonance. I was really only referring to mindfulness. I have not tried them ( but I'm curious :smile: ). According to the theory, perhaps in this case, it is I who am blind!

This whole area is pretty fuzzy in my mind. The problem seems to lie in the first person vs third person view. The OP is from a third person phenomenological "objective" high ground view, arguing that
phenomenology deems the first person view to be subjective, as if the phenomenological view is somehow itself immune to subjectivity. If we understand self organization is the central mechanism of everything, then all views are biased towards the viewer, indeed can only be seen from their perspective / knowledge / construct system, and we know that all views are deeply subjective, given the weight of beliefs that they are based on.

So what to make of this? I would say that all views are experientially valid, but some are supported by theory whilst others are not. So theory cannot invalidate the first person experience. It remains a valid first person experience despite being theoretically unsound, and it must be so to maintain the integrity of the self in question - according to the theory, as I understand it.

What he apparently didn’t realize from this was that it is not the mere realization of interconnectedness that leads to bliss or love. It is the IMPROVEMENT in one’s experiencing of that interconnectedness. — Joshs

:up:

Pleasure isn’t passive but instead innovative, which is tough to sustain. Most of the effort, and reward, on the part of the meditator takes place when they initially put themselves in the meditative state. From that point on , they have to continually discover something new in the experience in order to keep it from slipping into meaninglessness. — Joshs

This would be the normal western / phenomenological interpretation. In Yogic philosophy, pleasure is not entirely dependent upon externalities but can also be experienced at will. It is not so difficult to do, what is difficult is to allow yourself the mindset that makes it possible. This is where mindfulness comes into its own as a tool to explore such possibilities.

How far should it be seen as an aesthetic quest or one which is part of a cultural statement? How influential can art be in raising consciousness? — Jack Cummins

I get really annoyed when people mistake art for something decorative or purely aesthetic, including when artists themselves do this. An artist is free to make whatever they want to, so they tend to make the best thing they can think of. The best thing they can think of is directly related to the height of their consciousness. In this way the product of art is information about the artists consciousness. Whether they be a two year old composing their first crayon drawing, or a Beethoven composing the 5th symphony, it is their consciousness that they are revealing in their work. A two year old reveals in their work what is uppermost in their mind - mummy, daddy, the house, dog, etc, whilst a Beethoven twists and turns and takes an orchestra to places only a Beethoven can. Art work is first and foremost information about the artists consciousness, in some form. This is the singular thing that art always must be, so art should be understood in terms of it. The form it may take is endlessly variable and open ended, but it can not escape being information about the artists thinking. Art work is symbolic of the thinking that created it.


So from this perspective the above question would read: can "the artists thinking in symbolized form" raise consciousness, or is "the artists thinking in symbolized form" a product of the culture the artist resides in, or is the " artists thinking in symbolized form" concerned mainly or entirely with decoration.

From this perspective some resolution to these questions is possible.

I'm still not really clear on what is meant by "normal mechanism of thought". In the altered states of consciousness I have experienced, through music, painting and writing practice, meditation and psychedelics, the everyday ways and tracks of thought (which themselves are obviously not always the same but could be thought to occur within a kind of 'range') are altered in different ways and degrees such that they may no longer seem to be in that 'range'. — Janus

My understanding of the normal mechanism of thought is roughly outlined in the previous post. I would say what you are describing is a making of unexpected connections, but I would assume you are cognizing and integrating them in a similar way to what you normally would - so your normal consciousness is at play, but is being altered in some way. That something can be said about the state suggests normal consciousness was present. It managed to cognize something. But yes you are right it is being pushed and pulled in different ways, however it maintains some integrity and creates some story from the experience.

Why can't experience be phenomenal even if the "normal mechanism of thought" (whatever that is meant to be) is not occurring? — Janus

The normal mechanism of thought is occurring. The way I understand the phenomenologists argument is, If the normal mechanism of thought is occurring then the experience of mindfulness can be accounted for in normal ways - as a deeply subjective state.

I would counter, If the normal mechanism of thought is occurring, and I understand normality to be equally deeply subjective, then mindfulness is a valid experience. I would go further and ask if they are equally valid experiences, then why can not some of that "all-encompassing interconnectedness " willfully spill over into normal experience. I believe mindfulness has the power to enact such possibilities.

I was agreeing with Joshs in regard to Varela and Thompson's conclusions specifically, not dismissing mindfulness entirely. I regard mindfulness as very valuable tool, and I would encourage everybody t practice it.

Heidegger does a much better job than I do of explaining this view of time as temporality. I highly recommend you read his section on time in Being and Time. You can get the pdf of the entire book online free. — Joshs

I've found your explanations extremely helpful, so thanks, but I will check it out. I originally couldn't see how systems would interact with time, but then it dawned on me that nonequilibrium systems must store energy for a future time, so they are engaged with time from the word go. Whilst equilibrium systems are cognizing change, nonequilibrium systems are cognizing change over time.

