Puzzling NDE questions

Hi Neil,

Thanks, I think we're getting somewhere (at least in my mind we are!).

Trying to forestall the verbosity of a wholly point-by-point response, I think (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that what you're saying is this:

"Proto-consciousness is that which would be - and, because of this, in some sense 'is' - conscious but for the lack of anything of which to be conscious (and that the subject/object split plus IIT explain how it comes about that there ever is something of which to be conscious, and thus how 'proto-consciousness' becomes 'consciousness as medically defined')".

And I think that, as might be clear from my previous posts, my objection to this notion is that there is ever (even the possibility of) a lack of object(s) of consciousness, because even in the worst case scenario, the object of consciousness can/could be itself.

Getting to the point-by-point parts of a response that I can't avoid:

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.

I'm open to the possibility that your view as expressed here is correct, but I'm even more open to the possibility that (y)our imagination(s) is/are simply lacking.

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?

Whilst I still maintain that "being limited" is not a prerequisite of conscious(ness / experience), given the examples I've already provided both of a God of unlimited experience and of a possible world in which all that could possibly be experienced can easily be experienced all at once ("unlimitedly"), and whilst I still maintain that "differentiated" is a better word for what you're trying to express than "limited", you are nevertheless expressing (something close to) an idea - actually, a paradox - that I recognise through my own introspection, and so I'm not totally antagonistic to your point.

Here's how I would put it: the degree to which one is free is correlated with the number of potential experiences which one has the ability to actualise, but, at the same time, the degree to which one is free is the degree to which one does actualise the experiential potential(itie)s that one desires to actualise; and, once a potentiality is actualised, then other potentialities become impossible to actualise, and so, in a weird, paradoxical kind of way, to realise freedom is at the same time to limit it.

(Acknowledging on the other hand that actualising potentialities opens up new potentialities as much as it closes off old potentialities).

I am totally open to discussing IIT more.

Very good. I need to read the double-slit thread first, because I understand that you guys have been discussing IIT in there a bit, which might forestall time wasted on questions already answered in that thread.
 
Last edited:
It is necessary prior to any experience. The system must have the capacity to discriminate between different states.
Why do you arbitrariliy add this condition?
Where does it come from?

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.
The photodiode is designed to report two states.
I agree that it must be able to discriminate between the two in order to report which one was detected at any given time.

But this is not what I am saying. If we replace a sentient being instead of the photodiode and we put him in a state of bliss there is nothing else (in principle) that it is need to experience it. Why would the being need anything else?

We're not asking him/her to report what he's experiencing. He doesn't need discrimination to know what is lt like to be blissful. It is exactly what that experience feels like.

If you want the sentient being to act as a photodiode, being able to tell one state from another, then I agree with you ... but this is not what I was talking about.

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

Agreed. And yet, oddly, reading a few of her (your - I know it's unpleasant to be spoken of in the third person when you're present, @bluebird, so consider this as directed as much to you as to Terri aka @Aquila ka Hecate) posts on what she (you) self-identifies (self-identify) as her (your) home forum, she seems (you seem) more than capable of being reasonable, empathetic and "human" (at least given the sample of posts of hers (yours) that I read). Perhaps - assuming these really are the same identity - it's simply a case of "new forum disquiet" or "newcomer's irritability", if I can coin those terms, and if they make any sense.
 
Last edited:
In which case, I'd simply ask you, @bluebird, to kindly treat the members of this forum with the same respect and due consideration with which you (seem to) treat the members of your home forum. We're all in this together, let's make it a positive experience, even when we disagree. :-) (And if you have any particular problems, please simply air them respectfully, either publicly, or privately with a moderator).
 
assuming these really are the same identity

And after a little more reading, this seems more and more like a hopeless assumption (which also explains the "oddness" that I remarked upon). The difference in tone and manner between bluebird-on-skeptiko and bluebird-on-afterlifeforums is so marked that I can't honestly believe that bluebird-on-skeptiko is anything other than an attempt to tarnish the reputation of bluebird-on-afterlifeforums.
 
Last edited:
But there's an easy way for you to prove that (if) I'm wrong, @bluebird: simply post as bluebird to afterlifeforums that the bluebird account on this forum was created by the same person who created that account, then link us to that post.
 
OK, nevermind, no need to even ask for proof; the proof is in this post. There's no way that this is written by the same bluebird as on afterlifeforums. Sorry that you had to experience that, Terri, and sorry for not seeing it earlier, which would have avoided this little string of making-a-fool-of-myself posts - and most of all, sorry to the real bluebird on afterlifeforums for ever believing that this troll could really be the same person as you.

Can a moderator please put this troll (and its IP address, if that seems to be static) out of its misery?
 
Last edited:
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.
Wouldn't it be easier (although much less poetic) to just address these items as entropy and order, things which we can measure??

I am oriented to defining and modeling the problems of mind in a material world. Logical structure to events can have multiple levels where the structural relations are developed and effective. Ordering at one level can deconstruct status quo on another. None of this is clear without good process models and their interrelations.

NDE's can be an objectively organizing events changing a person's character and inner state. Modeling how this happens is the road to understanding.
 
Hi Neil,

Thanks, I think we're getting somewhere (at least in my mind we are!).

Trying to forestall the verbosity of a wholly point-by-point response, I think (but please correct me if I'm wrong) that what you're saying is this:

"Proto-consciousness is that which would be - and, because of this, in some sense 'is' - conscious but for the lack of anything of which to be conscious (and that the subject/object split plus IIT explain how it comes about that there ever is something of which to be conscious, and thus how 'proto-consciousness' becomes 'consciousness as medically defined')".

And I think that, as might be clear from my previous posts, my objection to this notion is that there is ever (even the possibility of) a lack of object(s) of consciousness, because even in the worst case scenario, the object of consciousness can/could be itself.

Your summary of my position is correct.

However my objection to your objection is that consciousness could never be an object of consciousness. Consciousness is not an object firstly, and secondly because there is no subject/object split in a totally undifferentiated state. Perception requires a duality, and that duality, that split, is missing in the undifferentiated state.


Laird said:
I'm open to the possibility that your view as expressed here is correct, but I'm even more open to the possibility that (y)our imagination(s) is/are simply lacking.

Entirely possible and unfortunately likely.

Laird said:
Whilst I still maintain that "being limited" is not a prerequisite of conscious(ness / experience), given the examples I've already provided both of a God of unlimited experience and of a possible world in which all that could possibly be experienced can easily be experienced all at once ("unlimitedly"), and whilst I still maintain that "differentiated" is a better word for what you're trying to express than "limited", you are nevertheless expressing (something close to) an idea - actually, a paradox - that I recognise through my own introspection, and so I'm not totally antagonistic to your point.

I guess I see it this way--if I look at myself, it is clear that I am very limited. I am a tiny being that in the overall picture of the cosmos is not even a blink of the eye or a speck of dust. I live in a world that is ruled by many physical and chemical principles that restrict my actions (physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, etc). Even my thoughts are restricted in many ways. Yet with all this limitation, and because of this limitation, it is possible for the cosmos to know itself.

You say I should use the word differentiation, and I see what you mean from one angle, but I still think limitation is the correct word because in the end it is through our brains that the cosmos can know itself. In order to be able to have a self-reflective consciousness, it requires a complex system that can process, integrate, and exclude information to create the conscious awareness of the self that is experience by consciousness (the self).

The exclusion part is very important. In my theory, at least, the process of exclusion mentioned above that comes from IIT is part of what creates a unitary conscious experience. It excludes all other possible states. This comes back to the von Neumann interpretation of quantum theory and its application to brain states. Essentially through the physical act of perception, there ends up being possible nearly-classical brain states that correspond to different outcomes predicted by density matrix solutions of the wave equations. The process of exclusion can happen or be influenced by conscious intention, and in the end a single unitary state results which is then the unitary state of conscious awareness that is experienced by consciousness. Without the exclusions, or limitations, of both our physical brains and the processing of information required for conscious awareness, the possibility of self-awareness is not possible. This requires that consciousness by itself cannot be self-aware, which I explained above.

There are of course an enormous number of beings in the cosmos that would have this potential, but each one of them is limited and the experiences require the exclusion/limitations of the perceptual process of the brain or whatever system functions for a similar result. Without each one's limitations, nothing could be experienced.


Laird said:
Very good. I need to read the double-slit thread first, because I understand that you guys have been discussing IIT in there a bit, which might forestall time wasted on questions already answered in that thread.

There is a lot of good stuff there with Arouet. I try to integrate IIT with an interpretation of quantum theory to attempt to bring it together. This attempt is a metaphysical attempt to unify different theories, which I think can be an important job of metaphysics. I think right now mainstream science has an extremely fragmented metaphysics, and you can really see it when you read all the confusing attempts to explain away the clearly different metaphysics of quantum theory and attempt to retain a realist materialist metaphysic.
 
Why do you arbitrariliy add this condition?
Where does it come from?

It's not arbitrary--it is a requirement of Integrated Information Theory.


Bucky said:
The photodiode is designed to report two states.
I agree that it must be able to discriminate between the two in order to report which one was detected at any given time.

But this is not what I am saying. If we replace a sentient being instead of the photodiode and we put him in a state of bliss there is nothing else (in principle) that it is need to experience it. Why would the being need anything else?

We're not asking him/her to report what he's experiencing. He doesn't need discrimination to know what is lt like to be blissful. It is exactly what that experience feels like.

If you want the sentient being to act as a photodiode, being able to tell one state from another, then I agree with you ... but this is not what I was talking about.

cheers

In the photodiode the process of "reporting" is the same as of "perception" (detection). There is no separate reporting process. The photons hitting the photodiode create a photoelectric effect, which is the generation of an electrical current. This electrical current constitutes a bit of information, which means "light." If there is no current produced, then the lack of a current constitutes one bit of information that means "dark."

But to address your example of a sentient being, you have to look at all the processes that allow for any experiences to occur in the first place. A sentient being such as ourselves is extraordinarily complex, and has the ability to discriminate from an almost countless number of different states. Without this ability to discriminate different states, one could not know bliss, yet one does not require the experience of suffering in order to experience bliss.

In the end, an experience is information. I think if we go down deep enough, we end up with quantum information (rather than Shannon information). What is information? A bit of information is an elementary distinction between two different states. At the most fundamental quantum level, information requires a distinction between two different states. Without this, you have nothing. With this, you get the entire universe.

Further, regarding Integrated Information Theory, it has as one of its axioms the following:

INFORMATION: Consciousness is informative: each experience differs in its particular way from other possible experiences. Thus, an experience of pure darkness is what it is by differing, in its particular way, from an immense number of other possible experiences.
 
What has this to do with anything I've said in this thread?
Why dodge the question? Because you know if you answer then you're premise that contrast isn't necessary is SHOT.

Q. Again. If you were standing on a place and could not tell by any means which direction is which, where is North?
A. You can't tell.
Q. Why?
A. Because without something to contrast one direction for another, there is no direction that can be had.

Yin-yang. Now you have learned.
 
Your summary of my position is correct.

Excellent.

However my objection to your objection is that consciousness could never be an object of consciousness.

Unfortunately, your objection remains but an assertion, and that which can be asserted without argument can be counter-asserted without argument (I know, that's awfully trite and confrontational, it's just the mood I'm in right now - and, besides, I hope I do offer at least the glimmerings of an argument).

Consciousness is not an object firstly

As I said, this is but an assertion, and, moreover, I see no reason to accept it. The very fact that we can speak of consciousness - that the word we use to refer to it is a noun - implies that it is an object.

and secondly because there is no subject/object split in a totally undifferentiated state.

Again, this is but unsubstantiated assertion. What if I were to counter-assert that an "undifferentiated state" which is at the same time potentially, but for a subject/object split, conscious, would, naturally and inevitably, split itself into subject/object, not in some perversion or alteration of its fundamental nature, but simply in a self-recursion that allows it to realise its potential i.e. that of being conscious, based on a subject and object which is/are identical? How would you refute that?

Perception requires a duality, and that duality, that split, is missing in the undifferentiated state.

This, it seems to me, relies on the impossibility of recursion in this state. But I see no reason to reject recursion i.e. that that which is object is also subject, which is also object, which is also subject, etc etc.

I guess I see it this way--if I look at myself, it is clear that I am very limited. I am a tiny being that in the overall picture of the cosmos is not even a blink of the eye or a speck of dust. I live in a world that is ruled by many physical and chemical principles that restrict my actions (physics, chemistry, biology, physiology, etc). Even my thoughts are restricted in many ways. Yet with all this limitation, and because of this limitation, it is possible for the cosmos to know itself.

None of which refutes the logical possibilities of unlimited perception with which I provided you. I fully grant that in this sense, you, as you actually are, are (and I, as I actually am, am) "limited", however I do not grant that this is a necessary entailment of consciousness in the first place.

You say I should use the word differentiation, and I see what you mean from one angle, but I still think limitation is the correct word because in the end it is through our brains that the cosmos can know itself.

But this is again to ignore the arguments with which I have presented you! i.e. the possibility of an all-experiencing God, and the possibility of a world in which all that can be experienced can be (very conceivably) experienced simultaneously. Please, if you are to continue down this track, address these arguments.

In order to be able to have a self-reflective consciousness, it requires a complex system that can process, integrate, and exclude information to create the conscious awareness of the self that is experience by consciousness (the self).

The exclusion part is very important.

And again, this ignores my argument involving the possibility of an all-experiencing God - in that case, nothing is excluded. I get that you're trying to deal with "things as they seem to be", but I'm more interested in "things as they necessarily must be".

In my theory, at least, the process of exclusion mentioned above that comes from IIT is part of what creates a unitary conscious experience. It excludes all other possible states.

OK, so, once again, what's to prevent an omniscient God from experiencing everything without exclusion?

There is a lot of good stuff there with Arouet. I try to integrate IIT with an interpretation of quantum theory to attempt to bring it together. This attempt is a metaphysical attempt to unify different theories, which I think can be an important job of metaphysics. I think right now mainstream science has an extremely fragmented metaphysics, and you can really see it when you read all the confusing attempts to explain away the clearly different metaphysics of quantum theory and attempt to retain a realist materialist metaphysic.

Sounds really good, man. I've made a good start on it already.
 
Last edited:
A recording we can't hear from an unknown person contributed any an anonymous poster is SOLID EVIDENCE? chortle.

Hear this:

And then go away, troll. Or at least have the guts to reveal your true identity. But what does a troll know about guts?

Where are the moderators?
 
Last edited:
Why dodge the question? Because you know if you answer then you're premise that contrast isn't necessary is SHOT.

Q. Again. If you were standing on a place and could not tell by any means which direction is which, where is North?
A. You can't tell.
Q. Why?
A. Because without something to contrast one direction for another, there is no direction that can be had.

Yin-yang. Now you have learned.
What has the north to do with what I have said? North is not an experience. If you have objections to what I have said please quote the relevant text and articulate your idea. Cardinal points have nothing to do with what I was saying in this thread.

Cheers
 
Thanks, I think we're getting somewhere (at least in my mind we are!).

Getting to the point-by-point parts of a response that I can't avoid:

I would submit that the first part wouldn't have happened without the second part. Don't apologize for it! Drilling down into the details of each others' positions and then drilling down some more is how we burst through roadblocks.

I apologise myself, I've gotten behind on this thread and have posts I want to get back to going back to your post about physical information Laird. Hope to find time but not likely today.
 
What has the north to do with what I have said? North is not an experience.

Cheers
I admire your shovel. Keep digging.

Q. Again. If you were standing on a place and could not tell by any means which direction is which, where is North?
A. You can't tell.
Q. Why?
A. Because without something to contrast one direction for another, there is no direction that can be had.

Yin-yang. Now you have learned.
 
I would submit that the first part wouldn't have happened without the second part. Don't apologize for it! Drilling down into the details of each others' positions and then drilling down some more is how we burst through roadblocks.

You're quite right. I've come to the view, through experience and reflection, that the best way to approach forum engagement is to drill down in a point-by-point manner as necessary, but to also, as soon as a coherent pattern appears to which one can respond holistically without neglecting anything significant, drop the point-by-point approach and "sum up" the coherence that one has perceived, seeking verification/rejection from one's communication partner.

And, reading that back, I'll be surprised if anyone else can read it without thinking, "Good lord, this guy loves the sound of his own voice". But I don't know how else to write it, and maybe I'm just being unnecessarily cruel to my own self, so, there you have it...

I apologise myself, I've gotten behind on this thread and have posts I want to get back to going back to your post about physical information Laird. Hope to find time but not likely today.

I look forward to it!
 
Back
Top