11-10-2017, 02:58 PM
I love how in the counterpoint, the author compared the billions of atoms that make up the brain to people with cell phones and then used that to discredit the idea.
Yet inexplicably doesn't realize how fallacious such a comparison is.
There are different kinds, or modes, of consciousness. A cat and a tree aren't going to experience the same way, yet we don't use them to describe each other. So why would this guy assume anthropomorphizing atoms into humans is valid to explain away the consciousness of atoms because they wouldn't mimic humans?
Wtf, this is academic philosophy?! It's full of morons apparently
I think this idea, panpsychism, is interesting if it could be properly described using subjective examples. Such as the measurement or particles is what defines them, how is this possible without an interpreter? I think consciousness, whatever it may be, is the interpreter that moves the particles into definement and potentiation (an undefined state).
How it does this seems to be a movement of consciousness, like how a naked person seen is likely to manifest embarrassment, a measured atom is manifested into definement. To use a loose example.
The problem is trying to make sense of it all from a singular consciousness. With just our one gaze we are creating definement, but how is this occurring if our consciousness is the only kind? The movement from one mode or state of consciousness to another seems to require a dialogue of experience. The observation of our conscious incites response in the observed, this response implies reaction, which implies a response to stimulus, which implies experience, which implies consciousness or at the least a form of being able to react to something as simple as a gaze.
If it is not consciousness, a seemingly incorporeal essence without physical catalyst needed to exist (as per OBE's and NDE's), then it is a mechanical occurrence, yet how does something smaller than microbacterium react to a human gaze? How can it POSSIBLY perceive the massiveness on that level of a human eye looking over it?
How does it know when to become defined if it is merely a mechanical reaction? Is it programmed? That implies a Godly level of technological advancement. Is it alive? That implies consciousness.
I think this philosophy will gain precedence once consciousness is better understood as a nonphysical occurrence independent of Matter.
I'd also more the irony of the counterpoint's example of particles as humans communicating together through cell phones.
Cells are effected by electromagnetic waves they each give off, but further their combination creates a unified field that effects them collectively as well as individually. That unity might change how an individual responds, whether a particle or a human.
So I imagine the em field of the heart, how it engulfs every cell in the body. How it can affect the physical body via vibrations and frequency, how those occurrences are only possible because there is a unity of particles that make up the unity of cells that made up the unity of the organ systems, that make up a circumstance that supports biochemical lifeforms.
All of those things exist in the same field yet are individualized. My brain, seperate of my consciousness, still can utilize that consciousness to recognize itself as a brain in a flesh capsule talking about itself as it wonders about itself.
Is the stacked complexity of such systems of particles, cells, and organs, a necessity to forming consciousness or does it all form from consciousness? Do we ignore that it is a biochemical response that forms our actions and not our conscious? Do we ignore that consciousness is not a part of the physiological body but a producer of it? It takes two people, two consciousnesses, to form a new person with consciousness. Whether consciously or accidentally, they wield the power consciousness has, being both a consciousness but also a biochemical machine.
We shouldn't confuse that integral part of our individual and collective consciousness as belonging to that biochemical process.
There is no proof or disproof that consciousness is created by neural connections, this is assumed 'common sense, except that you can remove half the brain and consciousness isn't majorly effected. You can replace someone's heart and they'll acquire memories and feelings and behaviours from the donor.
The brain has nothing to do with consciousness, it is a biochemical processor of information, not a holder of consciousness. Sure you can completely destroy all signs of consciousness with damage to the brain, but life can persist with such damage. Life and consciousness and the brain are not all intertwined inexplicably. The loss of consciousness is not the loss of life, the destruction of the brain despite removing the individuals ability to process their consciousness and act it out does not mean there's a total loss of consciousness, only that the mechanism through which consciousness interfaced and interacted with reality has been damaged.
I find that consciousness is the invisible 'Force' that builds that which it interacts through. It is self perpetuating and self creating, it is not as our reality would commonly be seen to behave. Our senses are limited extremely to a particles equivalent size on the ENTIRE AVAILABLE SPECTRUM of experiences. We only see the rainbow colors, and further the gap at the beginning and end of that spectrum is filled in by the brain with magenta to form a circular like array of available experience. Just as the brain takes in images by the eyes and flips it to be right side up and does whatever it does to make those images flow together into motion, it also fills in the gaps of our experiences. Hence why optical illusions can occur.
We CANNOT OBJECTIVELY RELY ON OUR BRAINS and senses to portray an accurate image of the actuality of reality around us. We don't see enough, hear enough, we can't feel enough, or even perceive enough.
We the brain and human are the lens, not the seeing eye. It is our consciousness that moves us, incites our responses and reactions, our brain is just a processor of those things to turn them into sensable experiences to work within. It's our consciousness, and consciousness in general, that produces the means to experience such things at all.
From the vibrating particle to the energetic cell to the functioning organ to the self aware brain, without consciousness these things would be empty and devoid of purpose or reason. The particle would be undefined. The cell would be static, the organ still, the brain empty of firing neurons producing thought and emotion.
Consciousness isn't human, and we cannot apply our ways of experiencing as valid controls to base other forms of consciousness off of. If a tree is conscious, it is conscious differently from human consciousness. Birds can see more colors than we, dogs can smell more than we can, cats can hear more than we can. Animals are different enough despite basic similarities.
They can all sense as we can, yet what they do with that information is different because their consciousness is different.
Considering we now know trees can feel and communicate, and even tell when it's dehydrated and starving or being cut, we can say plants sense, they do so differently from animals, but they do so nonetheless, and if this similarity from humans to animals can make animals conscious then the similarity from animals to plants should make them conscious.
Further because of the lowering of complexity of sensing as we move from human to animal to plant, the modes of sensation by say, a rock, may be so simple and subtle we'd mistake it as empty of reaction.
Yet a fire is conscious, it consumes and reproduces, it reacts albeit on an extremely simplistic scale of physical and chemical reactions. Hot arid air accentuates it's chemical response. Humid damp air slows it. It's senses are of chemical responses to it's surroundings. It's basic nature is finite but it's extinguishment does not imply extinction, it is able to manifest because it is conscious.
Water reacts in it's own ways as does air and rock.
Rock against the chemical reaction of impact splits, a reproduction, leading down to smaller forms, with smaller forms building to greater ones, as with fire, and water, and air.
Air against the chemical reaction of motion pulled and pushed to formations, cyclones to walls of roaming air, further created by the motions of water swaying up and down.
Water itself reacts to chemical reactions, evaporates, condenses.
The basic elements have a different mode of consciousness, a simpler mode of reaction and action only. To grow. To move. To be. To roll. To be reduced, to be increased.
Wind, fire, water can rage. Rock too can rage.
So moving further down, consciousness changes, simplified the smaller we get.
By the point of particles, consciousness requires consciousness to react at all, without an observer there is no reaction, only infinite potential.
So, I find this in tandem with the Reciprocal Theory to be a promising adventure into new explorations of reality.
I often joke that Star Trek's Space Exploration is the penultimate frontier, with the True Final Frontier being Reality Exploration.
...Thank you for sharing these... I am greatly intrigued.
Yet inexplicably doesn't realize how fallacious such a comparison is.
There are different kinds, or modes, of consciousness. A cat and a tree aren't going to experience the same way, yet we don't use them to describe each other. So why would this guy assume anthropomorphizing atoms into humans is valid to explain away the consciousness of atoms because they wouldn't mimic humans?
Wtf, this is academic philosophy?! It's full of morons apparently
I think this idea, panpsychism, is interesting if it could be properly described using subjective examples. Such as the measurement or particles is what defines them, how is this possible without an interpreter? I think consciousness, whatever it may be, is the interpreter that moves the particles into definement and potentiation (an undefined state).
How it does this seems to be a movement of consciousness, like how a naked person seen is likely to manifest embarrassment, a measured atom is manifested into definement. To use a loose example.
The problem is trying to make sense of it all from a singular consciousness. With just our one gaze we are creating definement, but how is this occurring if our consciousness is the only kind? The movement from one mode or state of consciousness to another seems to require a dialogue of experience. The observation of our conscious incites response in the observed, this response implies reaction, which implies a response to stimulus, which implies experience, which implies consciousness or at the least a form of being able to react to something as simple as a gaze.
If it is not consciousness, a seemingly incorporeal essence without physical catalyst needed to exist (as per OBE's and NDE's), then it is a mechanical occurrence, yet how does something smaller than microbacterium react to a human gaze? How can it POSSIBLY perceive the massiveness on that level of a human eye looking over it?
How does it know when to become defined if it is merely a mechanical reaction? Is it programmed? That implies a Godly level of technological advancement. Is it alive? That implies consciousness.
I think this philosophy will gain precedence once consciousness is better understood as a nonphysical occurrence independent of Matter.
I'd also more the irony of the counterpoint's example of particles as humans communicating together through cell phones.
Cells are effected by electromagnetic waves they each give off, but further their combination creates a unified field that effects them collectively as well as individually. That unity might change how an individual responds, whether a particle or a human.
So I imagine the em field of the heart, how it engulfs every cell in the body. How it can affect the physical body via vibrations and frequency, how those occurrences are only possible because there is a unity of particles that make up the unity of cells that made up the unity of the organ systems, that make up a circumstance that supports biochemical lifeforms.
All of those things exist in the same field yet are individualized. My brain, seperate of my consciousness, still can utilize that consciousness to recognize itself as a brain in a flesh capsule talking about itself as it wonders about itself.
Is the stacked complexity of such systems of particles, cells, and organs, a necessity to forming consciousness or does it all form from consciousness? Do we ignore that it is a biochemical response that forms our actions and not our conscious? Do we ignore that consciousness is not a part of the physiological body but a producer of it? It takes two people, two consciousnesses, to form a new person with consciousness. Whether consciously or accidentally, they wield the power consciousness has, being both a consciousness but also a biochemical machine.
We shouldn't confuse that integral part of our individual and collective consciousness as belonging to that biochemical process.
There is no proof or disproof that consciousness is created by neural connections, this is assumed 'common sense, except that you can remove half the brain and consciousness isn't majorly effected. You can replace someone's heart and they'll acquire memories and feelings and behaviours from the donor.
The brain has nothing to do with consciousness, it is a biochemical processor of information, not a holder of consciousness. Sure you can completely destroy all signs of consciousness with damage to the brain, but life can persist with such damage. Life and consciousness and the brain are not all intertwined inexplicably. The loss of consciousness is not the loss of life, the destruction of the brain despite removing the individuals ability to process their consciousness and act it out does not mean there's a total loss of consciousness, only that the mechanism through which consciousness interfaced and interacted with reality has been damaged.
I find that consciousness is the invisible 'Force' that builds that which it interacts through. It is self perpetuating and self creating, it is not as our reality would commonly be seen to behave. Our senses are limited extremely to a particles equivalent size on the ENTIRE AVAILABLE SPECTRUM of experiences. We only see the rainbow colors, and further the gap at the beginning and end of that spectrum is filled in by the brain with magenta to form a circular like array of available experience. Just as the brain takes in images by the eyes and flips it to be right side up and does whatever it does to make those images flow together into motion, it also fills in the gaps of our experiences. Hence why optical illusions can occur.
We CANNOT OBJECTIVELY RELY ON OUR BRAINS and senses to portray an accurate image of the actuality of reality around us. We don't see enough, hear enough, we can't feel enough, or even perceive enough.
We the brain and human are the lens, not the seeing eye. It is our consciousness that moves us, incites our responses and reactions, our brain is just a processor of those things to turn them into sensable experiences to work within. It's our consciousness, and consciousness in general, that produces the means to experience such things at all.
From the vibrating particle to the energetic cell to the functioning organ to the self aware brain, without consciousness these things would be empty and devoid of purpose or reason. The particle would be undefined. The cell would be static, the organ still, the brain empty of firing neurons producing thought and emotion.
Consciousness isn't human, and we cannot apply our ways of experiencing as valid controls to base other forms of consciousness off of. If a tree is conscious, it is conscious differently from human consciousness. Birds can see more colors than we, dogs can smell more than we can, cats can hear more than we can. Animals are different enough despite basic similarities.
They can all sense as we can, yet what they do with that information is different because their consciousness is different.
Considering we now know trees can feel and communicate, and even tell when it's dehydrated and starving or being cut, we can say plants sense, they do so differently from animals, but they do so nonetheless, and if this similarity from humans to animals can make animals conscious then the similarity from animals to plants should make them conscious.
Further because of the lowering of complexity of sensing as we move from human to animal to plant, the modes of sensation by say, a rock, may be so simple and subtle we'd mistake it as empty of reaction.
Yet a fire is conscious, it consumes and reproduces, it reacts albeit on an extremely simplistic scale of physical and chemical reactions. Hot arid air accentuates it's chemical response. Humid damp air slows it. It's senses are of chemical responses to it's surroundings. It's basic nature is finite but it's extinguishment does not imply extinction, it is able to manifest because it is conscious.
Water reacts in it's own ways as does air and rock.
Rock against the chemical reaction of impact splits, a reproduction, leading down to smaller forms, with smaller forms building to greater ones, as with fire, and water, and air.
Air against the chemical reaction of motion pulled and pushed to formations, cyclones to walls of roaming air, further created by the motions of water swaying up and down.
Water itself reacts to chemical reactions, evaporates, condenses.
The basic elements have a different mode of consciousness, a simpler mode of reaction and action only. To grow. To move. To be. To roll. To be reduced, to be increased.
Wind, fire, water can rage. Rock too can rage.
So moving further down, consciousness changes, simplified the smaller we get.
By the point of particles, consciousness requires consciousness to react at all, without an observer there is no reaction, only infinite potential.
So, I find this in tandem with the Reciprocal Theory to be a promising adventure into new explorations of reality.
I often joke that Star Trek's Space Exploration is the penultimate frontier, with the True Final Frontier being Reality Exploration.
...Thank you for sharing these... I am greatly intrigued.