Laird
Member
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:
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.
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).
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.
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: