Puzzling NDE questions

[Neil]

In any case, personally, coherence (which you don't seem after all to lack) aside, I'm skeptical that "pure consciousness" (or pure experience) is or would be tied to "potential to discriminate". I'm on the side of those in this thread arguing that joy is possible in the absence of (even any concept of) pain. I'd argue that, consciousness being primary - which you seem to believe too - its "purity" is primary too i.e. prior to or independent of any potential (to discriminate or otherwise experience) which it might have.

Yes, you were right about the potential to discriminate.

But I will ask you a question in response to your concern quoted here: How would pure consciousness experience anything or have any self-awareness if not through a system that limits it? How could pure consciousness do anything on its own except just exist?

In regards to what I highlighted in bold, I am saying that this is possible. Going back to the photodiode since it is so simple, a photodiode can experience only light even without ever experiencing darkness, but this results from the potential to discriminate. A person can experience only joy and doesn't need to experience pain to experience that joy, but the experience of that joy is a result of the system's ability to discriminate from many different possible states.

 

[Bucky]

A person can experience only joy and doesn't need to experience pain to experience that joy, but the experience of that joy is a result of the system's ability to discriminate from many different possible states.

I am not sure at which point the discrimination is necessary, as you say.
Is this act of discernment done before the experience? Does it even make sense to say this?

I don't want to push this sub-topic too far as it's not very relevant to the main topic and we're probably saying (almost) the same thing.

Think of the photodiode. It has two possible experiences--light or dark. That's it. If it did not have the ability to discriminate between light and dark, then it could never say "light.

But we don't need to say "light" to have the experience of light. That's were I stop. To experience X we just need X. Everything else is probably very useful in order for reality to be dynamic and have contrast, but I was only arguing about the bolded statement.

I agree that to rationalize X we need something else (not X) in order to discriminate. But that's the next step.

 

[Neil]

I am not sure at which point the discrimination is necessary, as you say.
Is this act of discernment done before the experience? Does it even make sense to say this?

It is necessary prior to any experience. The system must have the capacity to discriminate between different states. So with the photodiode, it is designed to discriminate between two states of either light or dark, so it can experience light without ever experiencing darkness. Now take a regular diode and shine a light on it--without the ability to discriminate between light and dark, it cannot experience either of the two states. You can shine a light on it all day but it has no way to tell light or dark.

But we don't need to say "light" to have the experience of light. That's were I stop. To experience X we just need X. Everything else is probably very useful in order for reality to be dynamic and have contrast, but I was only arguing about the bolded statement.

I agree that to rationalize X we need something else (not X) in order to discriminate. But that's the next step.

I was just using that language to describe a photodiode signaling for the detection of light. The photodiode doesn't literally say "light." It can only experience two states and those are either light or dark. When it experiences light, it "says" light by an output signal.

But I disagree that to experience something then all you need is that something. In the regular diode, you can shine a light on it all you want, but if it has no ability to discriminate between different states, then it won't experience anything.

Not only that, because a human is so much more complex, you generally also need conscious attention in order to experience something. How can you experience joy if your mind is on something bad that you think will happen later that day? So you not only need the capacity to discriminate between all the other states, but you must also have conscious attention towards that potential experience in order to have the experience.

 

[bluebird]

To experience X we just need X. Everything else is probably very useful in order for reality to be dynamic and have contrast, but I was only arguing about the bolded statement..

If you were standing on a place and could not tell by any means which directionis which, where is North?

 

[Laird]

How would pure consciousness experience anything or have any self-awareness if not through a system that limits it?

Questions of "how" when it comes to consciousness are very difficult to answer. But in any case, trying to work with your own predicates: I understand your view to be a variant of idealism, in which consciousness is primary. Given this, it seems that it follows that its (consciousness's) "purest state [of awareness/experience]" is primary too, i.e. prior to any system of limitation. "How" this is or could be is very much as unanswerable as the question of "how" it is that consciousness exists at all, but if you do have an answer to that, then definitely let me know!

As an aside: I'm not comfortable with your choice of word "limits", with its implication (which I think is false) of diminished power - something more like "focuses" or "directs" seems a better fit.

How could pure consciousness do anything on its own except just exist?

It couldn't, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. Our everyday consciousness could be said to be "overlaid" on pure consciousness, and, of course, if one is (as we are) capable of experiencing different things and recognising the difference between them, then our everyday consciousness has the ability to discriminate. That's not in question: what's in question is whether the ability to discriminate is necessary in principle for any type of conscious experience whatsoever, including in hypothetical worlds in which there is nothing between which to discriminate.

I'm not sure that you have so far provided an argument for the existence of this hypothetical necessity, and I've just reread all your posts in this thread on this question to check for one. These, for example, are assertions rather than arguments:

Going back to the photodiode since it is so simple, a photodiode can experience only light even without ever experiencing darkness, but this results from the potential to discriminate.

Now take a regular diode and shine a light on it--without the ability to discriminate between light and dark, it cannot experience either of the two states.

And even this, if intended as an argument, seems to assume its conclusion (that discrimination is necessary for experience) in its premises:

If the experience of pain was the same as joy, then this means the system was unable to even in principle discriminate between the two states, which means that the state of joy could not have been experienced in the first place.

Then again, you may feel that I am unfairly placing the burden of proof on you, and that your interlocutors should equally be burdened with the responsibility of supporting their opposing position through some sort of proof. Perhaps, though, this is not a question that we can resolve through reason/evidence, in which case I'm happy to leave it at "That there are differing and irresolvable personal opinions on this question as stated in this thread has been noted", and drop the subject (which is not to say that anybody else needs to do the same!).

 

[Neil]

Questions of "how" when it comes to consciousness are very difficult to answer. But in any case, trying to work with your own predicates: I understand your view to be a variant of idealism, in which consciousness is primary. Given this, it seems that it follows that its (consciousness's) "purest state [of awareness/experience]" is primary too, i.e. prior to any system of limitation. "How" this is or could be is very much as unanswerable as the question of "how" it is that consciousness exists at all, but if you do have an answer to that, then definitely let me know!

Regarding the first part that I highlighted in bold, I completely disagree. In my theory, for what it may be worth, consciousness itself does not have awareness or experience. Consciousness exists and has the capacity for experience. It requires a subject/object split to experience anything.

Regarding the second part that I highlighted in bold, my theory has only one given assumption, and that is that consciousness exists and has he capacity for experience. This is considered self-evident.

As an aside: I'm not comfortable with your choice of word "limits", with its implication (which I think is false) of diminished power - something more like "focuses" or "directs" seems a better fit.

Without being limited, it limits what can be known and experienced. If a cosmic consciousness had its own power as I think you are saying, and it were "focused" through us, then I imagine the light from the sun being focused through a magnifying glass to a point, making it much more powerful. I disagree. I think we are limited, but there is not only nothing bad about this, but rather the limitation is required to know and experience things.

It couldn't, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. Our everyday consciousness could be said to be "overlaid" on pure consciousness, and, of course, if one is (as we are) capable of experiencing different things and recognising the difference between them, then our everyday consciousness has the ability to discriminate. That's not in question: what's in question is whether the ability to discriminate is necessary in principle for any type of conscious experience whatsoever, including in hypothetical worlds in which there is nothing between which to discriminate.

But if it couldn't perceive, know, or experience anything without being limited through beings like us, then that sounds like you're agreeing with my point I just made above.

I would disagree that our consciousness is overlaid; it is the same consciousness. Perhaps you are referring to the contents of our consciousness?

But without being limited, and without our refined ability to discriminate different states, it could not directly experience and know itself. If a photodiode has one bit of consciousness and can only discriminate between two states, how could it lead to a state of self-awareness?

I'm not sure that you have so far provided an argument for the existence of this hypothetical necessity, and I've just reread all your posts in this thread on this question to check for one. These, for example, are assertions rather than arguments:

And even this, if intended as an argument, seems to assume its conclusion (that discrimination is necessary for experience) in its premises:


Then again, you may feel that I am unfairly placing the burden of proof on you, and that your interlocutors should equally be burdened with the responsibility of supporting their opposing position through some sort of proof. Perhaps, though, this is not a question that we can resolve through reason/evidence, in which case I'm happy to leave it at "That there are differing and irresolvable personal opinions on this question as stated in this thread has been noted", and drop the subject (which is not to say that anybody else needs to do the same!).

I am using IIT for the basis of the reasoning, which says discrimination is necessary. Yes, it could end up being incorrect, but so far it is the only mathematical quantitative theory of consciousness that does have some empirical support. This is in contrast (pun!) to using what seems to be pure reason (which easily misleads).

 

[Laird]

In my theory, for what it may be worth, consciousness itself does not have awareness or experience.

I encourage you to choose a different word for this than "consciousness" then, because by definition what you are describing is not consciousness. Perhaps "pre-consciousness potential"?

Consciousness exists and has the capacity for experience. It requires a subject/object split to experience anything.

So, there is something (underlying all of reality?) which is not conscious but which has the potential to become conscious, and this potential is realised by a subject/object split (of what? Of itself?). This sounds suspiciously emergentist to me.

Regarding the second part that I highlighted in bold, my theory has only one given assumption, and that is that consciousness exists and has he capacity for experience. This is considered self-evident.

OK, but I don't see how the (even though self-evident) assumption that consciousness exists makes the question of how consciousness exists any more answerable.

Without being limited, it limits what can be known and experienced.

I don't understand what you're saying; it sounds contradictory; it sounds like you're saying that not being limited (i.e. being unlimited) is limiting (i.e. being limited).

If a cosmic consciousness had its own power as I think you are saying, and it were "focused" through us, then I imagine the light from the sun being focused through a magnifying glass to a point, making it much more powerful. I disagree. I think we are limited, but there is not only nothing bad about this, but rather the limitation is required to know and experience things.

I meant "focused" more in the sense of "directed at one thing rather than at another", rather than the sense of "magnified". But your notion of "limited" consciousness implies the coherence of the notion of "unlimited" consciousness: so, what does that notion mean in the context of your theory?

But if it couldn't perceive, know, or experience anything without being limited through beings like us, then that sounds like you're agreeing with my point I just made above.

It depends on what we mean by "limitation". It is possible to conceive of God as simultaneously experiencing - or as having constant access to such experiences - everything, from every perspective, at once. Since this God is possible (conceiving of Him does not entail a contradiction), then limitation (depending on what we mean by that word) is not necessary for perception, knowledge or experience.

I would disagree that our consciousness is overlaid; it is the same consciousness. Perhaps you are referring to the contents of our consciousness?

I'm distinguishing "pure awareness" from "the ever-changing-of-focus, chattering and intentional mind", and saying that the former is at the base, and the latter is (or can reasonably be conceived as being) overlaid on top of it.

But without being limited, and without our refined ability to discriminate different states, it could not directly experience and know itself.

Not necessarily. There is a possible world in which there is only one thing to experience/know about itself, and in that world, an ability to discriminate is not necessary to experience/know [that one thing]. Also see above re the possibility of a God of unlimited experience.

If a photodiode has one bit of consciousness and can only discriminate between two states, how could it lead to a state of self-awareness?

Self-awareness might be inherent in that which comprises the "bit", rather than emergent out of "combinations of bits".

I am using IIT for the basis of the reasoning, which says discrimination is necessary. Yes, it could end up being incorrect, but so far it is the only mathematical quantitative theory of consciousness that does have some empirical support. This is in contrast (pun!) to using what seems to be pure reason (which easily misleads).

OK, thanks, I understand your reasoning now. There is a whole lot I'd like to explore (ask) about IIT, in particular how it fits into your own theory, but probably this thread isn't the place to do it.

 

[Hurmanetar]

I am not sure at which point the discrimination is necessary, as you say.
Is this act of discernment done before the experience? Does it even make sense to say this?

I don't want to push this sub-topic too far as it's not very relevant to the main topic and we're probably saying (almost) the same thing.


But we don't need to say "light" to have the experience of light. That's were I stop. To experience X we just need X. Everything else is probably very useful in order for reality to be dynamic and have contrast, but I was only arguing about the bolded statement.

I agree that to rationalize X we need something else (not X) in order to discriminate. But that's the next step.

The simplest description for reality is consciousness. The simplest description for consciousness is: movement in nothing - which is nonsense, but it is the first bit of nonsense which forms a bubble of sense in the Void. Movement continues and expands within the void to create this reality. Movement creates a from and to and all other binary oppositions with an infinite continuum between so that any part of the continuum implies the rest. To experience X we need A thru Z because X has no independent existence apart from the rest.

You can name certain kinds of feelings "joy" but this doesn't mean joy has an independent objective existence anymore than the whirlpool in the stream has an independent objective existence apart from the stream. To imagine a reality with only joy is as absurd as a watery whirlpool floating in the Void. ...not saying that's impossible though... :D

 

[bluebird]

If you were standing on a place and could not tell by any means which directionis which, where is North?

bump for buckie

 

[Neil]

I encourage you to choose a different word for this than "consciousness" then, because by definition what you are describing is not consciousness. Perhaps "pre-consciousness potential"?

No, it is not consciousness as per the western scientific definition. Call it proto-consciousness, if you like.

So, there is something (underlying all of reality?) which is not conscious but which has the potential to become conscious, and this potential is realised by a subject/object split (of what? Of itself?). This sounds suspiciously emergentist to me.

It is not conscious as per the scientific definition, as in it is not aware or have thoughts by itself. But it is the very capacity for experience. It is the substratum that allows consciousness (again scientific definition) to exist, i.e. conscious awareness that we have. Consciousness is emergent, if you use the scientific definition of it. It can only arise through brain processes that process and integrate information, which then allows for conscious experience to occur. The capacity for experience is not emergent.

OK, but I don't see how the (even though self-evident) assumption that consciousness exists makes the question of how consciousness exists any more answerable.

The questions have to stop somewhere. The question does not even make sense. It is a singularity of proto-consciousness that does not exist within spacetime. The question of why implies causation, but when you are beyond spacetime it makes no sense to ask a question of causation. To ask "how" it exists is inapplicable. To borrow a line from David Albert, it's like asking the marital status of the number four. You can ask the question, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to ask the question.

I don't understand what you're saying; it sounds contradictory; it sounds like you're saying that not being limited (i.e. being unlimited) is limiting.

Yes, because otherwise the only state you have is undifferentiated proto-consciousness. By being limited, it allows for all sorts of different states to occur, one of which is self-awareness of the absolute proto-consciousness.

I meant "focused" more in the sense of "directed at one thing rather than at another", rather than the sense of "magnified". But your notion of "limited" consciousness implies the coherence of the notion of "unlimited" consciousness: so, what does that notion mean in the context of your theory?

I see what you mean. I would agree that our limitations allow for direction of conscious awareness and the subject/object split. I'm not sure I understand the question, though.

It depends on what we mean by "limitation". It is possible to conceive of God as simultaneously experiencing - or as having constant access to such experiences - everything, from every perspective, at once. Since this God is possible (conceiving of Him does not entail a contradiction), then limitation is not necessary for perception, knowledge or experience.

Ok, so don't have any limitation. What do you have? An undifferentiated state of proto-consciousness beyond spacetime. How can that allow for any perception, knowledge, or experience?

I'm distinguishing "pure awareness" from "the ever-changing-of-focus, chattering and intentional mind", and saying that the former is at the base, and the latter is (or can reasonably be conceived as being) overlaid on top of it.

I don't think that awareness is at the base. Awareness arises through our brain. It is the process of integrating information that allows this awareness to occur. A state of pure awareness can result from an almost complete quieting of neuronal activity. Proto-consciousness underlies all this and allows for any of it to occur or be experienced.

Not necessarily. There is a possible world in which there is only one thing to experience/know about itself, and in that world, an ability to discriminate is not necessary to experience/know [that one thing].

How is that a possible world? The components necessary to make the photodiode and the processes required for its operation preclude the premise that there is only one thing to experience or know.

Self-awareness might be inherent in that which comprises the "bit", rather than emergent out of "combinations of bits".

The capacity is always there. It's the type and degree of information processing and integration that determines the potential for conscious experience.

 

[Neil]

The simplest description for reality is consciousness. The simplest description for consciousness is: movement in nothing - which is nonsense, but it is the first bit of nonsense which forms a bubble of sense in the Void. Movement continues and expands within the void to create this reality. Movement creates a from and to and all other binary oppositions with an infinite continuum between so that any part of the continuum implies the rest. To experience X we need A thru Z because X has no independent existence apart from the rest.

You can name certain kinds of feelings "joy" but this doesn't mean joy has an independent objective existence anymore than the whirlpool in the stream has an independent objective existence apart from the stream. To imagine a reality with only joy is as absurd as a watery whirlpool floating in the Void. ...not saying that's impossible though... :D

What do you mean by void? Absolute nothingness?

 

[Neil]

Questions of "how" when it comes to consciousness are very difficult to answer. But in any case, trying to work with your own predicates: I understand your view to be a variant of idealism, in which consciousness is primary. Given this, it seems that it follows that its (consciousness's) "purest state [of awareness/experience]" is primary too, i.e. prior to any system of limitation. "How" this is or could be is very much as unanswerable as the question of "how" it is that consciousness exists at all, but if you do have an answer to that, then definitely let me know!

As an aside: I'm not comfortable with your choice of word "limits", with its implication (which I think is false) of diminished power - something more like "focuses" or "directs" seems a better fit.



It couldn't, but I'm not sure how this is relevant. Our everyday consciousness could be said to be "overlaid" on pure consciousness, and, of course, if one is (as we are) capable of experiencing different things and recognising the difference between them, then our everyday consciousness has the ability to discriminate. That's not in question: what's in question is whether the ability to discriminate is necessary in principle for any type of conscious experience whatsoever, including in hypothetical worlds in which there is nothing between which to discriminate.

I'm not sure that you have so far provided an argument for the existence of this hypothetical necessity, and I've just reread all your posts in this thread on this question to check for one. These, for example, are assertions rather than arguments:





And even this, if intended as an argument, seems to assume its conclusion (that discrimination is necessary for experience) in its premises:



Then again, you may feel that I am unfairly placing the burden of proof on you, and that your interlocutors should equally be burdened with the responsibility of supporting their opposing position through some sort of proof. Perhaps, though, this is not a question that we can resolve through reason/evidence, in which case I'm happy to leave it at "That there are differing and irresolvable personal opinions on this question as stated in this thread has been noted", and drop the subject (which is not to say that anybody else needs to do the same!).

As a quick note, I don't think any one side has the burden of proof. Both sides are attempting to offer an explanation so both sides have burden of proof.

 

[bluebird]

As a quick note, I don't think any one side has the burden of proof.

Sweetie, you weren't chirping this line of poo-poo when you woo-woo claimed you knew for a fact that UFOs were full of aliens and you had "proof" from a silly recording.

 

[Hurmanetar]

What do you mean by void? Absolute nothingness?

My current working paradigm plays with a binary opposition that I like to refer to as The Logos and The Abyss, but I use The Void interchangeably with The Abyss (abyss sounds cooler I think). Logos is structural and...well...logical. It is light, sense, order, etc. The Abyss is anti-structure, darkness, mystery, non-sense. The bottomless pit is a captivating and mysterious yet non-sensical idea. The dynamics between this binary opposition is the creativity of reality.

All logical systems of thought are neat little structures that float upon absolutely nothing (the Abyss) because all logic requires primitive notions or axioms that are not defined because attempting to do so would result in either infinite regress or a vicious circle.

 

[Neil]

My current working paradigm plays with a binary opposition that I like to refer to as The Logos and The Abyss, but I use The Void interchangeably with The Abyss (abyss sounds cooler I think). Logos is structural and...well...logical. It is light, sense, order, etc. The Abyss is anti-structure, darkness, mystery, non-sense. The bottomless pit is a captivating and mysterious yet non-sensical idea. The dynamics between this binary opposition is the creativity of reality.

All logical systems of thought are neat little structures that float upon absolutely nothing (the Abyss) because all logic requires primitive notions or axioms that are not defined because attempting to do so would result in either infinite regress or a vicious circle.

Hmm, how could something float on nothing? I am not trying to be a smart-ass; I am just skeptical of the concept of void and/or it having any relation to what exists.

 

[bluebird]

Hmm, how could something float on nothing?

You mean like your UFOs? rofl

I am not trying to be a smart-ass;.

No worries, no one thinks you're smart enough to be one.

 

[Laird]

No, it is not consciousness as per the western scientific definition. Call it proto-consciousness, if you like.

OK, I'm happy to go with "proto-consciousness".

It is not conscious as per the scientific definition, as in it is not aware or have thoughts by itself. But it is the very capacity for experience. It is the substratum that allows consciousness (again scientific definition) to exist, i.e. conscious awareness that we have. Consciousness is emergent, if you use the scientific definition of it. It can only arise through brain processes that process and integrate information, which then allows for conscious experience to occur. The capacity for experience is not emergent.

I'm suspicious of all this, basically because your notion of proto-consciousness seems slippery. In a sense (and please forgive me if this seems unfair), what you seem to be saying is, "It's not consciousness but it is; consciousness is not emergent but it is".

What does it mean to have a capacity for experience without actually experiencing? What does it mean to be a "substratum" that allows consciousness to exist whilst not being conscious?

It seems to me that there is a logical problem here: that consciousness cannot in principle arise from that which is non-conscious - especially given that consciousness versus non-consciousness is a binary distinction, not a gradation[*] - and that your approach does not (cannot) avoid this problem even though on the surface it appears to. Expanding on this: it's one thing to talk about a "potential" for consciousness experience [in that which is not actually conscious], but what does this really mean, and how is this different from being - straight-out, unequivocally - non-conscious?

[*] By which I mean that there is a sharp distinction between what we would label as "conscious" and what we would label "non-conscious", even if within the realm of consciousness there are varying degrees of (strength of) consciousness.

The questions have to stop somewhere. The question does not even make sense. It is a singularity of proto-consciousness that does not exist within spacetime. The question of why implies causation, but when you are beyond spacetime it makes no sense to ask a question of causation. To ask "how" it exists is inapplicable. To borrow a line from David Albert, it's like asking the marital status of the number four. You can ask the question, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to ask the question.

I disagree that questions of why imply causation. The answer to the question, "Why is it possible to solve quadratic equations through a formula?" is not causal. It is logical. And I don't think we can or should assume that "causal" and "logical" exhaust the possible categories of answers to questions of "why", nor that we can or should assume that the superficially mutually exclusive problem domains to which these categories of answers seem to apply really are - ultimately - mutually exclusive. And if there is potentially an answer to "why", then there is potentially an answer to "how".

I'm not sure I understand the question, though.

That doesn't matter, because in any case you answered it later:

["Unlimited" consciousness is a]n undifferentiated state of proto-consciousness beyond spacetime.

This only confirms my initial reluctance to accept your use of these words ("limited" and "unlimited"). It seems that what you really mean by "unlimited" is "undifferentiated", and these, in my opinion, are neither readily nor helpfully synonymous. A quick check of dictionary.com confirms that neither is defined in terms of the other (and likewise for "limited" and "differentiated"), and a quick check of thesaurus.com confirms that neither "limited" nor "unlimited" are listed, respectively, as synonyms of/for "differentiated" nor "undifferentiated", and vice versa.

This of itself is not an argument against your concepts, only against the words you are using to describe them.

How can that allow for any perception, knowledge, or experience?

Your question assumes that "proto-consciousness" is a meaningful concept in the first place. As I said, I'm skeptical of this - but I'm not closed to it: I'd simply need to see it fleshed out a little more before being willing to accept that it is meaningful.

I don't think that awareness is at the base. Awareness arises through our brain. It is the process of integrating information that allows this awareness to occur. A state of pure awareness can result from an almost complete quieting of neuronal activity. Proto-consciousness underlies all this and allows for any of it to occur or be experienced.

All of this, for me, makes it questionable that you are, in fact, an idealist; it seems more likely that (on my terms/understanding) you are an emergentist, and, as I explained above, I think that there are logical problems with emergentism. But I'm open to changing my view given a more fleshed-out understanding of what you mean by proto-consciousness.

How is that a possible world? The components necessary to make the photodiode and the processes required for its operation preclude the premise that there is only one thing to experience or know.

If you check back the thread of this small part of the back-and-forth in our conversation, you will find that it was based on the notion of "pure consciousness", not the hypothetical scenario of the photodiode, which you have just now introduced. So, my response is complicated by your own response being in a sense a diversion.

But here's a specific response anyway: the answer to your question is that it is a possible world because not all possible worlds involve photodiodes! One possible world which might qualify is that in which all that exists is consciousness which is (solely) conscious of its own existence and of its (recursively, self-)consciousness, and in which nothing else - neither change, time, matter, thoughts, "other" nor laws - exist / existed / will exist. In this possible world, the only thing to be aware of is one's own (timeless) existence and (self-)awareness: there is nothing against which to differentiate this.

The capacity is always there. It's the type and degree of information processing and integration that determines the potential for conscious experience.

This strikes me as based more in assumption than in reason(ing). But anyhow, as I said, I'd like to explore your idea of IIT more (assuming you're open to it), even though this thread probably isn't the place to do it.

 

[Laird]

@bluebird: you're chirping away merrily, but it comes across as more than a little desperate, petty and vindictive. Neil presented solid evidence for UFOs in that thread, and you chose to dismiss that evidence condescendingly and without any (let alone a good one) reason, in the process displaying a hopeless and emotive bias that tends to disqualify you from being taken seriously as a rational contributor to this forum, at least on topics such as UFOs and the paranormal.

 

[Neil]

I'm suspicious of all this, basically because your notion of proto-consciousness seems slippery. In a sense (and please forgive me if this seems unfair), what you seem to be saying is, "It's not consciousness but it is; consciousness is not emergent but it is".

I think this is an issue of how we define and use the word consciousness. I hate to do this, but I think it is appropriate to quote definitions:

Google search for "definition consciousness medical" yields "The state of being aware, or perceiving physical facts or mental concepts; a state of general wakefulness and responsiveness to environment; a functioning sensorium."

Wikipedia says "Consciousness is the state or quality of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself.[1][2] It has been defined as: sentience, awareness, subjectivity, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind."

I thought this was going to be more clear-cut than this ended up being, because the part I highlighted in bold in the Wikipedia definition includes the ability to experience. Great. This is how I was originally using the word. [EDIT: Or not? Perhaps there is a distinction between the ability for experience and the capacity, I dunno.] The medical definition is clearly different and very clearly related to human conscious awareness.

So how should we use the word?

If I were to rephrase what I was saying, it is that consciousness (the ability to experience) is fundamental, and our conscious awareness (medical definition of consciousness) is emergent via the explanations of IIT. I meant to say that the fundamental consciousness (ability to experience) is not "conscious" in the medical definition of the term.

What does it mean to have a capacity for experience without actually experiencing? What does it mean to be a "substratum" that allows consciousness to exist whilst not being conscious?

I think we need to clarify our terms before I can answer this.

It seems to me that there is a logical problem here: that consciousness cannot in principle arise from that which is non-conscious - especially given that consciousness versus non-consciousness is a binary distinction, not a gradation[*] - and that your approach does not (cannot) avoid this problem even though on the surface it appears to. Expanding on this: it's one thing to talk about a "potential" for consciousness experience [in that which is not actually conscious], but what does this really mean, and how is this different from being - straight-out, unequivocally - non-conscious?

Again I think we are in need of clarification of terms again. When I said proto-consciousness isn't conscious, I mean in the medical definition given above. Without us, it has no way to have that type of consciousness. This makes me want to go back to using the term consciousness as fundamental and conscious awareness as what we have.

I disagree that questions of why imply causation. The answer to the question, "Why is it possible to solve quadratic equations through a formula?" is not causal. It is logical. And I don't think we can or should assume that "causal" and "logical" exhaust the possible categories of answers to questions of "why", nor that we can or should assume that the superficially mutually exclusive problem domains to which these categories of answers seem to apply really are - ultimately - mutually exclusive. And if there is potentially an answer to "why", then there is potentially an answer to "how".

If you are looking for the answer to ultimate origins, then it is a question outside of the realm of science. I still hold that eventually you end up at a point where you can no longer ask the question, or that the question no longer applies, unless you want an infinite regress. I mean what sort of answer would you want? I can't imagine what kind of answer could be given that wouldn't then result in either a more fundamental entity or going into an infinite regress.

This only confirms my initial reluctance to accept your use of these words ("limited" and "unlimited"). It seems that what you really mean by "unlimited" is "undifferentiated", and these, in my opinion, are neither readily nor helpfully synonymous. A quick check of dictionary.com confirms that neither is defined in terms of the other (and likewise for "limited" and "differentiated"), and a quick check of thesaurus.com confirms that neither "limited" nor "unlimited" are listed, respectively, as synonyms of/for "differentiated" nor "undifferentiated", and vice versa.

Creation itself is limitation, because it limits all other possible creations. And also to use IIT, the very process of our experience would be the result of limitations. We can only know what we can know through being limited. To be unlimited means there would be no constraints, which means there could be no physical limits, which means there could be no physical world, i.e. an undifferentiated state of pure consciousness. If you have a physical world, that creates restrictions which I would call limitations. Possibilities are also created along with the limitations, so one could say that this creation of possible states reduces limitations. Perhaps this is where the problem comes about?

But either way, I am saying that the process of limiting and excluding is what allows conscious awareness to arise, and this conscious awareness allows for a self-awareness of the pure consciousness.

All of this, for me, makes it questionable that you are, in fact, an idealist; it seems more likely that (on my terms/understanding) you are an emergentist, and, as I explained above, I think that there are logical problems with emergentism. But I'm open to changing my view given a more fleshed-out understanding of what you mean by proto-consciousness.

I am an emergentist in the sense that I feel conscious awareness is emergent from processing and integration of information, but that information is contained within consciousness, so I am very much an idealist ultimately, a monistic idealist, to be more specific.

If you check back the thread of this small part of the back-and-forth in our conversation, you will find that it was based on the notion of "pure consciousness", not the hypothetical scenario of the photodiode, which you have just now introduced. So, my response is complicated by your own response being in a sense a diversion.

But here's a specific response anyway: the answer to your question is that it is a possible world because not all possible worlds involve photodiodes! One possible world which might qualify is that in which all that exists is consciousness which is (solely) conscious of its own existence and of its (recursively, self-)consciousness, and in which nothing else - neither change, time, matter, thoughts, "other" nor laws - exist / existed / will exist. In this possible world, the only thing to be aware of is one's own (timeless) existence and (self-)awareness: there is nothing against which to differentiate this.

Ok, sorry, forget the photodiode part. I didn't follow the conversation properly it seems.

To say that a "world can exist" that is beyond spacetime doesn't quite make sense, but let's say there is a possible state of existence in which there is only pure consciousness. So what allows this pure consciousness to perceive itself? Wouldn't perception require a subject/object split?

This strikes me as based more in assumption than in reason(ing). But anyhow, as I said, I'd like to explore your idea of IIT more (assuming you're open to it), even though this thread probably isn't the place to do it.

An assumption, yes, but an assumption based on a theory with some empirical support. Attempting to use pure reason I think is not very fruitful since it usually leads to wrong answers, and I am not about to hypotheses non fingo. I am totally open to discussing IIT more.

 

[Aquila ka Hecate]

@bluebird: you're chirping away merrily, but it comes across as more than a little desperate, petty and vindictive. Neil presented solid evidence for UFOs in that thread, and you chose to dismiss that evidence condescendingly and without any (let alone a good one) reason, in the process displaying a hopeless and emotive bias that tends to disqualify you from being taken seriously as a rational contributor to this forum, at least on topics such as UFOs and the paranormal.

I'm also getting a little testy with this obvious troll. Adds nothing to conversation, comes across as a vindictive immature poseur.