There is still a bias amongst all this fundamentally. The universe is biased to self organize. Fundamentally organization occurs because of a biastowards organization, rather then chaos.
This leads me to think that it is not information that is fundamental, but emotional information - any thoughts?

If the feeling present in mindfulness is one of all-encompassing interconnectedness then it is not "similar to ordinary consciousness". — Janus

It is similar in that it is phenomenal. If it is phenomenal then the normal mechanism of thought is occurring, so difficult to distinguish from ordinary deeply subjective states.

I am an advocate of mindfulness. I believe ordinary conscious states are also deeply subjective, and mindfulness is a tool with which one can interact with and alter that subjectivity. I also believe it is a way to disengage with consciousness at the deepest level of practice, and so various levels of depth of mindfulness may be progressively altered states of consciousness.

I agree with you that Varela and Thompson have misconstrued the implications of the present moment. If there is a feeling present, and there is in their conclusions, then it is phenomenal - similar to ordinary consciousness. But I would not dismiss the present moment and mindfulness on that basis alone.

A focus on the present moment is a mental exercise to disengage from temporality. The present moment is very deep - the plank length of time is 10^−44 seconds, so it is not something many, if anybody, can reach. But in the attempt to do so one dives into the moment. Initially the depth is quite superficial such that one can reflect upon it, such as Varela and Thompson do, so not so different from ordinary consciousness, but with practice, at greater depths the report is that the situation ( I wont call it an experience ) is ineffable. There are no first person reports back from such depths. Third person reports are of people continuing to meditate long after the class has ended. I have heard a few claims that this can go on for days. I cannot verify such claims, but in my own practice much has been achieved in the present moment. I acknowledge it is a highly subjective first person perspective, but as you state yourself subjectivity is the nature of experienced reality - the third person perspective is invaluable as a conceptual tool, but it is not something anybody can ever experience.

It seems to me the present moment is a validation of Temporality, in that it is possible to disengage from ordinary consciousness by willfully disengaging from the change experienced over time, so I don't quite understand your tack.

How would you characterize your basic metaphysical model? Mine would be that cognition is a disruption / disintegration of the state of a system, met in consciousness by an opposing force biased to integrate. These would be the two poles of consciousness - not quite binary or equal or opposite, but two elements causing a circular mechanism. The feelings we feel are an expression of the bias to self organize - they relate to the continuity of self. Cognition is normally of external elements, it is in itself disruptive to the state of a system, but more so are its inferred consequences. These either disrupt or affirm the state of a system, so are unpleasant or pleasant. Self is composed of multifactorial elements, it has its own biological and experientially constructed momentum.

In Varela and Thompsons case, they focus attention on an internal state which is already integrated and ordered, so an affirmation of self, so pleasant sensations result, from the perspective of my model.

Perhaps it won't be "me", but it will be "composed" of me in some sense, I suppose. — Pantagruel

A lineage of consciousness / life? Who can deny it? It has long been the view in Yogic logic, and in biology we are a vehicle for DNA. It dose take some guts though, to step out of the comfort zone of the prevailing dogma and state one's best understanding - I can relate to that.

I think our concept of materiality, or more specifically, the presumed dichotomy between mind and matter, is archaic, given everything we have discovered about the nature of reality — Pantagruel

I agree totally.

Everyone brings a different interpretive context to any statement they read. For me, the conjunction of ex nihilo nihil fit and cogito ergo sum is compelling. — Pantagruel

I agree again regarding the interpretation, but please elaborate a little regarding your conclusions..

For me, the conjunction of a universe biased to self organize, and Capra's unit of cognition contain the emotion and cognition elements necessary for a model of consciousness, long before life arose.

:up: It seems to me that nothing is an incoherent concept. At the very least "nothing" contains information about itself as nothingness, so its not nothing. Of course such a situation can not exist as information is always attached to something.

I guess what you are getting at is that consciousness cannot be immaterial , and normally I would agree. BUT quantum entanglement, tunneling, superposition, and uncertainty are not really what we normally understand to be material, and patterns of these are likely to play a role in consciousness. Perhaps they require their own category to enable us to articulate this situation a little better.

If computation and emotion are equiprimordial – in a system in motion, consciousness would work something like a two cylinder rotary engine.

Self organisation is spherical – the nucleus is empty. There is no central or enduring self, the self is the state of an evolving system at any given time.

