Consciousness and the World

New neural pathways, greater complexity; producing an advanced consciousness. What is the absolute though, perception or consciousness? Because the mind is only proportional to one of the two, that being of the one that changes, not absolute.

Holiday,

Actually the two, consciouness and perception are inseparable, if one where to separate them, it would be in fact be to separate subject from object. "The mind is only proportional to one of the two, that being the one that changes, it being not absolute." Where on earth do you come by this, please explain as it stands, I am befuddled.

I thought of it. It is under the assumption though that consciousness is an instant evolutionary achievement to the mind. As the compexity of the mind and its organization progresses, a breach into the self aware realm would be instant, or at least I doubt there is a superposition to consciousness and computerness; lol. My brain is not awake tonight at 1 am.

Subject and object works fine, really when you think about it.

Befuddled, combuffled, its all good, lol.

My understanding of consciousness is God and mind are the same thing. Inner thinking is God in motion, which is cause, the effect of cause is reflected onto the screen which I call the material world. and has no substance, my senses deceive me into thinking its real. Richardgrant

... so - in short - I'm just a figment of your mind?

How can the environment be material when it is just waves, and lesser forms. Like the 3D substance we perceive as reality is just our mind at an intellectual level that can translate the actuality of a 2Dness into 3D perception. If we had a mind at a higher level, able to cognate 4D processes then the reality would be translated to a 4D state. Perhaps theres a little of that in us at certain periods in our lives, but unable to record that as memory due to wanting adherence to the structure of our minds. lol.

We are material as much as the environment therefore we perceive based on complexity rather than form, b/c the form would denote to the same stuff in the end anyways.

The material world and all that I see out there is a clear reflection of the mind of God, who I AM, for I and the Father are One. this body of Richard is only an idea of who I AM. The idea itself is never created. The 'I' is an all inclusive word, meaning all there is. Richardgrant

Paulh,

Clark's "scaffolding" concept is certainly interesting. As I noted elsewhere, I am reading Clark's book "Microcognition" regarding PDP, and in it he make a similar point regarding how the mind's computational structures exploit regularities in the surrounding environment as to more efficiently and more expansively store and utilize information to enhance survival. As Boagie said, humans especially (but all animals, to varying extents) exploit a wide variety of environmental "constant conjunctions" as to expand survivability and species dominance; e.g. our sleep cycles, the sun and moon, the seasons, the tides, the pull of gravity, the spark of electrical charges, the glow of fire, etc. The world is our notepad, isn't it. The scaffolding was provided by nature and our species learned to climb it. We even learned the idea behind scaffolding and used it to create our own cognitive scaffolds, e.g. paper and pencil, books, computers, the internet, social memes, etc. (Think of the information that an ancient human culture managed to store and access through Stonehenge).

Now as to whether the concept of scaffolding from the cognitive standpoint (within the realm of Chalmers' "easy problem of the mind") can be extended to the core experience of consciousness (i.e., into the wilds of the "hard problem"), that is a VERY interesting question. We certainly do experience varying levels or degrees of consciousness over the course of any day. We exist in quasi zombie-like states in bored or depressed times (sounds like my job! Ditto for millions of others, so I've been told) for extended periods, e.g. driving to work, doing the wash, photocopying another report for the bosses. And then there are the peak moments, the thrill moments, the fulfilling experiences, the moments of time-slowing dread in the second before a terrible vehicle accident, the quasi-dread of a bungie jump, when the fountain of consciousness seems to runneth over. What might be a "scaffold" to support such intensity of "qualia" and emotional response, and what do they tell us?

Well, I agree that neuroscience can tell us a lot about neurotransmitters and neural map activations and neuron firing rates and constellation sizes and turnovers. These certainly are different in peak arousal versus depression and boredom. We can synthetically create activations that boost conscious experience levels; e.g. caffeine, alcohol, music, sexual symbolism, narcotic drugs, etc. They work in various ways, but the neurochemistry is rather cut and dried. So, I suppose these could be considered "scaffolds" towards pleasurable conscious intensity. Too bad that they often have deleterious long-term effects. In a way, they are like taking a loan; you can increase your pleasurable consciousness now, but you will pay back in the future with increased sleepiness, torpor and bad moods. Oh yes, let's not forget the bungie jumping and other high-risk recreation activities. They may not have many long-term mind-dulling side effects, but they certainly do increase the chances of injury and pain.

And then there are the less peaked but longer lasting boosts to conscious intensity given by positive social interactions and positive accomplishments. Society, at its best, acts as a scaffold to consciousness. Socializing with others can be a source of positive (and negative) arousal. People often enjoy activities such as eating or listening to music or viewing art or engaging in sports activities more when in the company of another person interested in the same. Accomplishments that are acknowledged by others are also a source of consciousness arousal. Just working towards an accomplishment that will likely be acknowledged, or will have some effect on others (hopefully positive effects) makes boredom go away, especially if engaged in with another person (or co-conspirator, in the case of criminal activity). So, happiness arguably requires some type of mental scaffolding, often in the form of social relationships and interactions. So too would the worst forms of angst and dread.

To the degree that we have "free will" then, or agent intentionality capacity, perhaps we seek those structures that get us out of the bogs of boredom and hopeless depression. Once we meet the other basics, e.g. oxygen, water, carbohydrates, temperature regulation, safety, security.

So, these are just some odd thoughts on the "scaffold to consciousness" idea. They don't amount to much more than folk philosophy, rough advice on 'what life is about'. But hey, "real philosophy" should ultimately say something on this level too. IMHO.

Jim G.

An Eternal Student Of / For Life

... I honestly don't know how to respond to that :perplexed: ...

... great post - I hadn't considered adrenaline-junkie activities as external scaffolding for consciousness, nor intimate social structures, but it kind of does make sense that external scaffolding for consciousness would correlate well with the kinds of things that make life worth living ... that perspective should give me something to noodle on for awhile :a-ok: ...

Could consciousness itself be an example of external scalfolding, a force upon the mind rather than creation of the mind? I honestly don't believe that but nice to here some supporting points to that.

Mind and God are One, what I see in the material world is a reflection of Mind (God) in motion,which is the effect, this has no substance, matter is but motion. Richardgrant

Hmmm, consciousness itself as a scaffolding, as taking the mind towards something further. Now we're getting close to teleology, and are perhaps flirting with religious interpretations. I'm not very good at arguing teleology and theology, one way or the other, so I'm going to get off the elevator on the floor housing that most nonreligious of religions, Buddhism. I'm not a practicing Buddhist, but from what I know of it, Buddhism does seem to emphasize meditation as a very important practice, as perhaps the best way of "getting it". Buddhist tradition doesn't seem to talk and speculate very much about whatever that "it" might be; they seem to say "sit and breath", then go live life.

I have had some limited success with meditation, and I do appreciate that it requires "conscious effort" to achieve. So in a way, consciousness could be said to scaffold the meditative experience. And to the degree that you believe that meditative experience is important to understanding reality in a higher way, or at least in a different and supplementary way than via the forms of conscious experience and cognition which western philosophers typically utilize, then perhaps consciousness and cognitive discipline does (or could) "scaffold" the mental realm towards some form of "wisdom".

But actually, couldn't good old western philosophy itself be considered a form of conscious scaffolding meant to direct mentality towards wisdom? And is wisdom and its attainment the big teleological end? Well, whatever the case .... I for one like it! (even if I've only had occasional tastes of it)

Jim G.

... maybe western philosophy is one example of a kind of consciousness that would be impossible without external scaffolding (such as scrolls, codices, books, the Internet, etc.) ... how one experiences self and the world in light of ingesting centuries worth of evolved insights and ideas could be significantly different than how one experiences self and the world in light of only having access to a relatively minute set of oral traditions ...

Yes, good point, the "long debate" of western philosophy could well be viewed as an external scaffold. But allow me take it another step (or go down trying). Perhaps the person who invests much time and effort into understanding and pondering the various themes of the western world's "school of wisdom-love" establishes internal structures within his or her mind, patterns of neuron connectivity that amount to "internal scaffolds". And hopefully, these scaffolds allow some desirable mind-state to emerge, some greater wisdom that may allow us to live better (hard to say if it has any ultimate survival value, in the natural selection sense; but perhaps).

Thinking back to Clark's book on PDP, an immediate question might be how the models of philosophical / critical thinking occur within a PDP-based computing structure, given that they appear to function more like classical symbol-processing, like rule-based computer programs of the good old linear / Von Neumann variety (not of the PDP-like "object oriented programming" style that you Java programmers are familiar with). But Clark uses many words in this book to establish that the brain may well be of a mixed-computing design, with linear symbol processors occurring as "virtual machines" floating on / carried out by a PDP understructure (which also forms the abstractions and concepts that are then symboled and manipulated, eventually reaching the social level through language communication).

So, western philosophy, for those who value it, might be seen to exist in the brain as a 'virtual machine'; i.e., an 'internal scaffold'. Now, as to the teleology of that which may emerge with the benefit of this scaffolding, well . . . perhaps it's wisdom, perhaps it's 'cosmic consciousness', perhaps it's meditative 'inner peace', perhaps it's theological realization and salvation, perhaps it's the escape from the Platonic cave and the view of the true forms, perhaps it's a life of virtue and contribution, perhaps it's the highest appreciation of beauty and sybaritic pleasure. I suppose that this is all part of the long debate, which goes on and on. And it is that which makes philosophy fun! (I hope).

Jim G
An Eternal Student Of / For Life

paulhanke

"He who knows the most, must mourn the deepest orr the fatal truth, the tree of knowledge is not that of life." Byron

... while I'm leaning away from PDP as the understructure (I'm reading an interesting book that asks if the brain is more of an edge-of-chaos dynamic system, given the ubiquity of these in nature) I'm certainly on board with the "virtual machine" concept ... but let's take it one step further - the understructure of these virtual machines (ranging from simple symbol manipulation systems all the way to consciousness?) is not just the brain - it's the brain + body + world ... stated another way, take away the brain and the virtual machine ceases to function; take away the body and the virtual machine ceases to function; take away the world and the virtual machine ceases to function ...



:a-ok:

"He who knows the most, he who knows what sweets and virtues are in the ground, the waters, the plants, the heavens, and how to come at these enchantments, is the rich and royal man." Emerson

Byron was a pessimist!!!

paulhanke.

Not bad if that is what was mean't, unfortunately it was not. His point was that scholarship in an individaul, the secondhand experience of such a life does not compare with actual experience, to read about a life, or to live one. The tree of knowledge you see, is not the tree of life. The holy grail you might say, is experience, first hand experience, that is life. As to his pessimism, what can I tell you, he was a Christian, addressing Christians, depressing!!

... ah, well - that's what I get for pulling quotes willy-nilly off the web, eh? :surrender: