Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
For all my life I have thought obsessively about the nature of existence and consciousness. As I don’t read philosophy (only science), I’ve always considered it very unlikely that I have anything new to say. However, when listening to famous scientists talk about consciousness and how apparently mysterious it is, I’m often surprised at how undeveloped their thoughts are; I seem to be quite far ahead of them in many ways. I’m sorry if that sounds arrogant.
For all my life I have thought obsessively about the nature of existence and consciousness. As I don’t read philosophy (only science), I’ve always considered it very unlikely that I have anything new to say. However, when listening to famous scientists talk about consciousness and how apparently mysterious it is, I’m often surprised at how undeveloped their thoughts are; I seem to be quite far ahead of them in many ways. I’m sorry if that sounds arrogant.
And would very much appreciate some feedback if anyone has the time.
Otherwise this thread can just be a general discussion of consciousness and existence.
Thanks a lot,
Rob
Existence and consciousness: a medieval definition of existence was “being in time.”
For somebody who is embracing pure materialism, you’re making a good argument for the universality of pure consciousness. Not that I disagree with that, everybody who knows me here knows that I think consciousness needs to be posited a priori in the same way that in physics we posit spacetime, and distinguished from self-consciousness which is not a thing but a process that goes on in sufficiently complex nervous systems.
I thought your essay was well written and interesting.
You might be interested in a recent New Yorker article about Derek Parfit. It starts off with a thought experiment similar to one of yours:
You are in a terrible accident. Your body is fatally injured, as are the brains of your two identical-triplet brothers. Your brain is divided into two halves, and into each brother’s body one half is successfully transplanted. After the surgery, each of the two resulting people believes himself to be you, seems to remember living your life, and has your character. ... What has happened? Have you died, or have you survived? And if you have survived who are you? Are you one of these people? Both? Or neither? What if one of the transplants fails, and only one person with half your brai survives? That seems quite different—but the death of one person could hardly make a difference to the identity of another.
Actually, your thesis seems quite similar to Parfit’s view of personal identity. “Most of us care about our future because it is ours—but this most fundamental human instinct is based on a mistake, Parfit believes. Personal identity is not what matters.” (From the Sep 5, 2011 New Yorker article: How to be Good, by Larissa MacFarquhar.)
I’m not sure if Harris’s view on consciousness is at odds with yours and Parfit’s, but I think he sums it up best: “Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter of subjective experience.” (From his essay, The Mystery of Consciousness.) In other words, “I think, therefore I am.” Both identical twins would perceive that they were me. Personal identity is purely subjective, so it doesn’t even make sense to ask, “Which twin, if either, is objectively right?”
One question for you:
Furthermore, the information content of our brains is continually changing. Let’s say that on January 6th 1991 you wore a blue shirt. What if you’d worn a red shirt instead? Given the chaotic nature of reality, your brain—actually your whole life—would be totally different by this point. This is because the differences between the two parallel realities would accumulate, causing them to diverge exponentially quickly. Should you feel lucky that you wore that blue shirt? Would you not exist otherwise? If you’re defined by your information content, which is always changing, does that mean that your consciousness actually only sprung into existence during this precise moment—this fraction of a nanosecond—and within another billionth of a second, you will be unconscious again for eternity?
What makes you so sure “the chaotic nature of reality” would cause my whole life to be totally different by now if I’d worn a different shirt 20 years ago? I’m not sure I buy this. I don’t think it would have made any difference. I don’t see how you could prove it one way or the other, though.
It started out promising but faded quickly, too many convolutions for my tastes. There is no “soul”, that only leaves one path for consciousness, the brain.
It started out promising but faded quickly, too many convolutions for my tastes. There is no “soul”, that only leaves one path for consciousness, the brain.
Sorry, I’m not sure I understand your criticism.
EDIT:
The next part, which I’ve yet to write, will talk about how if you zoom in on your thoughts and experiences, subjectivity seems to evaporate, revealing itself as mere computation.
What I’ve said so far is that given that there’s no intrinsic boundary between where a conscious being ends and its environment begins—it’s all made of the same stuff—you can think of yourself as being the whole universe with multiple “brains”. I used the ‘divided brain’ thought experiment to demonstrate that this works. It’s unfortunate that I have to resort to gibberish phrases like “you are the universe”—I just can’t think of a better way of phrasing it—because it sounds like I’m saying that there is one “soul” that pervades all matter, when I’m not saying that at all.
It started out promising but faded quickly, too many convolutions for my tastes. There is no “soul”, that only leaves one path for consciousness, the brain.
Sorry, I’m not sure I understand your criticism.
I got bored with all the dividing brain, brain as part of universe talk etc…
I don’t think thought experiments accomplish very much though. Fun, maybe. Peripherally apropos on some points, maybe. But once we stray from the realm of existence, we’re not actually talking about it, we’re pondering what ifs. Better to study the effects of the seven stages of Alzheimers disease and other brain diseases and injuries, along with normal brain functioning, to help get to the question of consciousness and its levels of functioning.
1. Appreciate the Power of the Brain
The brain is the source of our thoughts, emotions, personality, and behavior. Everything we experience in life, and every decision or action we make, can be traced back to our brain.
For all my life I have thought obsessively about the nature of existence and consciousness. As I don’t read philosophy (only science), I’ve always considered it very unlikely that I have anything new to say. However, when listening to famous scientists talk about consciousness and how apparently mysterious it is, I’m often surprised at how undeveloped their thoughts are; I seem to be quite far ahead of them in many ways. I’m sorry if that sounds arrogant.
And would very much appreciate some feedback if anyone has the time.
Otherwise this thread can just be a general discussion of consciousness and existence.
Thanks a lot,
Rob
The development of consciousness is in direct proportion with the ability to be aware of the objective state of a given realm, which transcendents any partial (and therefore subjective) expression of it (whether it is abstract or physical).
When this objectivity is known during its many subjective expressions, consciousness actually fulfills itself.
[ Edited: 07 November 2011 03:01 AM by doronshadmi ]
I don’t think thought experiments accomplish very much though. Fun, maybe. Peripherally apropos on some points, maybe. But once we stray from the realm of existence, we’re not actually talking about it, we’re pondering what ifs. Better to study the effects of the seven stages of Alzheimers disease and other brain diseases and injuries, along with normal brain functioning, to help get to the question of consciousness and its levels of functioning.
1. Appreciate the Power of the Brain
The brain is the source of our thoughts, emotions, personality, and behavior. Everything we experience in life, and every decision or action we make, can be traced back to our brain.
Hey, Answerer, those tips might come in useful. I’m going to print them and stick them on the fridge so that when I or my partner start losing our marbles the other will know what to do. It would be funny if we both got Alzheimers?
Agree that we have to start with the brain. And end there. No brain, no consciousness. It’s a no brainer.
It deals with the sorts of things I think about all day long. So I appreciate it for that. But I think it straddles disciplines in a rather dubious way. Specifically the way that individual identity is appealed to without being defined or described. Essentially, all references like ‘would you still be you?’ I understand that this is taken for granted in common conversation but if we are endeavoring to seriously consider things like theory of knowledge, seat of consciousness, ground of being, locus of perception et cetera I think a much more careful use of terms is called for. And I’m not sure, but it seems to make some unfounded assumptions about the brain as well. I think its LIKELY that the mind is mostly the activity of the brain. But assuming that for the purposes of a philosophical investigation (which this most definitely is) needs a disclaimer. You are jumping on board a conversation that has been going on for a very long time.
So, my appreciation for exploring a subject near and dear to me. My critique would be one of general philosophy but also of science writing. And that is to identify your assumptions and declare them more explicitly. I think that would make things more clear.
I think it interesting that burt portrays a ‘process’ as not a ‘thing’
Not sure I get that.
Is the ‘process’ of self-consciousness then a description of it, or a name for it?
All “things” (formed material objects, immaterial objects, concepts, events, etc.) are continuous occurrences or events. Even a rock, in a seemingly stabilized static state, have fluxuating events at sub atomic levels and eventually will decay and dissolutes until the formed “rock” (as we temporary labels it) is no more.
I think it interesting that burt portrays a ‘process’ as not a ‘thing’
Not sure I get that.
Is the ‘process’ of self-consciousness then a description of it, or a name for it?
Things are (mistakenly) assumed as static and unchanging. They are identified with the name we give them. Saying self-consciousness is a process indicates that it can be given a name, but it is also in a state of flux, more like a vortex in a stream, arising as a result of fluid dynamics (or in this case, electro-chemical network dynamics).
I think it interesting that burt portrays a ‘process’ as not a ‘thing’
Not sure I get that.
Is the ‘process’ of self-consciousness then a description of it, or a name for it?
Things are (mistakenly) assumed as static and unchanging. They are identified with the name we give them. Saying self-consciousness is a process indicates that it can be given a name, but it is also in a state of flux, more like a vortex in a stream, arising as a result of fluid dynamics (or in this case, electro-chemical network dynamics).
Vortex in a stream is the result of the Unity among the invariant AND the variant, such that the invariant is the objective aspect AND the variant is the subjective aspect of a one unified realm.
The subjective (variant) aspect is expressed upon infinitely many levels with respect to the objective (invariant) aspect of the unified realm, where self-consciousness is exactly the non-trivial development of infinitely many subjective (variant) expressions with respect to the objective (invariant) aspect of the unified realm.
As long as self-consciousness is not actually Unity consciousness, consciousness is known only by the dichotomy between the objective and the subjective.
If Unity consciousness is actual, then self-consciousness and free-will actually fulfilled.
It deals with the sorts of things I think about all day long. So I appreciate it for that. But I think it straddles disciplines in a rather dubious way. Specifically the way that individual identity is appealed to without being defined or described. Essentially, all references like ‘would you still be you?’ I understand that this is taken for granted in common conversation but if we are endeavoring to seriously consider things like theory of knowledge, seat of consciousness, ground of being, locus of perception et cetera I think a much more careful use of terms is called for. And I’m not sure, but it seems to make some unfounded assumptions about the brain as well. I think its LIKELY that the mind is mostly the activity of the brain. But assuming that for the purposes of a philosophical investigation (which this most definitely is) needs a disclaimer. You are jumping on board a conversation that has been going on for a very long time.
So, my appreciation for exploring a subject near and dear to me. My critique would be one of general philosophy but also of science writing. And that is to identify your assumptions and declare them more explicitly. I think that would make things more clear.
Thank you for your constructive input. This is the kind of response I was hoping for.
My intended audience was not actually the people on this forum, but the forum at richarddawkins.net, which I now realise no longer exists.
I’d much rather hear the opinion of scientists than ‘philosophers’ on the subject. The problem with talking to people who consider themselves well-read in philosophy is that they’re often more intent on showing off than on being understood. From reading some of the comments here, I get the impression that some people would rather I didn’t understand them at all, and have me bow down before them in awe of their mighty intellect. I made every effort in my writing to get the point across in as clear a way as possible. I hoped that commenters would return the favour. Clarity and precision are things I admire most in a person’s writing; Sam Harris being a perfect example of such a writer.
You rarely see scientists using the sort of bombastic language associated with the stereotypical armchair philosopher. Are scientists less intelligent? To write such cryptic and ambiguous text without making any attempt to explain what on Earth you are talking about does not make you an intelligent person. Clearly my reservations about posting this in a “philosophy” forum were well founded EDIT: though many of the comments here are perfectly fine and reasonable, and I appreciate those.
In answer to the post quoted above: the reason why I didn’t spend much time on definitions and disclaimers is because this was not intended to be a thoroughly argued philosophical thesis; I was just trying to put forward an idea to stimulate further discussion amongst people who I knew would largely share my world-view—those at richarddawkins.net. Unfortunately the forum there is no more, so I posted here instead.
[ Edited: 08 November 2011 09:22 PM by RobJinman ]
It deals with the sorts of things I think about all day long. So I appreciate it for that. But I think it straddles disciplines in a rather dubious way. Specifically the way that individual identity is appealed to without being defined or described. Essentially, all references like ‘would you still be you?’ I understand that this is taken for granted in common conversation but if we are endeavoring to seriously consider things like theory of knowledge, seat of consciousness, ground of being, locus of perception et cetera I think a much more careful use of terms is called for. And I’m not sure, but it seems to make some unfounded assumptions about the brain as well. I think its LIKELY that the mind is mostly the activity of the brain. But assuming that for the purposes of a philosophical investigation (which this most definitely is) needs a disclaimer. You are jumping on board a conversation that has been going on for a very long time.
So, my appreciation for exploring a subject near and dear to me. My critique would be one of general philosophy but also of science writing. And that is to identify your assumptions and declare them more explicitly. I think that would make things more clear.
Thank you for your constructive input. This is the kind of response I was hoping for.
My intended audience was not actually the people on this forum, but the forum at richarddawkins.net, which I now realise no longer exists.
I’d much rather hear the opinion of scientists than ‘philosophers’ on the subject. The problem with talking to people who consider themselves well-read in philosophy is that they’re often more intent on showing off than on being understood. From reading some of the comments here, I get the impression that some people would rather I didn’t understand them at all, and have me bow down before them in awe of their mighty intellect. I made every effort in my writing to get the point across in as clear a way as possible. I hoped that commenters would return the favour. Clarity and precision are things I admire most in a person’s writing; Sam Harris being a perfect example of such a writer.
You rarely see scientists using the sort of bombastic language associated with the stereotypical armchair philosopher. Are scientists less intelligent? To write such cryptic and ambiguous text without making any attempt to explain what on Earth you are talking about does not make you an intelligent person. Clearly my reservations about posting this in a “philosophy” forum were well founded.
In answer to the post quoted above: the reason why I didn’t spend much time on definitions and disclaimers is because this was not intended to be a thoroughly argued philosophical thesis; I was just trying to put forward an idea to stimulate further discussion amongst people who I knew would largely share my world-view—those at richarddawkins.net. Unfortunately the forum there is no more, so I posted here instead.
And if scientists didn’t tell you anything much different than us shitty low-rent ‘philosophers’, then it would be acceptable?