In Gendlin’s model, the awareness and intending of something is a single differential crossing between one’s implicit past and what occurs into it, — Joshs

The state of the system changes at the crossing, and so does the self . In the absolute sense “the self” changes from thought to thought – Radical Temporality :clap:

In other words, our mind primes perception to see what we believe we should see and then provides that information alongside what we are
actually seeing. Optical illusions where we see a complete figure where there was only a partial
pattern are examples of this, and so is what happened s when we read. We will swear that a complete word was present when in fact only some of the letters were actually there.This is because we anticipate the next letter in a word, the next word in a sentence, etc. — Joshs

Yes , I agree entirely. The established mental apparatus is entirely geared towards a future world, and anticipates it as something recognized, from past experience. The expectation is for more of the same, so what tends to be perceived is more of the same.

One can read Racliffe’a model of existential feeling as oriented along a binary of meaningfulness vs lack of meaning. Situations and people can appear more or less enticing , exciting, appealing, salient. You could
say that he keeps your notion of pleasure but re-interprets pain as meaninglessness. Depression isn’t a. experience of painful sensation, it’s an inability to care about the world or find meaning in it.
Like you, Ratcliffe explains the perceived
salience of events by virtue of an interaction between intentional meanings and bodily felt sensations which reinforce and orient cognition.

Kelly, like Ratcliffe, sees the affective binary in terms
of construed meaningfulness-coherence vs emptiness-chaos-confusion, but he sees this as inherent in intentional organization rather than as depending on the feedback from the body. — Joshs

I cannot get past the idea that ultimately everything only matters in terms of the pleasure or pain it provides us. — Pop

Perhaps I haven't explained myself sufficiently.
Even when we incur pain , it is to avoid a potentially still greater pain, such as going to war to avoid tyranny, or going to an unsatisfying job to avoid homelessness. We also incur pain for the greater good as this is ultimately pleasurable within our meaning system - as we could not live with the guilt ( pain ) if we didn't. We tend to work it out such that what action we take yields the greatest happiness, least misery, or thereabouts as best we can given the resources and options on hand, within a personal meaning system. We try create a "happy ever after" - where happiness is a pleasurable emotional state. No?

I don't see it as a binary situation. Every thought lands on what I see as an emotional gradient, is either painful or pleasurable and this causes affect. It is like a circular self perpetuating mechanism that drives the system.

I think we differ mainly in the weight we give to emotions, this results in different outcomes. I suspect this would be reflective of our personal makeup in some way such that we are unlikely to agree on this issue.

PS. I am only just beginning to understand self organization, but my early impression is that it is ubiquitous in the universe, and contingent upon a bias to self organize rather then not. A bias is an emotion, so I'm wondering if emotions are a force.

Except that for Heidegger the cognitive and attunement are not separate constructs or processes. They are co-implied aspects of a single event, the event of transition that is how I am thrown into a world
moment to moment. — Joshs

I didn't mean them to be interpreted as separate aspects, but as primary and secondary ones. We are one integrated system.

I’m with Heidegger on this: — Joshs

I am surprised. Heidegger is suggesting we can switch modes of consciousness at the interpretive level of consciousness such that we interpret something differently to what we normally would. A light ray strikes our retina and sends a signal to the brain for interpretation, and we are free now to interpret this in a novel way?

I think you need to initially cognize what you are interacting with, and what else is there other then personal constructs to do it with? Initially you have to construe it as a sound. No?

background feelings are ever-present, although ordinarily tacit. They serve to structure the everyday ways in which we encounter the world, the basic ways in which we find ourselves in the world:Ratcliffe 2002, p.298) — Joshs

Yes, something like this. The way I understand it is that every instance of consciousness is unique in the absolute sense, so it has to be evaluated - compared to every other instance of consciousness we have ever experienced, such that we can know where we stand in our personally constructed reality. This is not possible cognitively - we do not have the computational power to constantly cognitively compare every moment to every other one we have ever encountered. So we evaluate every moment to an emotion, that is a feeling, that is a point on a pain pleasure spectrum, and this way we know emotionally the significance of the present moment. Thus we are oriented in our personally constructed reality.

BUT, I wouldn't say this is primarily our ontological position. I am actually warming to your Radical Temporality. We are a becoming, or an evolving process, rather then a being, in my view. I'm not sure if its pretty or not?

“Things are experienced as significant to us, as mattering to us, in various different ways, something that involves a sense of the possibilities they offer.” (Ratcliffe, 2020) — Joshs

I cannot get past the idea that ultimately everything only matters in terms of the pleasure or pain it provides us.

These globally structured patterns of existential feeling amount to “ ‘ways of finding oneself in the world'. As such, they are what we might call ‘pre-intentional', meaning that they determine the kinds of intentional states we are capable of adopting, amounting to a ‘shape' that all experience takes on.” (Ratcliffe 2015 — Joshs

If you agree with my assertion above, then it puts a whole different light on these constructions. I think primarily we have to orient ourselves in our personally constructed reality, and the only way to do that, that I can see, is to evaluate each moment emotionally - each moment has its own feeling.

PS. In the moment, not only the past , but also the future is imaginary.

Do we perceive raw data and synthesize reason out of it or do we perceive events already pre-interpreted by us? In other words, do we hear a series of acoustic pitches or do we hear the train whistle and only later, as a derived d artificial act, dissect it into objective data pieces? — Joshs

Initially we we must integrate novel information into our personally constructed reality, then subsequently we recognize it in terms of our integration of it.

You said we are anticipating beings. Do we reach out to the things we perceive with expectations and anticipations? Do those expectations co-create the perceived object or can we separate ‘raw’ perceptual data from our expectations and anticipations? — Joshs

No we can not separate raw data from the constructs we use to interpret it, and yes I appreciate that the very essence of construct creation is an anticipation of a future world. The thing is - I would be indifferent about construct creation, or a future world if feelings were not painful or pleasurable, and I was not affected by them.

If I am in a room and the lights are suddenly turned off , is the violation of my expectation for continued illumination the result of a translation of reason into emotion, or is my surprise a direct perception, prior to any translation? — Joshs

I cannot conceive of a situation of consciousness that would not incur the cascade of elements previously mentioned. I don't believe in direct perceptions, things are construed. If you felt surprised - what caused it? The light turning off, or your cognition of the situation? That you did not anticipate it would create some anxiety about your construction of the situation. The person standing next to you may not have been surprised.

If your ability to experience affect were eliminated, describe to me what it would be like to function as a reasoning person. Give me an example of how you would interact with others at a party. Would you be like Mr Spock? — Joshs

If I were not affected, then I would be indifferent - I would stay in the spot I found myself in- catatonic, until I died and disintegrated. There would be little difference between myself and a dead person. You could try to rouse me, by slapping me, or dunking me in cold water, or what ever physical means you could think of - I would be unresponsive as I could not feel any pain or pleasure - I could not feel anything - I would be completely out of tune with the world.

Attunement - Heidegger - it is an emotional attunement in my understanding - it occurs for all life. Every moment of consciousness has its corresponding feeling, this is what primarily tunes us to the world, not the cognitive constructs.

This still sounds like feeling is a mechanism
separate from thinking-cognition, as if we can manipulate it independently of cognition, or even remove it. — Joshs

Or like there is cellular consciousness in communication with an extracellular consciousness. Feeling is an internal feedback loop - like one self organizing system talking to another one. There is a layering of systems that have to agree via a common language. The brain evolved onto an already established sophisticated system. All living systems harness energy via a proton gradient - a very sophisticated system equal to a windmill harnessing electricity. This is the level of sophistication at the very basis of life - Descartes has a lot to answer for!

, I follow George Kelly. He said we are always in motion, from moment to moment, meaning change in experience, not physical movement. Each new moment of time is a new, never before occurring event. We don’t directly perceive events, we construe them. That is, we assimilate each new event to a pre-existing internal scheme
of understanding. At the same time, that pre-existing internal scheme must slightly alter itself to accommodate itself to the novelty of each new event. So each construal is equal parts assimilation and accommodation. — Joshs

I think Piaget was influenced by Kelly, and subsequently proved we construe things. Recent research suggests brain structure evolves to accommodate new thinking.

It is important to understand that feeling is not a RESPONSE. to such success or failure, not a mechanism that detects such organizational changes after the fact and then relays them to one’s consciousness in the guise of kinesthetic or proprioceptive receptors. Feeling simply IS the organizational dynamics as they are directly experienced. — Joshs

An instance of consciousness would be as follows:
1: Senses input information
2: Information is integrated to reason
3: Reason is experienced
4: Experience is translated to emotion
5: Emotion is translated to a feeling
6: A feeling is located as a point on a pain / pleasure spectrum
7:The point on the pain pleasure spectrum causes affect

I'm not suggesting its a simple linear process, many instances of this can occur simultaneously, memory can input information, but this cascade of elements occur together and in this order. Reason has implications, and implications are painful, neutral, or pleasurable - it is anticipative.

I hope you can see how this notion of feeling differs from a reinforcement mechanism that signals pleasure and pain. In such a model, pleasure and pain are no more than a dumb bodily system of feedback sensors. — Joshs

Yeah, but in my understanding it is not dumb, but an essential element all the layers of the system understand.

I tend to understand things in terms of an embodied system, where emotion is the common link the whole system understands. Prior to brains there could not have been cognition as we know it, but there may have been emotion in the form of a bias to be one way rather then another - an emotional gradient. I believe, this emotional gradient still dominates self organization, which consciousness is. Neurotransmitters such as dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin and histamine have been identified in plant life, and microorganisms - Roshchina Victoria V. ( 2001). So emotions seem to be the basis of self organization, rather then something that results from it.

