Replies

This topic has been locked by the forum moderators.

Results

• 16

  Serge Patlavskiy

  11 June 2009 | 21:34

  [ Permalink ]

  Alfredo Pereira on 02 Jun 2009 wrote:
  “- biological scientific knowledge can help us to live better;
  - scientific study of Politics can help us to construct better political systems,
  - computer science can help us to build better computers and to use our computers better.”

  According to the proposed logic, the philosophic (not scientific!) conference on consciousness must help to do what: to make our consciousness better? But this would be a true nonsense. Consciousness cannot be made better, because it is expediently potent in all living creatures (otherwise those creatures wouldn’t be living). Yes, some of us become more informed, cleverer, more reasonable, more experienced. But, at that, our consciousness does not change, does not evolve. Maybe, the task of the conference is to create/refine the theoretical framework for studying consciousness. Not? It’s a pity. Unfortunately, there are still no scientific conferences on consciousness. In general, to attend any conference is very helpful for a creative mind who is seeking for truth, since the close communication with the representatives of his craft may trigger the new ideas and unexpected solutions.

  As to Chris Nunn’s editorial, I have found therein only one his idea: “Approaches to many problems of consciousness would surely be eased if the population of meanings could be tamed, maybe culled, and generally rendered user-friendly.” Chris must be joking here. The case is that any approach — it is some intellectual product; and to deal with intellectual products, we have to apply appropriate methodology, which presumes, for example, the investigation for compatibility, checking whether there is obedience to the criteria of scientific correctness, etc. We can’t cull the intellectual products as we cull potatoes or eggs.

  Best,
  Serge Patlavskiy

  PS And thanks to Hans for a paper.

• 18

  Alfredo Pereira Jr

  12 June 2009 | 08:43

  [ Permalink ]

  Dear Debaprasad:

  Did you hear about Holograms?

  Best

  Alfredo

• 19

  Alfredo Pereira Jr

  12 June 2009 | 08:52

  [ Permalink ]

  Dear Serge and Otmar:

  This time I am in agreement with Otmar. One of the older goals of philosophy is to help us to live better. It does not always succeed, see for instance what Nietzche´s life looks like. But what is to live better? Of course it is relative to the philosophy one adopts. In this sense, we can guess that Nietzche had a great life experience, his pain corresponding to his philosophical challenges.

  Serge´s critical comments about non-scientific conferences and Chris Nunn´s Editorial are not fair and I believe he was just trying to raise a controversy. I will wait his criticisms of my paper with Hans to reply…

  Best Regards

  Alfredo

• 20

  Christopher Holvenstot

  13 June 2009 | 05:46

  [ Permalink ]

  Hans, Alfredo,

  I would like to see your work too. Can you forward it to cholvenstot@yahoo.com Please. Thanks. I have Skirbina’s if anyone wants to discuss that. Methinks the Nunn editorial on its own is too general to sink one’s teeth into — is but a serviceable and amenable intro to the papers themselves.
  Best
  CH

• 21

  Christopher Holvenstot

  13 June 2009 | 07:55

  [ Permalink ]

  Serge,
  I love your thinking and your work. You seem skeptical on the following point but I do think it possible to create a user friendly definition that isn’t theory burdened and that doesn’t require heavy de-contextualizing. An example: Consciousness is a world-modeling function for all biological organisms. Period. Simple. Easy peasy. Consciousness, by this definition, serves to provide access to a functional world model via intentional awareness aimed at specific features such as self/environment boundaries, volitional capabilities in a causal format, extension, solidity, linear time, a positive valuation of existing, free will. This suggests the purpose and origin of a conscious condition in nature and that organisms cannot function without participating in the conscious condition which activates a world-model common to all living beings. The world-model isn’t physical it’s a constant conscious process and it isn’t divine or spiritual it is supremely mundane — so we can drop the material and spiritual assumptions.

  Granted, this definition doesn’t deal with lower levels of consciousness represented in the fixed patterns of spinning energy in inanimate objects or in the intelligence of the universe (as suggested by Skirbina – and which I also believe) but it’s enough of a start (think baby steps) for a culture wrapped up in material beliefs, boundaries, brute forces, polities, economies, etc. and that believes (because it is told by science) that everything in nature is unconscious. The separation from nature and the reduction of nature to an unconscious (and therefore illegitimate and exploitable level of existence) is no longer a safe or sustainable world-view. So this consciousness–as-world-model-function definition has a pragmatic purpose; it can guide the global culture toward notions of our profound interconnectivity with nature and each other. A shared world-modeling condition in nature comes with all manner of metaphors and meanings that can re-inform human behavior into respectful, sustainable formats. A definition is a powerful thing. A definition of consciousness can reshape reality.

  To speak of consciousness as primarily about the “what it’s like to be” of complex creatures like ourselves is to over-focus on the self-models of uniquely over-developed (and somewhat spoilt and self-obsessed) creatures at the expense of seeing the bigger picture of consciousness throughout nature. And at any rate, the purpose and function of a self-model makes more sense in a context of a world-modeling function in nature that evolves into increasingly complex models in highly mobile organisms that engage ever-expanding socio-environmental challenges. Our self-models would necessarily be more complex not necessarily being entirely neurologically bound since simpler organisms are creating equally efficient world-models without brains or self-reflexive feed-back loops, etc.

  Consciousness can and should be defined as central to reality, explicit throughout nature, as non-physical and non-spiritual. The sooner a consensus is reached the better. It doesn’t seem we have a lot of time left to alter our behaviors toward the planet. We haven’t time to let all possible variations flower and grow in a rich atmosphere of relative truths. The question of a definition is made urgent by pragmatic and socially responsible considerations. It would be a sad and regrettable thing to have the band playing on and on about the remarkable articulation of our own complex self-models while the good ship earth is cracking in half and going down for the last time.

  I apologize for always devolving into a preacherly tone but I feel the urgency as real and immediate – an inner stress I can’t shake. We need to wake up and use our influence to do the right thing. The greater culture looks to those involved here to decide the issue and get on with it. The power of a decision won’t happen in the waiting and seeing. It won’t be decreed or conceded by the materialists or found under a microscope or be handed down to us from on high in spiritual terms. It’s just us — a handful of concerned and obsessed citizens arguing it out until we get it right and then proclaim it with confidence and clarity to a public that is primed for change and new ideas. The culture has been trained to focus on material properties as a description of their reality. They are equally ready to be retrained to focus on the interconnectivity of a shared conscious condition that is even more central to reality than matter concepts – conscious concepts better describe the meaningful aspects of experience for everyone. It’s an easy transition but it requires consensus and leadership.

  Best
  CH

• 23

  Serge Patlavskiy

  14 June 2009 | 21:50

  [ Permalink ]

  Alfredo Pereira Jr on 12 June 2009 wrote:
  “Serge’s critical comments about non-scientific conferences and Chris Nunn’s Editorial are not fair…”

  [S.P.] In which sense the word “fair” is used here? Does it mean beautiful, clean, pure, fine, bright, sunny, specious, plausible, flattering, smooth, even, distinct, considerable, handsome, liberal, unquestionable, absolute, complete, thorough, gentle, peaceable, spotless, unblemished, equitable, legitimate, unobstructed, open, public, agreeable, noble, civil, kind, equitable, honest, impartial, just, etc.? And where are the arguments that the comments are not fair? To the point, they were just the remarks, not comments, since in Chris Nunn’s Editorial there is nothing to comment on.

  [Alfredo Pereira Jr]
  “I will wait his criticisms of my paper with Hans to reply…”

  [S.P.] If there will be a correspondent thread, then there will be the correspondent commentary. By the way, I would much like to have a scanned Contents section of the JCS 16#5 where the page numbers to all articles are indicated.

  [Hans Ricke] wrote:
  “Dear all, seeing how this discussion evolves I would like to keep this thread confined to two subtopics: 1. discussing Chris Nunn’s editorial and 2. discussing the general way how we want to discuss the whole special issue of the Journal of consciousness studies.”

  [S.P.] I must have missed Chris Nunn’s open public announcement that the JCS’ Special Issue on Defining Consciousness is planning, and that all persons who have anything to say in this field are welcome to submit their papers. I think that Christopher Holvenstot’s definition that “Consciousness is a world-modeling function for all biological organisms” (see his post above) would be non-the-less interesting to see published in that special issue, and then discussed.

  And, finally (just to prevent a suicide).
  " Oh man, I can’t believe you are saying these things Serge. If I thought that was true I would shoot myself. "

  [S.P.] When practicing, we are improving not our consciousness, but our ability to access to its hidden potentialities.

  Best,
  Serge Patlavskiy

• 24

  Debaprasad Mukherjee

  15 June 2009 | 13:12

  [ Permalink ]

  @Alfredo Pereira Jr:

  Why do you say that (Hologram) ?

  Debaprasad

• 25

  Hans Ricke

  15 June 2009 | 16:03

  [ Permalink ]

  Dear all,

  please reread the opening statement of this thread.

  There I added a request how to proceed with this discussion.

  Yours friendly
  Hans

• 26

  Christopher Holvenstot

  16 June 2009 | 14:51

  [ Permalink ]

  In my opinion, Chris Nunn’s editorial illustrates (as does the entire issue) to what extent we are no closer to a user friendly definition of consciousness than we were a hundred yrs ago, despite piles of cognitive and neurological and social science data. That careful and clearheaded researchers should arrive at such tentative, vague and varied results indicates something amiss in the underlying assumptions informing our explanatory parameters. All we are in the position to say unequivocally is that consciousness is not reducible in the ordinary scientific way and needs to be approached on its own terms. What those terms should be seems the only thing worth discussing since it is so clearly undecided. As fair and amenable as it is, there’s not much more I can think to say about the editorial itself.

  We could pick apart the inadequacies of each article one by one but I thought proposing a more simplified commonsensical solution straight off would be more expedient, which is why I proposed the definition in the earlier post.

  Best
  CH

• 28

  Hans Ricke

  17 June 2009 | 04:46

  [ Permalink ]

  Dear Christopher,

  you are quite wrong. There has been progress, arguably if you will, in the last 100 years. Also, if you make such a statement involving an extraordinary claim, it would be adequate to bring supporting evidence.

  The main area of progress is related to neuroscientific research. We obviously have a much better understanding of brain processes than 100 years ago. We even understand memory much better. These findings are very relevant for the understanding of how human consciousness functions.

  Why don’t you try and open a thread to discuss your view about a user friendly definition of consciousness?

  Yours friendly
  Hans

Results