Consciousness is a Biological Problem

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;74100 wrote:

Quite. The concern I am raising is with the 'death of the soul'. Our depiction as products of natural selection, a 'significant verterbrate' - amongst various other species of animal - whose intellectual functions are the output of organic matter, is, in my view, a debased understanding of homo sapiens insofar as it masquerades as 'philosophy'.

Which other verterbrate is capable, after all, of sapience? What is the particular significance of that word, which is the unique signifier of our species? I suggest you look into it.

I am not objecting to a functional analysis of human consciousness for the purposes of medical or cognitive science. These are fascinating and fruitful fields for study with much to teach and many years of discovery ahead. But I think there is another agenda at work in all this.

jeeprs, i dont see there being any problem with the death of the illusion of there being an individual soul. soul is there-but maybe our physical death only shuts off that little window that the whole was looking through and getting a small aspect of reality that otherwise would not have been visible.

i also dont see a problem in accepting the process of natural selection as a part of evolution, though it is hard to see in looking at the world around me. but if each human being had a sense of protecting the whole unit of homo sapiens and extending that to all that was knowable to him other than that which was destructive, it would produce the result of keeping that particular vertebrate going. as a matter of survival and maintainance of the species, why couldnt there also be a natural selection of brain ascribing to those philosophies which serve to promote the continuation of humanity?

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

I was using 'soul' as figure of speech. Hence the quotes. I don't believe there is 'a' soul or even 'a' God for that matter, in the sense of some thing or object which can be signified by that term. Nor do I have any difficulty with the principle of natural selection. I am perfectly comfortable with the knowledge that this body has descended from fish, lizard, mammal, ape, and so on. Foetuses have gills in the womb. 'Ontogony recapitulates phylogeny', or something like that. No problem with it. In fact I rather like it; makes me feel a strong sense of kinship with animals.

I was using 'death of the soul' - our vocabulary is rather impoverished in these matters - to signify the idea that there is nothing 'spiritual' (and if anyone has a better word, please send it my way) about Homo Sapiens. Most of the traditional schools of philosophy - Greek, Indian, Persian, and many others - have some version of the idea that we are, to put it in the current vernacular, 'spiritual beings having a human experience'. The viewpoint I am presenting assumes that view. I think the argument from the human faculty of reason and the rationality of the Universe, as presented by the Augustinian idea of the 'rational soul' is a very good argument. If I am proven wrong, I will change my mind.

Incidentally, on the use of religious vocabulary and the associated hazards,this booklooks very relevant.

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Kielicious;74092 wrote:

The topic was more along the lines of solving the hard-problem of consciousness in humans, which is clearly biological.

... ah - my mistake for not going back and reading the opening post in the first place! :ashamed:

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;74143 wrote:

I was using 'soul' as figure of speech. Hence the quotes. I don't believe there is 'a' soul or even 'a' God for that matter, in the sense of some thing or object which can be signified by that term. Nor do I have any difficulty with the principle of natural selection. I am perfectly comfortable with the knowledge that this body has descended from fish, lizard, mammal, ape, and so on. Foetuses have gills in the womb. 'Ontogony recapitulates phylogeny', or something like that. No problem with it. In fact I rather like it; makes me feel a strong sense of kinship with animals.

I was using 'death of the soul' - our vocabulary is rather impoverished in these matters - to signify the idea that there is nothing 'spiritual' (and if anyone has a better word, please send it my way) about Homo Sapiens. Most of the traditional schools of philosophy - Greek, Indian, Persian, and many others - have some version of the idea that we are, to put it in the current vernacular, 'spiritual beings having a human experience'. The viewpoint I am presenting assumes that view. I think the argument from the human faculty of reason and the rationality of the Universe, as presented by the Augustinian idea of the 'rational soul' is a very good argument. If I am proven wrong, I will change my mind.

Incidentally, on the use of religious vocabulary and the associated hazards,this booklooks very relevant.

then i must have misinterpreted your post!
i am not familiar with the augustinian idea of the rational soul. but if you are saying you believe we are spiritual beings having a human experience yet do not believe in the soul of god, that amounts to the same thing i said.

the soul being thought of as an immortal individual entity is a concept that may be totally false or at least misleading. but i would say we are a spiritual being (singular) having a human experience. we are also that spiritual being having an animal experience, plant experience, and mineral experience. at least it is looking that way to me today. but at the same time i can see no conflict in declaring that the mind equals the brain and that it is a matter of biological parameters. it simply has not as yet been connected to the underlying reality of the energy (which is no different from that which has been called 'spirit'). i am comfortable believing that my mind will be gone after my brain dies and i will cease to exist as the illusion of a separate and unique individual unit.

are we on the same track at all or have i taken a different train?

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

paulhanke;74183 wrote:

... ah - my mistake for not going back and reading the opening post in the first place! :ashamed:

No worries buddy. It was more implied anyways, I didnt specifically say humans but I think before we can crack the 'Mind Code' for AI specialists the problem needs to be solved in biological matters first.

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Quote:

are we on the same track at all or have i taken a different train?

The original post was about 'mind and brain', whether they are the same or different, and various theories about the nature of mind, namely dualism, epiphenomanilism, and so on.

There are many meanings of these terms 'mind', 'consciousness', 'soul, 'intellect', and so on. And the mode of expression I used in the introducing the phrase 'death of soul' lends itself to mis-interpretation. Perhaps I ought not to have introduced it. The point I was making is to challenge various forms of scientific reductionism which portray the human being as a purely physical being and try and eliminate or explain away the spiritual aspect of the being. Again, 'spiritual' is not a very satisfactory word for what I am trying to convey, but there aren't many choices.

Basically I was challenging the idea that consciousness is an exclusive product of the brain, or something that can be understood in purely biological terms, on the basis that 'consciousness' is a much larger phenomenon than the activity of the individual brain. This is the idea that consciousness, or 'Mind' in the broader sense, is the underlying reality. Various forms of this understanding can be found in traditional Western and Eastern philosophies.

Anyway that is all from me for the next week, going on leave to a place out in the mountains.

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

It would be so nice--I'd be willing to bet you'd all understand and agree--to be able to post every single day, or twice, or more, a day. . . alas. . . there is the immediate need to act in a way so as to survive in a world much more directly in contact with my actual, physical being.
[INDENT](just a fancy kind of way to foreshadow the potential lack of my posting quantity in the next few weeks or month or so. . . the spring/summer semester is going into its last quarter--finals to be compiled, reports to hand in to administration, grading to be done...and getting the freshman seminar organized and up and running [not to mention battling all the weeds attacking my yard and garden back at the house])
[/INDENT]I will do my best to keep up, as much as I can. . . please do accept my apologies in advance.

Nice to hear you pitching in, paulhanke, please do feel free to interject anytime you have the notion. As iron sharpens iron, probing, testing, and discussing all fine points can only lead to better overall understanding of matters being discussed, I'd say.

I would propose, when carefully looking over the portion you had quoted in your #118 that it had been self-contained, and in that manner, to that degree, holds. It is rather saying, using the particular choice of subject you have chosen, that 'all the pots we have are metal, but we can see that pot design has a range of difference, so let's investigate that.'

Just in case, allow me please to demonstrate the point--at the cost of dragging a bit (I'm sorry, but while I could be wrong, I just feel that there might be a need of doing this carefully now, in order to avoid similar conflicts down the road). First of all, here is the quoted section:

[INDENT][quote]Therefore, when we approach this organ first, we must take it on the basis of its being an arrived at organ (just as lungs would be) AND (I feel it cannot be overstressed) as being a point on that continuum, not something different from and/or excluded from the group of other specimens of that fundamentally same organ. What this will entail, therefore, for inquiries into consciousness, is the element of being conscious that is an element of all ganglion/brain as it leads up to that particular brain build that projects the consciousness of the modern H. sapien. This will mean, without valid rebut, that we must first take the brain, and by extension consciousness (because it is simply a certain level of conscious [brain activity]), as the result of biological processes, thus a biological matter. [/quote] (#116
[/INDENT]
We will see, with the expression 'when we approach this organ first' that the subject, as fitted in the overall context, is the brain. A further analytic designation, supported by the average of aggregrate evidences, is that this organ we are focusing on, the brain, is an entity which has come to be, as opposed to one that has suddenly appeared on the world scene (nature). Additionally, in that it is an entity which has been arrived at through a line of processes over a large span of time, it is very much a point on that 'process line,' thus a point in a continuum of biological development.

Then, the cross over point, viz. ' What this will entail, therefore, for inquiries into consciousness, is the element of being conscious that is an element of all ganglion/brain as it leads up to that particular brain build that projects the consciousness of the modern H. sapien' is an advanced (please note: this usage is not as in opposition to the term 'beginner,' or 'fundamental') proposition based on the fact that up to the first decade of the 21st century, we can clearly see natural evolutionary process as a single catagory of investigation. It is only true that 'consciousness' has a given definition which we should strive to adhere to when discussing it, and it is only true that non-biological entities to date cannot be said to have states of 'consciousness' as set by the perimeters of that very definition.

It must also be taken into careful consideration that present knowledge gives us an understanding that active ganglion material is conscious material, yet, having a degree of 'state of living activity' (conscious <not equal to consciousness' adjective>) alone, does not amount to having a state of consciousness. To this degree, in this more validly demonstrated understanding, neuronal (ganglionic) tissue is conscious, and increments in complexity and integration, among a few other things, has, over the span of time that biological forms have evolved through, achieved a certain level of these factors so as to have arrived at a particular build of organ (the brain) which projects what we have defined as 'consciousness.'

In summary we can surely conclude, therefore, that up to our present point in time, which we are surely focusing on here in this thread (as opposed to theoretical AI models of the future), we only have the H. sapien brain projecting consciousness--while it and all ganglion structures/tissue is conscious. Also, it would only make for better discussion methodolgy to adhere to one catagory of evolution (as evidence from that supports evidences which lead to further developed conclusions), and that would be natural evolution in the classic sense. For the moment, therefore, consciousness is a biological problem.

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;74421 wrote:

This will mean, without valid rebut, that we must first take the brain, and by extension consciousness (because it is simply a certain level of conscious [brain activity]), as the result of biological processes, thus a biological matter.

... as an observation, it would seem (at times) that you and jeeprs are not all that far apart ... jeeprs says, "Again, 'spiritual' is not a very satisfactory word for what I am trying to convey, but there aren't many choices", the implication being that what he's trying to convey is more tangible than pure idea; you say "... as the result of biological processes, thus a biological matter", the implication being that what you're trying to convey is more ephemeral than pure material.

I would hazard to guess that neither of you would disagree with the idea that evolution is chasing after (and in humans has found) "conscious form" (in scare quotes because this is not necessarily a material form but could be a processual form) ... where your opinions seem to diverge is the source of that form: jeeprs has taken the position that "conscious form" is fundamental, lawful, and unchanging; I think you are taking the position that "conscious form" is contingent, co-evolutionary, and ecological ... let's see if I can spin things so that you are both right. Wink

In looking at the universe as a dynamical system with an unfathomly large state space that covers all formal contingencies, the space of forms is fundamental, lawful, and unchanging ... this state space describes every possible form that could arise in every possible unfolding of a universe ... however, the unfolding of this universe is contingent, co-evolutionary, and ecological ... the forms that are visited in our universe only represent the minutest fraction of the total space of forms, and are only momentary "ideals" in ever-changing fitness landscapes ... does that work for anybody?

KaseiJin;74421 wrote:

... we only have the H. sapien brain projecting consciousness--while it and all ganglion structures/tissue is conscious.

But what are the logical implications of such a statement? ... if I take a blob of ganglion tissue and cut it in half, are both halves conscious? ... and what if I halve the halves again and again, ad infinitum? ... given that you discuss physicalist processes earlier in the post, perhaps this was simply an unintended slip into a materialistic way of expressing things ... then again, maybe there is more materialism to your argument than meets the eye?

KaseiJin;74421 wrote:

For the moment, therefore, consciousness is a biological problem.

... I see no reason to argue with that! Wink

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

i see biology as being a problem for consciousness since it is limiting, yet at the same time consciousness could not change or evolve without it.

on the other hand, does Consciousness ever really change? it seems that it co-evolves in this state, but does it really or can it? and if not, does it matter? how can something with all/no attributes-or does it only have all possibilities and probabilities?-actually change?

0 Replies

@paulhanke,

In feeling hard pressed with so many events, requirements of my presence, mind, and so on, I am a bit reluctant to post in such a non-involved-like manner. Nevertheless, I too feel a certain pressure to let it be known that I am following along, and have things on the back burner.

I plea that all do make an effort to understand, and please do allow any degree of room for the emotions of alturism, to forgive me for that, as I touch on just this one point, here.

In reference to my, 'In summary we can surely conclude, therefore, that up to our present point in time, which we are surely focusing on here in this thread (as opposed to theoretical AI models of the future), we only have the H. sapien brain projecting consciousness--while it and all ganglion structures/tissue is conscious (which I urge needs to be taken in whole, as per the context of that post) the following has been brought out:

paulhanke;75671 wrote:

But what are the logical implications of such a statement? ... if I take a blob of ganglion tissue and cut it in half, are both halves conscious? . . . maybe there is more materialism to your argument than meets the eye?

I greatly appreciate and enjoy the participation, and wish to respond by saying that, as I have pointed out a number of times, I am not using the word 'conscious' as an adjective form of the noun 'consciousness,' but rather as a quasi-noun, and then, in some immediate contextual settings, as an adjective from that quasi-noun. 'A single living active neuron will have a state of conscious, and if that neuron is destroyed, it does not have that state,' is the framing of that term as I use it. The reason for that is to eliminate the awkwardness of having but to use terms like 'unconscious, ' sub-conscious,' or 'unconsciousness;' and a few others.

Then, it is true that even those who are fully pursuing animal studies, are yet a bit reluctant to outright say at full positive value the likes of, 'yes, the non-human primates' (to make it even easier [the mouse, or the frog, would be a bit harder, you see]) 'have states of consciousness just as the H. sapien does; so there you have it!' No, we only say that the H. sapien has this advanced state of conscious activity level which is this 'consciousness.' The H. sapien brain, of course, has various levels of living active brain tissue and neurons (in some cases very likely even single neurons for some things)...we are not dead when sleeping, but we do not call that as being in a state of consciousness either.

Thus, due to the 'oldness' of the English language that we are using--as I have worked on putting forth elsewhere, before--we would best make changes there. Some of the neuroscientists who have mentioned the same, did not propose any terms, but just mentioned the lack of English (maybe that's because they do not have connections with pragmatic linguistical elements of English as a language?). I propose a term change, namely, conscious as a quasi-noun (and its new adjective form). The ganglia of the octopus, or the jellyfish are conscious, just as much as the cellular structure of the spinocerebellum is, but none of those can presently be thought of as having states of consciousness--as (as should be most obvious) we only apply towards the H. sapien within that certain range of conscious, at the moment [since the other Homo species are extinct].

Therefore, in regards the statement as a whole, which you have carefully looked at, paulhanke, it is to point out that up to the present point in evolutionary history (and in the state of this point, thus other Prosimians, Simians, and Hominoids are not considered), only the H. sapien (of all life forms known to us) enjoys what we have generally determined to be consciousness. (see #52, #58, #60, and #86 ) And to point out that active, living neurons (among a few glia cells as well) due to this very fact of living, are conscious--meaning being in a state of conscious [viz. alive and active] . And that statement had been made to demonstrate the purpose, content, and application of an earlier statement which had been put to the test.

I do hope this makes this much clear enough. I will touch on other points raised, yes, but please allow time, I am backlogged already...sorry. KJ

1 Reply

@KaseiJin,

KaseiJin;75808 wrote:

... I am not using the word 'conscious' as an adjective form of the noun 'consciousness,' but rather as a quasi-noun, and then, in some immediate contextual settings, as an adjective from that quasi-noun. 'A single living active neuron will have a state of conscious, and if that neuron is destroyed, it does not have that state,' is the framing of that term as I use it. The reason for that is to eliminate the awkwardness of having but to use terms like 'unconscious, ' sub-conscious,' or 'unconsciousness;' and a few others.

... I think I see where you're coming from and can sympathize with your intentions ... but in creating the concept of a quasi-noun (conscious) that scales down a process (consciousness) and attributes some essence of it to each and every component part whose interactions give rise to the process, don't you create an explosion of quasi-noun attributions? ... for example, neurons participate in lots of processes:

- consciousness
- muscle control
- visual/auditory/tactile sensing
- procipriation
- circadian rhythm
- artificial neural nets (yes, scientists have integrated biological and artificial neurons in the lab)
- etc.

... so then does a single living active neuron simultaneously have a state of conscious, and a state of muscle control, and a state of sensing, and a state of procipriation, and a state of circadian rhythm, and a state of artificial neural net, and so on, for each and every process that a neuron could possibly participate in? ... or is it more accurate to say that a single living active neuron only has a state of conscious when it is participating in a conscious process, and only has a state of muscle control when it is participating in a muscle control process, and only has a state of sensing when it is participating in a sensing process, and so on? ... in which case the state of conscious cannot be intrinsic to neurons, as it only comes into being when a neuron is participating in a conscious process, yes?

KaseiJin;75808 wrote:

... meaning being in a state of conscious [viz. alive and active]

... of course, if you mean the quasi-noun "conscious" to be a synonym for "alive and active", that's something else entirely ... but I would suggest that in so doing you are just confusing things, as it leads to very bizarre-sounding statements such as "The ganglia of the octopus, or the jellyfish are conscious ... but none of those can presently be thought of as having states of consciousness." ... it seems much more straightforward just to say "The ganglia of the octopus, or the jellyfish are alive and active ... but none of those can presently be thought of as having states of consciousness."

Going back to the reason for introducing "conscious" as a quasi-noun in the first place ("to eliminate the awkwardness of having but to use terms like 'unconscious, ' sub-conscious,' or 'unconsciousness;' and a few others"), would it work simply to say that "consciousness", "unconsciousness", etc., are irrelevant at the level of individual neurons due to the fact that they name emergent properties of dynamic collectives of neurons?

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

KJ i have to agree with paul on that, your use of the word conscious has been giving me trouble all along. and i also wanted to get into the area of labeling the areas of consciousness or states or levels of consciousness, because they sooner or later will enter the discussion. no matter how you feel about accepting the terms subconscious/conscious/unconscious, they are legitimate concepts.

in my understanding, conscious is used as an adjective to describe the state of a person as opposed to unconscious-other terms describing the full spectrum of awareness of a human being would be asleep, which has a number of levels in itself, comatose, vegetative, and so on.

however when the terms conscious mind/subconscious mind are used, the words fit together to name a part of the process of consciousness-and you may be running into a problem here because you are looking for a physical partition in the brain rather than a specific level within the process the brain is generating.

i hate to say this, mere bhai, but if you are the only person who is using the word conscious in the way you do, can you instead try and find a way to use the terms we are using, even if you feel they are not appropriate? perhaps by redefining them?

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

Quote:

In looking at the universe as a dynamical system with an unfathomly large state space that covers all formal contingencies, the space of forms is fundamental, lawful, and unchanging ... this state space describes every possible form that could arise in every possible unfolding of a universe ... however, the unfolding of this universe is contingent, co-evolutionary, and ecological

Very good point. But it doesn't really address my concern with the materialist theories of mind. In fact I think you are providing a synthesis within which both the biological and idealistic interpretations have their place - which I can't disagree with, because each does have its place. What troubles me is the reductionist attitude, 'nothing but biology'.

I recall the idea of a 'holarchy'. This was an idea by Arthur Koestler, I believe. The idea is that there are physical, chemical, biological, physiological, psychological, etc, levels of organisation. Each level includes all the attributes of the level beneath, but possessess additional non-reducible characteristics which cannot usefully be explained in terms of the level beneath. Hence, a hierarchy of holons - a holarchy. As much as physicalists would like to describe everything in terms of physics, it is necessary to introduce chemistry to understand the interactions of substances which cannot be described by the equation of physics. Then biology is needed to understand living matter. At the topmost and most subtle levels, awareness contemplates awareness in the immaterial forms as depicted in Neo-platonism and classical idealism and other traditional philosophies. Of course as I have acknowledged very few will accept this idea nowadays and it will be regarded by many as wildly anachronistic. I don't believe so, however. Also, the marvellous thing about the holarchy is that is inclusive, not exclusive. One level doesn't exclude another, they are all part of a larger whole. If that is what you are saying then I quite agree.

But isn't the whole neurological explanation of consciousness based on explaining a higher level of organisation - namely, the organisation of mind and ideas - in terms of the lower, namely the organisation of the parasympathetic nervous system, the actions of ganglions, and neurons, and so on. Isn't this a classically reductionist approach to the whole question of all the many wondrous and diverse activities and products of the human consciousness? I do understand the temptation for some to seek the certainty of newtonian science in the analysis of consciousness but I will always dispute it.

Anyway, looking at the original post again, perhaps I am not really addressing the original topic, which is only that there is a connection between mind and brain. Obviously there is. But I will always object to materialist theories of mind whenever the opportunity presents itself. 'Why bind yourself to the Insentient? Surely you must know the prize can only be oblivion?'

2 Replies

@jeeprs,

Hi Jeeprs,

Nice set of post's arguing for the notion of "levels of being", and consciousness and self-awareness being higher than matter.

To address the OP - I also have no argument that the brain is a vehicle of consciousness, having said that, consciousness and self-awareness cannot be reduced to that vehicle.

A good book that I read a long time ago arguing for this position is:
"A Guide For The Perplexed" by E.F. Schumacher

Amazon.com: Guide for the Perplexed: E. F. Schumacher: Books

I like your vocabulary Jeeprs; words do carry a lot of meaning. We hear a lot about humans having "SENTIENCE" but not much about humans also being "NOETIC" creatures.

Thanks for presenting your views.

1 Reply

@Jay phil,

Jay;76315 wrote:

... I also have no argument that the brain is a vehicle of consciousness, having said that, consciousness and self-awareness cannot be reduced to that vehicle.

Hey Jay,

Could I ask for clarification on the last part of this statement - just for my own curiosity? Are you saying that consciousness and self-awareness are different from the brain-vehicle (as in a product or dynamic existing because of the brain), or that consciousness and self-awareness are not equal to the brain and its individual components (which I'd think should be obvious).

Not sure why I stumbled on that, but am genuinely curious.

Thanks

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;76293 wrote:

Also, the marvellous thing about the holarchy is that is inclusive, not exclusive. One level doesn't exclude another, they are all part of a larger whole. If that is what you are saying then I quite agree.

... this concept of a "holarchy" is very similar to how I look at things ... one major difference being that I don't take the "immaterial" plunge ... perhaps my understanding of how the word is used is off, but it seems to me that the usual connotation is one of transcending the physical - that is, able to exist in the absence of any matter/energy substrate at all ... I don't see a reason or need to postulate such a thing ... processes that are merely multiply realizable (able to exist on top of multiple matter/energy substrates) seem to be enough to establish the "holarchy", without taking a transcendent leap.

jeeprs;76293 wrote:

But isn't the whole neurological explanation of consciousness based on explaining a higher level of organisation - namely, the organisation of mind and ideas - in terms of the lower, namely the organisation of the parasympathetic nervous system, the actions of ganglions, and neurons, and so on. Isn't this a classically reductionist approach to the whole question of all the many wondrous and diverse activities and products of the human consciousness?

... it depends upon what you are trying to explain ... if you are trying to explain the process of consciousness based solely upon neurology, you are almost surely lost because a growing body of evidence indicates that the multiple realizability of processes is the norm ... on the other hand, if you are trying to explain the peculiarities of the human realization of consciousness, then you do need to understand the underlying biological substrate ... this does not mean that consciousness is reducible to biology - it just means that certain peculiarities of the human realization of consciousness are reducible to biology.

jeeprs;76293 wrote:

'Why bind yourself to the Insentient? Surely you must know the prize can only be oblivion?'

... why divorce yourself from the insentient? ... the mother of all things - the universe - is herself insentient! Smile

0 Replies

@Kielicious,

"... why divorce yourself from the insentient? ... the mother of all things - the universe - is herself insentient! Smile

..............."paulhanke

that is what i had come to think. if it is unchanging and absolute how can it learn anything? can it be having experience through the manifestation of physicality without learning from it? i think it is impotent rather than insentient-it can know and feel through us and maybe it even acts through us but in such a convoluted and often self defeating manner that it may as well be impotent.

2 Replies

@salima,

"Could I ask for clarification on the last part of this statement - just for my own curiosity? Are you saying that consciousness and self-awareness are different from the brain-vehicle (as in a product or dynamic existing because of the brain), or that consciousness and self-awareness are not equal to the brain and its individual components (which I'd think should be obvious)."

Hi Khethil

I will give it a try.

I am one who has over the decades, (by persuasion and strong reluctance), come to hold the view that the material order is not the only order, and given that, I also hold that there is such a concept as "levels of being" (qualitative higher and lower levels of being). To use the structural model that E.F.Schunacher uses from his book "A Guide For The Perplexed":

Self-Awareness = Man
Consciousness = Animal
Life................. = Plant
Inanimate Matter = Mineral

Structurally speaking, the lower does not include the higher but the higher includes the lower. The different levels are a difference in kind not of degree. Each level up is a qualitative difference not a quantative difference. You cannot get from a lower level to a higher level by just quantifying or extending that level.
The higher does not divorce it's self from the lower, but the higher is the measure for the lower.

I am not trying to prove anything here, but only give a structural view of how I understand things at this point in time, and I know that can change at any moment, especially given this model.

From Jeepre

If I am not misinterpreting what Jeepre is trying to say in this bold statement:
Is, in this structural model (levels of being), the brain (the material) or the organic (life) cannot reach by extension consciousness or self-awareness. The lower level cannot "stretch up" to the higher. It works the other way around. The higher infuses the lower. (I am trying to avoid using any theistic words here; I know how inflammatory they can be and I am aware that what I am saying is offensive enough to many).

My problem with just the material model, when viewing and interpreting "reality" (myself and the world around me) by just the material order or by just the riggers of science, I find that the qualitative aspects of existence slip away. We are left with just a flat horizontal plane of material process. Man is nothing but "the naked ape". There is no vertical progress, no place for humanity to go. We just exist out of the shape of our own minds, nothing higher. We just go on repeating our selves. So I am very concerned with the questions of what it means to acquire a qualitatively higher level of understanding and level of being. I see this as basically a question of ontology (how one be's - the quality of ones being).

I see consciousness and self-awareness as qualitatively different than brain/matter.

I would say that consciousness is not just a biological matter.

Just one persons view.

0 Replies

@salima,

salima;76504 wrote:

... if it is unchanging and absolute ...

... ah, but is she unchanging and absolute? ... in a flash, she was born - a dense and rapidly expanding plasma of energy ... continuing to expand, a critical density point was passed - a phase change occurred, and the first matter condensed from the plasma ... this was the newborn's first act of creation ... and in this act of creation, she also established the affordance for her next: the interaction of energy with matter into feedback-laden gradient flows, where the flows pushed matter into higher-order structures and those structures constrained the ensuing flows, ad infinitum - the universe had created processes ... countless quasars and stars and galaxies and planets and plants and animals and humans later ... well, let's just say that "impotent" is one of the last words I'd choose to characterize her - she's the very essence of creation! Wink

1 Reply

@Kielicious,

Quote:

the mother of all things - the universe - is herself insentient!

Not a nice thing to say about your mother!:bigsmile:

The assumption is still that intelligence arises from insentience, that life arose from the accidental collocation of atoms (to quote Russell.) Most people do assume that, but I still think it is incorrect. There is a sense in which the view that most moderns hold - namely, that the world of ordinary perception is the sole reality and that is arises due to causes detectable by scientific analysis - is actually the malady that philosophy originally set out to treat. (Mind you, if I had a neurological condition, I would sure rather be treated by a modern than by an ancient.)

Here is a depiction of the various traditional cosomological heirarchies and holarchies.

2 Replies

Consciousness is a Biological Problem

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know