For me, the philosophical zombie argument seals the deal - without emotion there would be no consciousness, or life. This is not to dismiss your argument entirely. It is an important and valid perspective in the consideration of being, but its not a holistic solution, and I don't find your explanation of feeling compelling. A feeling is something painful or pleasurable or something in between - this is its significance, that it is painful or pleasurable, where historically extreme pain resulted in death.

Thanks for the link. Sorry to reply so late, the house is full of visitors, and happy new year to you.

I found your paper impeccably written and well cited with authors I was not deeply familiar with, so it was a bit of a philosophy lesson for me, and I read it several times. I was disappointed in that whilst emotion and feeling is mentioned often, the connection was not made that feelings are either painful or pleasurable, and that the intentional aspect of being is always one of either avoiding pain or seeking pleasure, or thereabouts. We are a pain avoiding, pleasure seeking creature, and in my understanding this is the carrot and stick that provides impetus to behavior. Depression is the absence of pleasure in life, and the absence of pleasure is the presence of pain. Treatment is normally by way of antidepressants, but most people have worked this out themselves, to some extent, and so we have a substance using / abusing world. This, and many other similar insights, lead me to believe that emotions ( feelings that are painful or pleasurable ) are the primordial force that glue and drive an embodied system. I have oriented it in change, but it ultimately needs to be understood as an evolving system over time, so your temporality is interesting. I would agree that being needs to be understood as a system in motion and one that is constantly evolving, but whilst this is an important and somewhat neglected aspect of being, I don’t think it is the driving force of affectivity or intentionality. Sorry, but I think “emotionally driven self organization” is a more compelling argument.

How to treat time is another question? I call it change and that solves my time problem ( for now ), but I tend to agree and may at some time in the future dabble with your Radical Time -

Radical time is a past which is changed by the present it functions in , and this present anticipates beyond itself. This complex structure defines a single moment, not three separate time positions. — Joshs

- I think this would be the correct view from an idealist perspective. We tend to ruminate on an imaginary recollected past in anticipation of an imaginary projected future, in the present moment. We self organize by highlighting the good, and downplaying the bad, in the hope ( intention ) of a better future ( more pleasurable / less painful ) . So this image of a radically temporal being strategically anticipating a “ happy” future is one I can relate to.

I think , in this game to get partial agreement is a win. It takes a long time to develop some sort of understanding, and once developed it is very difficult to shift.

Thanks for the quite comprehensive background. The problem with putting new views forward in a format such as this forum is that initially quite a lot has to be put on the table for an understanding to be reached. To that end I Googled Radical Temporality and found your stuff on Research Gate. I was disappointed that this particular paper could not be read. Do you have a link so I can read it fully?

From what I gather you want to abolish traditional notions of time in favor of a present moment, where a system is in reciprocal motion with its surroundings. Altering the notion of time would indeed be a radical shift in paradigm, with far reaching consequences, so I would be very interested to see how this might pan out.

I don't see a need to abandon emotion as an essential underlying element - it is my understanding that it is precisely emotions that orient us in the moment, that differentiate one moment to the next, that provide impetus to behavior, consistent with the philosophical zombie argument, and the authors you cited.

Thiese attempts to meld a certain interpretaion of Buddhist thinking with complexity and dynamical systems approaches, without putting into question objectively casual pre-suppositions of physics. — Joshs

I don't agree with everything Thiese says, but the central theory seems good. He acknowledges determinism but adds an element of randomness to every interaction, which seems to be the correct interpretation - the domino must fall, but it can fall with a skew to the left or right. This view fits well with evolution where randomness creates emergent properties and natural selection culls the non viable ones. At the same time two processes of self organization are interacting in a process that must self organize. Not in a subject object relationship, but in a peer to peer one.

Whilst I reference Thiese, it is my interpretation - sorry, but its the only way I can do this.

You say time is change, but this notion presupposes, like the physical view of time, that change is what happens to things, that events occur IN time ,as if time is an independent axis placed upon events or objects that subsist in themselves first and then interact. — Joshs

We don’t need extrinsic sources of motivation to push or pull us, or determine direction, because we are always already in motion. — Joshs

If a body is in motion, then it is experiencing change. If a body is in motion immersed in an environment that is in motion, then change is ubiquitous - self organization runs counter to the change, and maintains an integrated self, but with an element of randomness that contributes to the evolution of the self.

I can agree with the notion of time as it is so practical and useful, but I don't believe our biological or cellular consciousness understands time so much as change. But lets put this aside for now, and tell me more, as the gist of what you are describing sounds very interesting.

Um, :chin: I don't think this is so different to an ontology as an evolving process of self organization, except in respect to the role time plays in the process. You give time greater importance as a singular connected dimension / element, where "all time effects all other time all of the time " - Einstein . It seems largely a valid view, however I would interpret the time element simply as change, where time is a measure of change, where self organization occurs relative to the change experienced. I would be interested in your conclusions from this perspective of time - what can we do with it? How does it change things? Can the present change the past and shape the future? We only ever experience the present. I imagine unforeseen emergence would be a problem?

No, everything self organizes. Including rocks :smile: over time they change from magma, to rock, to sand, to minerals, minerals can become amino acids, which can become life, etc, etc.

. If a thing is changing, it is better described as "becoming" and so we have the ancient dichotomy between being and becoming. Since thinking is better described as an activity of change, it is better classified as a sort of becoming, and Descartes would have been more accurate to say I think therefore I am becoming (as changing). — Metaphysician Undercover

:up: Descartes would have been more accurate to state that we are in a process of self organization. Not so much a being, or I am, but a becoming like an evolving process. A process of what you might ask? Self organization seems to be the answer, as this is the activity the entire universe and hence all of its component parts are constantly involved in. Self organization relative to the change we constantly experience, where time is a measure of change.

:up: I think we are on the same page. Consciousness or self organization is not a special function, but an ordinary function all information energy and matter is involved in.

Consider now the possibility that thoughts too exist like radio waves - disturbances in the electromagnetic field - permeating all space and our brains are simply receivers that pick up these thought waves — TheMadFool

:up: According to Fritjof Capra the basic unit of cognition is a reaction to a disturbance in a state, and according to the Santiago theory of cognition : "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."

Your assertion fits very nicely into this understanding - as radiation effecting a state or a field, and hence the state / field effected by the disturbance self organizes in response to it. This phenomena occurs at the most basic level of cause and effect, then grows in complexity to eventually become thinking, and Descartes assertion "I think therefore I am" seems logical in this regard. What is illogical, or left undefined, is what is "I am"? In my understanding I am consciousness, or I am a process of self organization, or to put it in your words - I am something like a radio responding to radio waves. :smile: I don't think Descartes had this in mind when he made his claim, still he did a remarkable job given the information he had on hand.

That is very nicely put, but I have one question for you - what is God?

All abiogenesis theory, from the perspective of physics, biology, chemistry, astrobiology, biochemistry, biophysics, geochemistry, molecular biology, oceanography and paleontology agree that self organization led to life. The only alternative proposed is God. But God the creator comes up against the question of who created God? The common answer given is that God created him / her self. So we are back at self creation / self organization as the origin of life.

What I'm wondering is could self organization be God? If God was self created / self organized, then self organization would be the creative force in the universe, more powerful then God. For God to be the most powerful force in the universe, God would have to be self organization.

Consciousness = an evolving process of self organization. What Descartes was doing was self organizing. What you and he and I, and everybody describes in their thoughts is an evolving process of self organization. The thoughts are an expression of our consciousness.

Consciousness occurs as a result of biological or cellular self organization, which arises as a result of molecular self organization, which arises as a result of quantum self organization, which arises as a result of the self organization of whatever goes all the way down. But it dose not stop there. The universe arises as self organization, and is in an evolving process of self organization, as you can appreciate, then so too must all of its component parts be a process of self organization! And voila - every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization! Self organization is consciousness and it is an all pervasive concept - just like God. So I'm wondering, could it be God?

If self organization was God, it would be a unifying concept present in everybody and everything. Man would be made in Gods image as self organization? There would be universal agreement as to the origins of life via self organization as a Godly force?

Other than a joke, it is also a play on the idea that the words 'nothing' and 'always' and 'happening' have different senses depending on the context, your focus, your interests--to show that 'exists' changes too, as does 'identity'. — Antony Nickles

Well that's a relief! Yes, nothing is ultimately fixed and unchanging. In Descartes time this was not so obvious. Ship building was the high tech of the times and it had not changed for 200 years. Compare this to the rate of change today! In your lifetime the rate of change on so many fronts will continue to accelerate, so I think in future an understanding of self as an evolving process will be even more relevant. It is a shift in paradigm, but dose not entirely constrain / occlude the freedom a self can enjoy. We need to remember that we have always been a process of self organization subconsciously. As you understand, the main point / hope - is to create connection, to promote empathy and so responsibility for everything else within the concept of self.

Wishing you a happy birthday and a great life. :smile:

I can agree that "We are not a static - I am", but, in what sense are we agreeing? Factually, sure. But we can also disagree: "I am a static; I've always been a Bruins fan". And maybe if one part stands still, anyways, not all of us does. Sure, but that is to say.... what? Something is always happening? And who would disagree? (Until I'm 18 in Vernon, B.C. on the weekend, and then nothing is happening.) — Antony Nickles

What do you mean - then nothing is happening?
The teen years can be difficult, but 20s, 30s, 40s, etc, etc, are great.

