Can we think of consciousness as a force of nature?

@JLNobody,

Interesting, the act of deliberately looking at something is dependent upon first having a pre-reflective awareness of one's own perception. When we are pre-reflectively, or as you say, "passively" seeing, then there is a sense in which we are almost unaware that there is anything to look at. Then we find ourselves becoming aware, maybe first of our environment, then of ourselves as perceiving an environment, and then awareness seems to increase.

I don't think both seeing and looking are forms of consciousness though. We may see things, but are not always aware that we do. That is surely, what we would call "unconscious".

You say that "When I simply open my eyes I find myself passively seeing", but there is a very real sense in which you never "find yourself" seeing, because simply seeing is a pre-reflective or non-positional state of consciousness. Its a non-cognitive state. A lower animal is always in that state, in which case you could say that they are unconscious, because they never develop that more cognitive, positional self-awareness.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Was it the Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, who characterized philosophical understanding as "like the punchline of a joke: you either 'get it' or you don't"?

0 Replies

@existential potential,

Very good, Existential Potential. This is the goal of such discussions. You have refined mine without totally disregarding my point. You DID understand me point well, and you did improve upon it, particularly your addition of the dimension of the "unconscious." I should have seen that without your help. But it am fortunate to have gotten it.
BTW, meditation, as I experience it, is both conscious (in the sense that there is intense awareness) and unconscious (there is no looked for, or recalled, object of awareness--as you called it, it's a "non-cognitive state". Samadhi). Indeed, time flies by very fast and one usually cannot say what one was aware of.

1 Reply

@existential potential,

Quote:

I don't think both seeing and looking are forms of consciousness though. We may see things, but are not always aware that we do. That is surely, what we would call "unconscious".

Doesn't this view pretty much equate consciousness with self awareness?
In the context of consciousness as a force of nature I am leaning closer to equating consciousness with life, and in the "final" perspective with everything.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

I hope that's right. I'd prefer a Cosmos that's alive rather than mechanically dead.

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

I am not able to make sense of a dead cosmos.

0 Replies

@JLNobody,

JLNobody wrote:

I hope that's right. I'd prefer a Cosmos that's alive rather than mechanically dead.

I doubt that we r sufficiently FORTUNATE
to dwell in a dead Cosmos, but we'd be safer from depredation,
if we did. What happened to the Indians when we arrived ??

If we arrive at an unknown, unexplored place,
if we find it populated by mosquitos, snakes, toads, etc.
we will not negotiate with the natives (said snakes, etc.).
We 'll just take over and use it as we wish.

If beings arrive from another Gallaxy,
thay will thereby have shown a more advanced technology than we have.

Will the mental difference between us and them
exceed that between us and toads ?

Defensive trouble ????

If a sweet, benign superspecies arrives here (the Vulcans or E.T.)
does that mean that there r not large numbers of predatory species (Borg, Clingons or worse ?) out there ?????

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

I read somewhere the question being put to those who deal with these alien scenarios. The question was why it is so often assumed that any species arriving from outer space would be hostile.
The answer given is most often something to the effect of the considerations you bring here.

But it is an assumption, of course, and to be honset, I would rather have big orbital defense systems and not need them than not have them and need them. But chances are that any intelligent species would have little or no desire to make contact with us. At least not before our "collective conscience" catches up to our "collective reason".

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I read somewhere the question being put to those who deal with these alien scenarios. The question was why it is so often assumed that any species arriving from outer space would be hostile.
The answer given is most often something to the effect of the considerations you bring here.

But it is an assumption, of course, and to be honset, I would rather have big orbital defense systems and not need them than not have them and need them. But chances are that any intelligent species would have little or no desire to make contact with us. At least not before our "collective conscience" catches up to our "collective reason".

I 'm concerned that thay 'd have plans for our assets (real estate and liquid water)
possibly including our SERVICES and that their plans
possibly might be inconsistent with our values.

Note that even among humen,
when the nazis or the commies invaded,
THEIR plans were inconsistent with the values of some of the local populations
and THEIR DNA was exactly the same as the victim populations;
not so (presumably) an invasive ET super species.

Regardless of whether MIGHT makes right,
might makes HOW ITS GONNA BE.

We don 't wanna be left wishing for the Good Ol Days,
like the Weimar Republic or the Czar of Russia.

If we showed up at an island with a lot of mosquitos,
we might well get the idea to just FUMIGATE,
regardless of for how many centuries or millions of years
the (ex-) mosquitos had been around.

Our "collective conscience" does not have much to do with that.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

THEIR plans were inconsistent with the values of some of the local populations
and THEIR DNA was exactly the same as the victim populations;
not so (presumably) an invasive ET super species.

Alternatively, we could perhaps argue that their dna was what made them behave the way they did. Some ET might not be burdened by that particular baggage.

By "collective conscience" I was referring to our culturally and socially accepted patterns of behaviour, such as fumigating an entire islang because it's convenient. If our patterns of behaviour and thinking were different we might not be inclined to bring out the bug spray.

But to be honest, this is not an issue I am very concerned with. Aliens I mean. There are enought incomprehensible specimens on this planet already, and as you point out, they share our dna.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
THEIR plans were inconsistent with the values of some of the local populations
and THEIR DNA was exactly the same as the victim populations;
not so (presumably) an invasive ET super species.

Alternatively, we could perhaps argue that their dna was what made them behave the way they did. Some ET might not be burdened by that particular baggage.

By "collective conscience" I was referring to our culturally and socially accepted patterns of behaviour, such as fumigating an entire islang because it's convenient. If our patterns of behaviour and thinking were different we might not be inclined to bring out the bug spray.

But to be honest, this is not an issue I am very concerned with. Aliens I mean. There are enought incomprehensible specimens on this planet already, and

as you point out, they share our dna.

I was referring to the nazis, not to the bugs, tho thay share it too.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Yes, nazis are were the incomprehensible specimens I was referring to who share our dna.

2 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Consciousness, as we define it, is certainly a force IN nature (e.g. this conversation is an expression of that), if not a force OF nature as used in the title of this thread (I'm not sure what the latter means). Prepositions are critical.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Yes, nazis are were the incomprehensible specimens I was referring to who share our dna.

My point is that if beings with whom we 1OO% share DNA (commies & nazis)
prey upon us anyway, then alien creatures with whom we DON'T share it (or not as much of it)
are more likely to be predatory (upon us).

Therefore, we shoud NOT endeavor to attract them HERE.

We shoud keep a low profile, so far as that is possible.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

My point is that if beings with whom we 1OO% share DNA (commies & nazis)
prey upon us anyway, then alien creatures with whom we DON'T share it (or not as much of it)
are more likely to be predatory (upon us).

They might consider us an endangered species and therefore decide that we are worthy of preservation. It is a judgment call we sometimes make regarding creatures with dissimilar dna from us.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

You may be interested in this little essay I found on the net.

http://www.def-logic.com/articles/silby011.html

It describes what Ned Block refers to as "phenomenal consciousness" and "access consciousness", and contrasts his distinction with a couple of other views relating to it.

From what I understand, this distinction is somewhat similar to Sartre’s distinction between “non-positional self-awareness” and “positional self-awareness”. I think there may be some differences however. When we are phenomenally conscious of something in our environment, we are not aware of ourselves as being aware of that thing. For example, you may been having a conversation with someone, when you suddenly become aware that there is music playing in the background; it had been playing all through the conversation, but you were not aware or conscious of it, and it therefore had no effect on your behaviour or thought. When you became aware of the music, you became "access" conscious of it, as it now effects cognitive processes and behaviour. You say, “I can hear music”, in which case you are now conscious of it, whereas before you were merely phenomenally conscious of it, which is to say that you were not aware of it.

1 Reply

@existential potential,

Thanks, EP. I tend to use the term "subconscious" for what you call "access consciousness." Right now you are subconsciously (only phenomenally) aware of something that you will be consciously aware of after I point it out to you (i.e., bring it to your attention/conscious awareness). That is the feeling of pressure on your buttocks from your chair. It was selected out of awareness before I brought it to your attention and, of course, that was because you had no need to perceive it. We have to be selective; otherwise we would become incapacitated by sensory overload.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

David wrote:

My point is that if beings with whom we 1OO% share DNA (commies & nazis)
prey upon us anyway, then alien creatures with whom we DON'T share it (or not as much of it)
are more likely to be predatory (upon us).

Cyracuz wrote:

They might consider us an endangered species and therefore decide that we are worthy of preservation.
It is a judgment call we sometimes make regarding creatures with dissimilar dna from us.

Is it helpful to speculate on hypothetical possibilities ??

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Is it helpful to speculate on hypothetical possibilities ??

You mean such as aliens being friendly or hostile? Wink

Perhaps it isn't very helpful, but it can be fun.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

David wrote:

Is it helpful to speculate on hypothetical possibilities ??

Cyracuz wrote:

You mean such as aliens being friendly or hostile?

Perhaps it isn't very helpful, but it can be fun.

I agree with that.
Because of the vastness of the Cosmos,
almost for sure, there r all kinds of aliens from different places,
who r smarter, dummer, better, worse more peaceful and more aggressive than we are; both ET and the Klingons.

The great space between us serves us VERY, very well.

David

1 Reply

Can we think of consciousness as a force of nature?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know