Replies

This topic has been locked by the forum moderators.

Results

• 21

  Alfredo Pereira Jr

  30 May 2008 | 19:53

  [ Permalink ]

  Dear Arnold and Hans:

  I am afraid there are some serious difficulties with the approach Arnold is proposing.

  1) Arnold wrote: “All of your perceptions are evoked within this phenomenal space”.
  - How to explain the existence of unconscious perception and unconscious emotion?

  2) What was made of the temporal dimension of consciousness?

  3) Arnold recognizes that “We cannot normally direct our attention to the unchanging global expanse of the phenomenal world”.
  - Yes, this is because conscious experience is not experience of a (empty) space, but experience of events that occur in a space;

  4) Arnold wrote: “At this very moment you are reading these words. Suppose your telephone now rings. In this case you will perceive the ringing sound somewhere in the space around you. You will have a sense of its direction and distance from you within the 3D space of the continuous, coherent, egocentric world around you. This primitive phenomenal world was activated the moment you awoke from deep sleep and will be your constant background conscious experience until you fall asleep again.”
  - Would this conclusion be true for aninals who move in a quasi-2-dimensional world, as the rat? As far as I know, place cells in the rat hippocampus signal for 2-dimensional space only. For humans, the 3-dimensionality may not be a transcendental feature, but only a consequence of how we move our bodies;

  5) Arnold: “Why are we not normally cognizant of C1? I suspect it is because, once activated, egocentric space per se is a constant presence which we notice only by indirect evidence of its absence.”
  - How could it be absent? If it is affected by brain lesion without loss of consciousness, then it is not the essence of consciousness; IOW if consciousness remains existing in the absence of this property, then it is not an essential property of consciousness;

  6) Arnold: “We cannot normally direct our attention to the unchanging global expanse of the phenomenal world in which we remain the fixed origin/center, even though we have a rudimentary sense of being at the center of the world of our experience.”
  - Who is at the center of the world of one´s experience? One´s body! But the “fixed origin/center” that Arnold first mentioned is not the body. Therefore, there is an incongruence between the two parts of the statement.

  7) Arnold: “It is much easier to accept perception as evidence of consciousness because its particular phenomenal contents are constantly changing within the plenum of the unchanging egocentric space of the retinoid system.”
  - Assuming that consciousness is dynamical (i.e., it also has a temporal dimension), then why to reduce it to an “unchanging egocentric space”?

  Best Regards,

  Alfredo

• 22

  marvin kirsh

  31 May 2008 | 01:49

  [ Permalink ]
  This is a difficult problem, what awareness, the science of perception and consciousness has to do with mental activity. To understand this we must see science in its’ actual perspective,as an analytical tool, though description of better universal kind can also encompass the goals of science -provide a better orientation that way (see my post in Constructing A Complete Model of Consciousness). I will try to outline what I think: 1) all things are emanations of the processes of space and volumes, specifically how surfaces are arranged in a distribution of forces/potentials energies and motions. Internal relfection,any mental activity also falls into this catagory. With questions of motion, action, we are really asking about change in the universe from simple mental activity. First what we think/sense/dream also affects what we will think, sense, dream tomorrow, wat we will do in action. it causes change. In the model of twisted globs in my other post the surfaces/volumes affected in mental processes that do not result in direct physical action are sequestered in such a way thathteh forces invoved are very weak, have little influence on an environment distant to them with respect to the encountering of surfaces-the exterior is physically more distant with respect to this than itis when we will actions.

  The same underlying processes though are involved internally as well as externally). The best view is that of an onion like scheme of relation/self-relation that involves memory in the same sense as the present being perceived as a construct of the paths taken to it. How is there this kind of memory in nature, in people?. I do not believe it is any different from what results from an energy being in one place and then another (an innert object can also be considered an energy). It requires knowing the differences of paths taken. A new position with respect to the old, new direction with respect to the old. Current science approaches this with respect to for example computers models of vision that track positional changes, the brain as a computer that can make coordinal comparisons-but I do no thtink that is the case ansd that approach only produces forgeries. In the route from the path of a rock, for example, to postulate its’ registration of change, itis not conceived of as likely or possible..an additional element of self relation exists as the to pic cogniton and perception itself, and can be found in the same scheme I describe that is composed of elemental energy metabolism reflected as space volume rearrangements that can be reduced in definition to be stated in terms of paths that are organized and segregated by the samemeans that delineate the external, the internal action associated change and change from mental activity that is not willed interms of physical action. From a perspective of nature lightning can reconsider its’ path as a phenomenon that can emerge as a will to maintain seeking the shortest route to ground in a nearly infinite surface sequestering of densities and forces that are maximized from an electrical ground. For the theologist this might lead to thoughts that God is the maximal ungrounded energy, and the world decreases from that perspective in energy potential. Self relation can be thought of as a realization of,emergence of the best route toweards the maintencance of the highest potential in a very complicated sequestering of locations, witness pairs and relational forces associated with locational uniquenesses and identities. A slower association of processes involved than in physical actions making demarkations along the path-all having to do with maximalized time/energy volume separating it the neutral ground. Volumes being a matter of surfaces and very complex. A path can only have two forks, the actual amonut of surface involved to have information on the priorily occuring may not be as much as one might be inclined to calculate if all depends on the distance from a standard-start to end. The big bang idea is intelligent, an explosion with step wise release, butin actuality neither a begining of highest complexity and energy , or an end of zero is philosophically tenable. The means of all this is something else that one is inclined to keep his nose where he at, the self; the important point that all mirrors all else, the brain is not distict functionally from the external, muscle ,physical action just another manifestation of the same. If we see a begining/ birth in our selves,we will see it in other things, but all nture sees fromits’ perspective is the same, itself everywhere in all, is or isnt,has no begining or end, or is there really anything external to that perspective and science cannot consider so either. Then to ask yourself what is that I know see,learn from my experiences, my activities, that involve the concept of a begining and an end. Perhaps everything in the same sequestering,filtering sense as described and contrast that with a reality that all we do know is of a uncertain forwards direction and nothing beyond memory of the past, a skepticism about it involving the accuracy of facts we extract from memory. We ask questions about other planes of existence-time-space-other dimensions, when in fact what I describe is in some other plane than the experiences of life and maybe the investigation can end there with the thought that we are space mongers eager to define,actually create new volumes and spaces. When I in my other post spoke of empty space as a potential scientific patient I was referingmaily to experiments in physics though actual empty space cannot really exist. The A-bomb was an experiemtnon space,yet without gaining humane incentives but destructive incentives. Physicists experiment on space all the time and might potentially at anytime bring aout a real change that could be doubly dangerous as there would be no way to perceive it. Some modern philosophers think that man has put himself in a position unknowingly with power addictiveness as a norm and the only escape is change ones bahavior to model the past to refresh himself i.e eat at the old restuarants,do and live as old. I am of the opinion that this diagnosis is not only valid, perhaps resolvable by the suggested means, but only while it is recognized before we become totally blind to the possibility.
  Ay any rate one cannot both his self perspective as a volume, a result of the processes of volumes and spaces and at the same time accomodate the mechanics of scientific analysis..the actual endeavor is to add thought processes to conceptual structures it does not seem obvious to me that this is not a freely chosen path if not written literally in some of the content of nature magazine..i.e.-thinking computers, the cloning men and animals,attempts to account for evolution with quantum mechanics in which there is an indication itis taken seriously valid that theories can be proposed for the arisal/emergence of something from nothing with ideas of entanglement, spurious acting statistical phenomenon, a birth of assymetry. If such thing thing become experimentally indicated as feasible, they are consequences not of nothing but of ourselves imposing changes to a whole that is commonly known from the beginning, written about over the ages and continually ignored. Tolearn aout something you must know whatthe topic is and statistical mechanics is about oscillations and physics not evolution verses creation.
  Again inany event processes can self relate which I suggest is the requirement for memory if the paths to situations exist in locations physcially accessible to one another -as in the brain where they are story) parts to an integrated whole path in progress bythemeans of the buffering (sequestering having to do with energy level with regards to the neutral), which at an ultimate end is zero and not empty universal space.
  An attempt to interpet brain physioioogy and function from this perspective would indeed be very tedious to result in ast specializations on each topic as one might encounter with respect to the possible/known injuries and diseases ther would exist no central concept but a philosophical one-one would not be able to include his own spaces with too mnay diverse applications based onan actual assesment of problems ad functioning-a series of tangential descritpions (in series) that could have only as parallels,very general philosophical considerations. The interrelations of medical problems, correlations with physical structures, integration of activities in the brain would be innatley,apriorily never in a direct line of logic, nor the functioning of the whole, nor consumable by a single person, nor with a full list, but apartial list of things important and appropriate that are come across. The implications for the individuals(doctors) in this are
  hard to determine. they must at some point function almost as nuts and bolts in roteness, with an unavoidable distant lingering anxiety, on a state of anxiety encounterd in quiet moments, impingeing on “totality” Heidegers other somewhere in his psyche. Making a sacrifice from this occurance in normal life. I imagine a state already presently known somewhat, but not at the result I consider.
  I fear from this deduction certain people would set out to prepare for and to conquer this obstacle, but for what reason does it need to be conquered-it implies changes made to the self in the name of the same for the future in which its need is only an imagined projection towards perfection at the expense of the practical, statistically best course as if chasing through the very hard to traverse mountains something,an illusion?, that is conceived as more advanced to fill in the darker perplexing areas of life. If happiness is the goal chasing a pretty woman instead, one might not find the perfection he started to seek, but a better genetic diversity (without the same known totality for his anxieties than he unknowingly plans , and without the self imposed changes to nature/self coupled with potential natural damages.

  Marvin E. Kirsh
  http://www.marvinekirsh.com

• 24

  Arnold Trehub

  02 June 2008 | 17:08

  [ Permalink ]

  Alfredo,

  I will try to answer you under each of your helpfully numbered list of questions.

  [Alfredo]

  (1) Arnold wrote: “All of your perceptions are evoked within this phenomenal space”.
- How to explain the existence of unconscious perception and unconscious emotion?

  [Arnold]

  I think we have a problem in definition here. In common usage, the word “perception” refers to a conscious sensory experience. This is what I mean when I use the term “perception”. So to speak of “unconscious perception” would be a contradiction in terms and needs no explanation.

  [Alfredo]

  2) What was made of the temporal dimension of consciousness?

  [Arnold]

  The retinoid system, which is the basis of our phenomenal experience, is a neuronal mechanism with short-term memory by virtue of autaptic-cell activity. This is explained in detail in my monograph The Cognitive Brain (TCB). Episodic experience is explained by the neuronal structure and dynamics of clock rings and recall rings as detailed in TCB.

  [Alfredo]

  3) Arnold recognizes that “We cannot normally direct our attention to the unchanging global expanse of the phenomenal world”. 
- Yes, this is because conscious experience is not experience of a (empty) space, but experience of events that occur in a space;

  [Arnold]

  I think it is a serious mistake to think that we do not have a conscious experience of “empty” space. A vast area of space may contain no objects and yet its spatial extensity is experienced as a phenomenal quality. Just look at the moon at its zenith on a clear night and you will experience it as an object that is separated from you by a volume of intervening space. Incidentally, in terms of cognitive brain processes, this is the egocentric retinoid space through which your heuristic self-locus moves to focus your attention on the moon.

  [Alfredo]

  4) Arnold wrote: “At this very moment you are reading these words. Suppose your telephone now rings. In this case you will perceive the ringing sound somewhere in the space around you. You will have a sense of its direction and distance from you within the 3D space of the continuous, coherent, egocentric world around you. This primitive phenomenal world was activated the moment you awoke from deep sleep and will be your constant background conscious experience until you fall asleep again.” 
- Would this conclusion be true for aninals who move in a quasi-2-dimensional world, as the rat? As far as I know, place cells in the rat hippocampus signal for 2-dimensional space only. For humans, the 3-dimensionality may not be a transcendental feature, but only a consequence of how we move our bodies;

  [Arnold]

  I don’t know about the spatial experience of rats, but for humans there is abundant evidence that our experience of a 3D world does not depend on bodily movement.

  [Alfredo]

  5) Arnold: “Why are we not normally cognizant of C1? I suspect it is because, once activated, egocentric space per se is a constant presence which we notice only by indirect evidence of its absence.” 
- How could it be absent? If it is affected by brain lesion without loss of consciousness, then it is not the essence of consciousness; IOW if consciousness remains existing in the absence of this property, then it is not an essential property of consciousness;

  [Arnold]

  I’ m not sure I understand your point. Here is an example of what I mean. Consciousness vanishes when we fall asleep and we infer its absence only when we wake; e.g., by noticing elapsed time on a clock. As far as brain lesions go, the clinical condition of hemi-spatial neglect following parietal brain damage is a good example of a profound change in the egocentric bounds of our phenomenal experience because of damage to the retinoid system. I discuss this in my article “Space, self, and the theater of consciousness” (CONCOG 2007).

  [Alfredo]

  6) Arnold: “We cannot normally direct our attention to the unchanging global expanse of the phenomenal world in which we remain the fixed origin/center, even though we have a rudimentary sense of being at the center of the world of our experience.” 
- Who is at the center of the world of one´s experience? One´s body! But the “fixed origin/center” that Arnold first mentioned is not the body. Therefore, there is an incongruence between the two parts of the statement.

  [Arnold]

  Again, I believe it is a serious mistake to think that our body is at the center of the world of one’s experience. Just notice! One arm is to the left of you (your center), while your other arm is to the right of you. Each arm and any other part of your body occupies a special region of your intimate world. Your headache is closer to you than a pain in your toe. You feel the toe pain somewhere “down there”, but your headache is “up here” with respect to your self. Also, it is possible to experience our self as being outside of our physical body, as in out-of-body-experiences (see, for example, Lengenhager et al (2007) Science, 317, 1096-1099). So I do not agree that there is an inconsistency in what I said.

  [Alfredo]

  7) Arnold: “It is much easier to accept perception as evidence of consciousness because its particular phenomenal contents are constantly changing within the plenum of the unchanging egocentric space of the retinoid system.” 
- Assuming that consciousness is dynamical (i.e., it also has a temporal dimension), then why to reduce it to an “unchanging egocentric space”?

  [Arnold]

  When we are conscious, the perceptual content of consciousness is dynamic (constantly changing over time), but the egocentric space of our phenomenal world within which these changing events occur is a constant phenomenal presence.

  Best,

  Arnold

• 25

  Alfredo Pereira Jr

  02 June 2008 | 20:19

  [ Permalink ]

  Dear Arnold:
  Many thanks for the answers. I make my replies below (using the same numbers):
  (1) [Arnold] I think we have a problem in definition here. In common usage, the word “perception” refers to a conscious sensory experience. This is what I mean when I use the term “perception”. So to speak of “unconscious perception” would be a contradiction in terms and needs no explanation.
  [Alfredo] You can use “subliminar” if you prefer, it is a topic of scientific research.
  2) [Arnold] The retinoid system, which is the basis of our phenomenal experience, is a neuronal mechanism with short-term memory by virtue of autaptic-cell activity. This is explained in detail in my monograph The Cognitive Brain (TCB). Episodic experience is explained by the neuronal structure and dynamics of clock rings and recall rings as detailed in TCB.
  [Alfredo] You did a great job in TCB, but the time of conscious experiences seems richer than the time provided by biological clocks.
  3) [Arnold] I think it is a serious mistake to think that we do not have a conscious experience of “empty” space. A vast area of space may contain no objects and yet its spatial extensity is experienced as a phenomenal quality. Just look at the moon at its zenith on a clear night and you will experience it as an object that is separated from you by a volume of intervening space. Incidentally, in terms of cognitive brain processes, this is the egocentric retinoid space through which your heuristic self-locus moves to focus your attention on the moon.
  [Alfredo] I do not agree. For instance, during some periods the moon appears as bigger then the sun. If we had perception of empty space, we would be able to tell that the sun is at a larger distance from us than the moon.
  4) [Arnold] I don’t know about the spatial experience of rats, but for humans there is abundant evidence that our experience of a 3D world does not depend on bodily movement.
  [Alfredo] It is not only the body movement you are doing at the moment of the perception (this movement also influences, by means of feedback from motor to perceptual areas), it is the kind of movement we are habituated to, both philo- and ontogenetically. For instance, in the case of ambliophia, one-eyed vision two-dimensional. Could the brain adapt to two-dimensional perception to the point of inducing plastic changes in the retionid system?
  5) [Arnold] Here is an example of what I mean. Consciousness vanishes when we fall asleep and we infer its absence only when we wake; e.g., by noticing elapsed time on a clock. As far as brain lesions go, the clinical condition of hemi-spatial neglect following parietal brain damage is a good example of a profound change in the egocentric bounds of our phenomenal experience because of damage to the retinoid system. I discuss this in my article “Space, self, and the theater of consciousness” (CONCOG 2007).
  [Alfredo] The question is: if damage to the retinoid system does not abolish consciousness, but only causes perceptual distortions, then there may be other structures responsible for consciousness besides this system.
  6) [Arnold] Again, I believe it is a serious mistake to think that our body is at the center of the world of one’s experience. Just notice! One arm is to the left of you (your center), while your other arm is to the right of you. Each arm and any other part of your body occupies a special region of your intimate world. Your headache is closer to you than a pain in your toe. You feel the toe pain somewhere “down there”, but your headache is “up here” with respect to your self.
  [Alfredo] It possibly depends more on the intensity of the pain, not on the distance relatively to the retinoid system. Intense pain at the feet is closer to me than soft toothache.
  [Arnold] Also, it is possible to experience our self as being outside of our physical body, as in out-of-body-experiences (see, for example, Lengenhager et al (2007) Science, 317, 1096-1099). So I do not agree that there is an inconsistency in what I said.
  [Alfredo] In the case of out-of-body experience, do you accept it literally? If so, how to explain it with your model? I think it is an illusion.
  7) [Arnold] When we are conscious, the perceptual content of consciousness is dynamic (constantly changing over time), but the egocentric space of our phenomenal world within which these changing events occur is a constant phenomenal presence.
  [Alfredo] Arnold, this “phenomenal presence” may exist, but it is not the world of consciousness. The later is the world of constantly changing content. Possibly you are focusing on the frame, not on the picture inside. But it is the picture that matters!
  Best Regards
  Alfredo

• 26

  Hans Ricke

  03 June 2008 | 03:38

  [ Permalink ]

  This thread is morphing into a theoretical discussion about defining consciousness, which is interesting.

  May I remind you though that the intention is to find out, which elements of a definition have a chance for a general agreement.

  General agreement is not based alone on how well supported a proposal is. There are many – I think too many, Chalmers thinks not enough – proposals around and of course many of them are well supported.

  Even if Max Velmans is right when he judges "_In the present text we follow the common usage in which the term “consciousness” is synonymous with “awareness” or “conscious awareness”._" ( my emphasis )

  That only indicates that many scientists agree that consciousness and awareness are synonymous. It has to be established in a more significant manner.

  What a discussion – the one I pursue – may lead to are basic and essential and meaningful elements of a definition. At the same time less basic, non-essential points will be put aside as topics for further research.

• 28

  Hans Ricke

  03 June 2008 | 06:11

  [ Permalink ]

  Let me pick one point from the discussion of Arnold’s view:

  Alfredo wrote: “3) Arnold recognizes that “We cannot normally direct our attention to the unchanging global expanse of the phenomenal world”.
  - Yes, this is because conscious experience is not experience of a (empty) space, but experience of events that occur in a space.”

  I elaborated on this issue in an exchange with a few colleagues by mailing an early draft about the “Recognition of Consciousness” . In meditation ( mainly the buddhist tradition ) the concept of emptiness, shunyata etc. is well known. In practice the approach is not via directly attending to the space inside, but by attending to the breath alone. This causes a shift of attention. A good example for this kind of shift of attention is music. Normally we just notice a sequence of tones. When music is written down, it already becomes clear that it does not only consists of notes that sound but all the same in pauses. The ‘pause space’ is so to say the space in which what we actually experience as music appears. We are just not aware of it because we attend to what is happening as sounds. Implicitly, we are aware of the pauses.
  In meditation a similar shift of attention can happen. We then become aware of a space in which all kinds of contents ‘appear’. Maybe Arnold is referring to this kind of experience which can obviously happen in other ways too.
  Space is indeed a fundamental concept, that we experience. We do not know about space just by concluding there must be space. We know it by shifting the attention.

  The question why we do not direct our attention to it ‘normally’, I would like to answer by suggesting that the film is more interesting than the screen it is projected on…

  So the experience of space is certainly rare, the experience of the content ( in space ) is common, but they are related in a way that one without the other would make no sense at all.

• 29

  marvin kirsh

  03 June 2008 | 15:44

  [ Permalink ]

  Re:Hans Ricke -Alredo (comment see bold)
  03 June 2008 | 04:11

  Alfredo wrote: “I am not making my argument for “situations”. In fact, my claim is essentially evolutionary in the sense that consciousness is what it is because it is in charge of controlling skeletal muscles.
  It may be possible to paralyse all skeletal muscles at some moment, the person remaining conscious – because the effects of the evolutionary process have already shaped her brain and such an “internalization” process allows the brain to function in “simulation mode” (here I borrow from the vocabulary of CD and DVD burners).
  On the other hand, if consciousness is just sentience then you would have to ascribe it to plants too. My position rules out plant consciousness on the basis of the absence of action.

  Hans – It is good that you clarify that your point is relevant for the evolution of consciousness, which is a very important topic. I fully agree in this sense.

  I think though your claim is bigger than just refer to what has happened in evolution. And surely action control is what consciousness is very important for. Also you make not clear, if the other aspect that I mentioned: that consciousness is also very relevant when no action control is required as in digestion and assimilation, if that fits into your view.
  In my opinion that aspect of consciousness leads to knowledge and not to action right away. Of course knowledge may be useful later for action control. But it can as well remain unused.

  I think knowledge and learning processes are main aspects of consciousness.

  The solution is probably AND, action control AND sentience.

  Alfredo wrote: “This inner activity alone I consider to be merely simulation, not real experience. It is genetically (in Piaget´s sense) dependent on sensorimotor activities. This is the result of an internalization process. If you assume it as primitive I am afraid this assumption leads to a strong modality of dualism (substance dualism).”

  Hans – I think you are getting me wrong here. I wanted to separate the thoughts and emotions induced by a consciousn experience from the actual conscious experience. They can follow a conscious experience similar to action, but it does not have to be that way.
  If you want to assert this, we have another disagreement.
  I see the overflow of informational input together with the richness of inner experience as possible content of consciousness in the first place. If it has become actual content of anyone’s consciousness that does not mean it has to have any of these followings: action control, a triggered thought, a triggered emotion, a stored memory. There is a strong possibilty that a conscious experience is solely transient. We have it, then we have had it and that was it!
  If we would be able to make a count of how many events, episodes of conscious content lead to nothing, to a voluntary action, to a long term memorization, to a chain of thoughts, to an emotional reaction, my hypothesis is: most events will have nothing to lead to.

  I wanted to comment, though facets of consciousness are more dificult to cope with, they are at the root of all we create and I believe mirror what we create and or visa cersa = itis important to arrive at a sound conceptual understanding. More difficult and mirroring, frustrations with other endeavors as a parallel might be very insightful. most important atre the exceptions to theory, popular theory that are continually arrising. In evolution-genetics behavior becomes in many cases very puzzling such new theoretical attention is focused on emergence as much broader mechanism from what is assumed. In some cases chemical changes do not become decided but almost at or during the time of change. Species in evolution can appear to fade for what apppears as explanable reasons and later, having survived but in fewer numbers, repeat this behavior as if program that responds to a stress. Genes can seem to disappear from population and reappear=the mechanism seems tobe that they are reacquired from neighbors or somehow remain silent despite models based on evolved and experimentally supported concepts that were most likely lost or goods. As Bertrand Russell describes hidden meaning and its loss with variable substitution, allthings seems to mirror language=they occur by an unfolding and nature seems to have an infinite hidden content that is constantly surfacing inthe same manner as history is said to unfold. In reference to the comment my hypothesis is: most events will have nothing to lead to, it is very naive and I reer you to the writng of Immanuel Velikovsky Varchive.org. Velikovsky was a psychonalyst, a corrspondant with Einstein who believed that historical behavior was the product of minor occurances. I extrapolate this to mean also that he viewed human behavior without a sense of medical pathology or brain malfinction but as a product of unobserved environmental inluences that presented behavior sometimes as innapropriate-unexplanable from circumstances. I personally be;lieve this to be true and that our assembled understanding of nature have a second but prominent and paramount basic element that if ignored renders our current understanding as disconnected chaos.In the case of modern science explanation and cognitoon/percpetion I believe that both emanate in a parallel fashion from a more basic facet of the world-cogniton/percpetion is not explanable from chemistry or biochemistry -all have the same origin from a property that is common to all (non empty) space. I think Alredo is correct with the notion to ignore space, but what is within it=falls out from both sides of the equation. So as not to ruin our chance to understand things, as all things have a path from past to present we cannot eliminate those things that have no intentional content from a total conceptual scheme, but we can focus on bodily action and physiology or the puposes of healing in way that we do overstep to define emergence in a narrower view than its’ potential and at the same time do not over step the limits of science-we actually cannot endeavor to “induce” predict or direct applications to whathas never been observed or known to ocuur-we cannot know something until it happens. This concept is very important when we go about changing what has already evolved-gentic sequences with the hope to cure diseases, they are still part of a path, the only one present, and has a good track record=so that we do not excise what is folded and not yet expressed-logic applied this way to cure can be aprallel to Russels appraisal of language and math-loss of meaning in the assignment of variables. I also personally object to using animals in research though we define ways to be humane, is not same as in the struggles in the wild and loss of life, we do not know a total concept-I think are taking form one end to supplement ourselves-burning the candle from both ends. I also think there are alternatives to find out what we absolutley need to know without hurting anything. None the less, if it is tenable that cognitoon /perception begins with the unimportant reflections then anyother approach that eliminates them totally from the conceptual view is necessarily diverted to be definitionally of some other endeavor.
• 30

  Arnold Trehub

  03 June 2008 | 16:00

  [ Permalink ]

  A brief reply to Hans who wrote:

  “Space is indeed a fundamental concept, that we experience. We do not know about space just by concluding there must be space. We know it by shifting the attention.”

  My claim is that we/you experience space by being at the center of the brain’s innate representation of space; i.e., your self-locus is the absolute origin of your brain’s retinoid embodiment of your egocentric space. This is your transparent phenomenal experience of the world from your privileged egocentric perspective. For you, as a conscious person, all that you can experience must be contained within the bounds of this biological phenomenal space.

  We can know about this space (as opposed to direct phenomenal experience) by shifting attention through it, and by many other kinds of empirical tests as well as by careful theoretical analysis.

  Best,

  Arnold

• 31

  marvin kirsh

  03 June 2008 | 23:54

  [ Permalink ]

  Re: Arnold Trehub

  A brief reply to Hans who wrote:

  “Space is indeed a fundamental concept, that we experience. We do not know about space just by concluding there must be space. We know it by shifting the attention.”

  My claim is that we/you experience space by being at the center of the brain’s innate representation of space; i.e., your self-locus is the absolute origin of your brain’s retinoid embodiment of your egocentric space. This is your transparent phenomenal experience of the world from your privileged egocentric perspective. For you, as a conscious person, all that you can experience must be contained within the bounds of this biological phenomenal space.

  We can know about this space (as opposed to direct phenomenal experience) by shifting attention through it, and by many other kinds of empirical tests as well as by careful theoretical analysis.

  Re:… I agree with Arnold and think that space is all we do know. We build a world, all of our learning from initial experience, sensation of self with a back and a front necessarily entails that we contain a volume. We observe others, both their backs and fronts, as we cannot see our own backs, we instantly know more,about the world..I think this description entails all that we ever construct of it,can construct of it,is descriptively inclusive of all the means to knowledge, totally descriptive of types and orgainzations that evolved from it, is regenerative, to generate more specific diversity, uniqueness in all humans in a tree like fashion that always maintains its’ differences and uniqueness in every branch. Tells us how the most reasonable science theories can come to argument=sometimes until they have to be abandoned as overlapping to compress the evolved freedoms from expressions from the evolved diversities of others. The diseases possible in this senerio, I believe, would bear very true and valid testimony to the nature of space, os spaces and the importance of volume and space, the psyche/percpetion/cognition as representatable as physcial spaces(and their processes)-as a physical impression that can come of the conflicts from intelligent applications, i.e. diseases that can be contained theoretically as processes of space=e.g. cancers that have all kinds of properties and behaviors related to contact/contact inhibition, microfiliment structure and assembly in the cell, pressure sensitive causes, skin (that contains the organs and skeleton) cancers and problems that are more severe than the rest=in fact I believe all diseases will be definable with etiologies related to space/room and that can be the causes of anykind of irritation, anykind of social, intellectual intercourse in addition to sexual intercourse. The upheavals of history, probably follow a calm in which irritation is less but causes still existent and returning, might be viewed as the violent pursuit of space. Knowing consciousness as space and self space for scientific purposes is a very scrambled interpretation in that we always know space as basic, a shift of attention to perceive something else is to perceive something else in space that may have meaning or draw notice with respect to space. I think it is the meachanics of drawing attention only that science itself can draw it own attention to(but with the knowledge that, perceptions are about things that occupy space). However, less accessible,even/especially in consciousness scientifice, is that the processes of physcial volumes underline all things, are manifest in a unique and unequal manner, that can be sorted a little in the same way that modern epistemolgy structures to describe structures like the brain etc., but space also underlines the actions of chemicals the same way such that our knowledge of them, from a very narrow increment of time, is incomplete and sometimes incorrect.Chemical processes do not describe space they are th e products of it. The psychical volumes suggested of the body or processes that construct the psyche (and what ever-just forces) would be very hard to connect with these same active process as a unitary process to all-as distant in comparison as a transient thought in a dream to an active visual perception in which it may or may not have had an influnce with respect to the path taken (from a thought in a dream, change from a dream to intersect with an environmental perception) (for instance suppose one dreamt that he were a hero boy scout and that that had an effect on his becomeing a boyscout and his subsequent experience as a boy scout). Volume and space , and indeed with a great of wisdom, as an interpretation focus for scientifc study of consciousness has to be deleted as a common element and at the same time the entire study has to have an awareness of the topic,less as suggested can happen with social intercourses, disease causing overlapping, repression, and suffering from an assault upon innate uniqueness can occur;the opposite of inniatives. Reversal of good intentions can happen even with the most well conceived ideas,and happens from tresspassing that not only can be very subtle to perceive , but can attain significant proportions when whole populations/worlds come to be ruled by (even creative) ideas that leave us accepting of them, either lazy to defend self uniquenesses that can be hard to define, and inaccessible to 99 percent of the people on the earth, or simply come to rule as a matter of the ideology in which they were created and presented=i.e to organize nature and consolidate knowledge for application (to problems that are not correctly perceived to define them correctly). If one conceives well the whole to start his activities…(which cannot be laid to the compulsive mathematics that can come suggestively and unknowingly to filter into to define behavior-e.g. a resulting theoretical construation tailored in orientation to death(homocide-genocide) instead of life via a compression from overlapping spaces that the individual becomes mathematical points)…his activities will reflect it. One might assume one orientation or the other to view things (as the resulting metabolism of physical space or as processes occuring that emanate from it) but the two combined, ever consolidated would be disasterous =one can legitemately fear anxiously from an appearing overlap in the social and physical sciences and the vast conceptual distances actually involved upto the intersections of the disciples, …of doom and extinction by our own hands, yet upon other species and animals would include them-you cannot excise from a wheel a flat area(one might conceive as the perceived similarities between species and ourselves) and have remain a wheel at all whether in reference to just oursleves or other species. Better awareness of others is more prominent, with hands on experience in the medical professions than the scientific ones and hand me downs in teaching this way are more important that what ever progress is thought to be made.

  Marvin

• 32

  Alfredo Pereira Jr

  04 June 2008 | 12:56

  [ Permalink ]

  Dear Hans:

  Please see my replies below:

  Hans: It is good that you clarify that your point is relevant for the evolution of consciousness, which is a very important topic. I fully agree in this sense.
  I think though your claim is bigger than just refer to what has happened in evolution. And surely action control is what consciousness is very important for. Also you make not clear, if the other aspect that I mentioned: that consciousness is also very relevant when no action control is required as in digestion and assimilation, if that fits into your view.

  Alfredo: Most parts of digestive and assimilatory processes are not conscious.

  Hans: In my opinion that aspect of consciousness leads to knowledge and not to action right away. Of course knowledge may be useful later for action control. But it can as well remain unused.
  I think knowledge and learning processes are main aspects of consciousness.
  The solution is probably AND, action control AND sentience.

  Alfredo: I agree with the lest statement. “Knowledge” is a term that overlaps with “consciousness” in some aspects, but not completely. It has too many denotations and connotations in Philosophy (e.g. the Platonic definition of knowledge as “true justified belief”, the Gettier problem, etc.). We do not need them in this discussion.

  Hans (about dualism – APJ): I think you are getting me wrong here. I wanted to separate the thoughts and emotions induced by a consciousn experience from the actual conscious experience. They can follow a conscious experience similar to action, but it does not have to be that way.
  If you want to assert this, we have another disagreement.
  I see the overflow of informational input together with the richness of inner experience as possible content of consciousness in the first place. If it has become actual content of anyone’s consciousness that does not mean it has to have any of these followings: action control, a triggered thought, a triggered emotion, a stored memory. There is a strong possibilty that a conscious experience is solely transient. We have it, then we have had it and that was it!

  Alfredo: I do not disagree, but yours is the habitual pathway that leads to the exclusion of consciousness from science. In order to study it scientifically, we need at least a (verbal or non-verbal) report. The report implies a content that is reported and a behavior. At this point we return to the golden formula: “action control AND sentience”.

  Hans, the rest of your post is interesting but to avoid collateral issues I concentrated by reply to the central topics.

  Best

  Alfredo

Results