I understand this as an underlying, necessary occurrence, and maybe you are aligning this with Descartes' desire for something to connect us (to). But the idea of something inseparable from us, however fundamental, does not replace our possibility to claim our existence, our responsibility to, even, or we may, in a sense, not exist at all. — Antony Nickles

You raise excellent issues that I've been grappling with for a long time. Self organization is hard to dispute, but it is a challenge to a lot of established thought. I'm convinced it is the underlying process responsible for all creation so I have to explore it, but I cannot predict with absolute certainty what it will result in. I believe, that whilst we must self organize, we do so in a way that suits us best - that is most pleasant, so people will either integrate it, or they will otherwise ignore it. As you say, what is attractive about it is that it relates us all ( humanity ) in a singular process, but equally importantly it relates us to all of life - to the biosphere, the earth, solar system, etc. I think this is something worth promoting in these desperate climatic and ecological times. The notion that we are something separate from the ecology of the earth has been a very destructive force on this planet, in my opinion.

But to say that all of us are is a different claim (factual or general), without the moral force of one claiming their own identity--"I am the means of production!" I'm not saying our thought or identity cannot be forced on us, but, in that case, do I exist? — Antony Nickles

I am only beginning to understand the metaphysics of self organization. The thing that organization initially does is create a self. It then protects and preserves a self, in relation to the information, energy, and matter that is not self. So yes, you do exist as an amalgam of information, energy, and matter, as dose everything else - as I see it. But I understand your point. You do not dispute the premise so much as you are peeved off at having to deal with it. I admit, it is an identity and ego destroying conception, but then there are benefits in that you get the opportunity to identify with something much greater, in my opinion. On a related thread, it was found that if you identify with the universe you can never die! :smile:

Hi, thanks for engaging. The term "self organization" is universally accepted in abiogenesis theory as the cause of life. It is a notion that goes back a long way, even Descartes dabbled with it, but in the modern era , Chilean biologist and philosopher Humberto Maturana is widely cited as its originator, within the Santiago theory of cognition. He and his followers use the term autopoiesis, which really is just self organization as it pertains to biological systems. I came to understand the term, in its deepest sense, whilst trying to understand consciousness. Prof Neil Theise is the best commentator on the topic that i have found. He takes the Santiago theory of cognition, and marries it to panpsychism, and the result is a complete theory of life and consciousness, within a monistic panpsychist universe.

The way I understand it, and put very simply, the universe is in a state of self organization, and thus so too must be all of its component parts - including ourselves. That every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization was a difficult thing to get my head around, within the context of Cartesian / materialistic anthropocentrism. It took a long time to warm to the idea, to break free of prevalent thought, and to accept something logical that makes sense - that integrates and unifies the universe. Self organization is not something we can break free from, or step aside from, even in pure self aware reflection we are self organizing. This perspective has very broad consequences for understanding everything, but in terms of identity and I am, it puts those static notions in doubt, and replaces them with an evolving process of being, as a biological system, where self organization is always taking place -however it may manifest itself.

Yes, but you might as well call it "X" or "God," then. If we don't understand what it means, then what's the point? We're not interested in replacing one word with another, or defining things in a vacuum. — Xtrix

There are very few things we understand definitively. The chap in the video below has a much more advanced handle on it then I do. The first 10 mins is relevant to your question.

Philosophy is information about the philosophers consciousness. At its simplest consciousness is mind activity, but a better way to understand it is as an evolving process of self organization. So, philosophy would be information about a philosophers evolving process of self organization. The form the self organization takes is endlessly variable and open ended - it has no upper limit. :starstruck:

I wouldn't go so far as to say all life has emotions (I'm thinking of amoeba, bacteria, etc here). — Whickwithy

The way I understand it, self organization occurs when, enabled by intrinsic qualities, disparate materials integrate and start acting as a unit. They form a self that is biased to be - biased to continue existing in the newly integrated form, rather then to disintegrate to their former form - a bias is emotional information.

In more evolved life forms, such as Bacteria, Amoeba, etc, the bias to be, or the will to live is clearly evident. The bias to be most likely forms the basic code of DNA shared by all of life. "Neurotransmitters acetylcholine and biogenic amines dopamine, noradrenaline, serotonin and histamine are present not only in animals, but also in plants and microorganisms." - Neurotransmitters In Plant Life, V.V. Roshchina.

A bacterium would likely possess the equivalent emotional experience of a single human cell, but a person experiences the collective emotional experience of ten trillion cells, in my opinion.

Yes but if you don't understand it (and neither do I), then how can you invoke it? How can it "come into its own"? We understand so little, we could just as easily assert that "God did it," or it was the "Force," etc. True, self-organization (according to Wikipedia) seems more sensible than that, but apparently more in the social fields. — Xtrix

Whilst I don't understand it definitively, I understand that the concept ( self organisation ) could explain all those questions that you pose. All that uncertainty can be made certain by acknowledging a singular process that in many ways is self evident in the universe and life, though not entirely understood - Yet! Yes it is a god concept - works much the same way as a god, but it places the power of god in the individuals hands, and it gives everybody and everything an equal power of god, by understanding that everything belongs to a singular process of self organization. So in this regard, I believe it is worth perusing.

Regardless, I don't quite see how it changes anything about what I said above -- namely, that our lives are first and foremost unconscious activity, and that the rest of it (self-consciousness, the "self," the subject opposite an object, the "I," the ego, etc) is largely derivative. — Xtrix

It is unconscious activity, but highly self organized activity. I am a process of Self organization acknowledges what you have stated, whereas; " I think therefore I am " does not.

we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards. — Xtrix

Exactly, its time to understand all this under the one heading. :smile:

OK...I'm just not sure what "self-organization" means. — Xtrix

I can not say I understand the metaphysics of self organisation either. I'm only just beginning to understand it. I can say that it is a process that creates a self, and preserves a self in relation to the information surrounding and effecting the self - hence self organisation.

whether we're defined first and foremost by conscious activity, — Xtrix

Self organization, according to all abiogenesis theories, led to life. The process of self organization has a process-centric, rather than anthropocentric, self awareness. This would not be the flexible self awareness that we enjoy, but likely an inflexible / totally dedicated to self organization - force like process, that maintains a consolidation of information, energy, and matter, that has differentiated itself from other similar consolidations surrounding the self. So first and foremost a self has to be created, then maintained. I cannot see how this is different to our own consciousness, in respect to its primary function.

I agree. But remember that Descartes means "consciousness" too, as you point out. — Xtrix

He came so close, that I believe he deliberately chose not to land on consciousness. I deeply suspect his final construction was in part politically expedient, given the context of the times. Also very significantly, I think therefore I am, preserves the self, whilst I am consciousness, challenges the self and the Ego, and results in a very different understanding, as was the case in eastern philosophy.

but the emotions and feelings that underpin our actions are also mainly unconscious. So shouldn't we start with unconsciousness? — Xtrix

This is where self organization comes into its own - it describes the whole process, from the first beginnings of life, all its unknown and subconscious elements, to its penultimate conscious expression.
Of course, all that remains is the minor task of understanding self organization! :cry:

I like and agree with most of what you say. We are not that far apart. :smile:

I'm not sure what the "self organization" part means. — Xtrix

The universe is in a process of self organization, and hence so too are all of its component parts - including humanity. Consciousness is primarily about self organization. Every moment of consciousness is a moment of self organization. This construction links the fundamental universal process, with the human consciousness process. It is a viable definition of consciousness, within a monistic / panpsychic conception of the universe.

As far as consciousness goes -- we can't "think" or talk about anything like this without first being conscious entities, but whether we should define our being based on thinking (logic, "rational animal"), on language, or even on conscious activity is questionable. — Xtrix

We have to start with consciousness. We have to start at the foundation and build from there. Of course there is so little we know, and so much to be learned, and so much change yet to be experienced. But If we start on a false premise - I think therefore I am, then whatever we build on top of this is precarious from the outset. It has created the world we have today. I am consciousness, is deeper and more solid. It acknowledges that emotions and feelings underpin our actions, and so provides hope of a better understanding generally, in considering ourselves and others, and the world in general, in my opinion.

So if we are what we do, what we do is mostly habitual, and what is habitual is mostly automatic/unconscious, then we're hardly "thinking things" or "rational animals" or "consciousnesses" at all. Hence the idea that we're "minds" or "selves" or "subjects" is derivative. — Xtrix

I think therefore I am, is one of these habitual and rusted in tenets of western thought. It is synonymous with Cartesian dualism. It is not the deepest understanding of self that can be obtained, and I am interested in exploring other options, and better understandings. What exactly we are is not likely to be an object ( I am ), but an evolving process of self organization. We will change over time, in response to the change in circumstances we find ourselves in.

The bright side is that consciousness ( an evolving process of self organization ) is endlessly variable, but is completely open ended - it has no upper limit. :starstruck: So it is worth exploring, in my opinion.

We are an accumulation of all of our experiences — MondoR

Exactly. We are an evolving process of self organization. We are not a static - I am. We think because we are conscious, there is no choice in the matter. We must evolve with the change we experience.

No interpretation is necessary. It is exactly as stated. — MondoR

But why do you think, and what exactly are you? I bet you are a different person today then you were 5 years ago, or 10, 20, 30, etc....years ago.

Exactly! The relationship between cause and effect is information, and information is a fundamental unit of cognition. — Harry Hindu

:up: Brilliant.

I guess I've always thought of emotions as an extension of our heightened awareness. — Whickwithy

I suspect emotions / feelings are the fundamental force that causes behavior , as per the Philosophical Zombie argument. I'm certain all life possesses them to some degree, what I wonder is if all life possesses them, why shouldn't everything else in the universe posses them? Of course I have no solid evidence for this - yet! :grin: