Either the gentle arousal of sleeping beauty or disturbing a sleeping dragon, which is it?
The part:
An individual human could not become a self-reflective, thinking adult without the necessary bodily systems, processes and organs which comprise the whole organism.
The whole:
Earthly life could not reach a stage in which individual organisms become self-reflective, rational thinking beings without the forms of life which develop in a way that comprises the vast supporting structure that allow these few seeds of nascent self-aware consciousness to spring from the living earth. Life on earth is one self-regulating body while humanity provides the mind within that body.
The majority of earthly life forms only developed so far along the path, some along ever narrowing, one-sided branches, while the balance of the whole is ever maintained. The one-sided nature of some creatures is obvious. Giant pandas being a classic example. The hoof of a horse, the wing of an albatross, the middle finger of an aye-aye, are all much more specialised than the human hand. Ideally suited to their specific tasks. But this speciality becomes a hindrance to further novelty.
Like pacemakers in a race, various creatures forego their own advancement to give an outcome which was destined in the long run. And to achieve this outcome whereby nature can look upon herself with a spark of understanding, self-conscious individuals are a necessity. The sleeping beauty that is nature begins to wake up. Or has the dragon been poked with a stick?
The ubiquitous instinctive wisdom of nature which has been in control since physical life began is handing over its power to the still ripening human wisdom. And of course there is no guarantee that the newly sapient creatures that we are will be up to the task of handling this new found power responsibly. Adolescents can be unpredictable when they encounter novel freedom before they have gained the experience to deal with it.
Our minds are our exception within nature. And human exceptionalism rightly regarded is a privilege granted us by nature. It is not something for us to boast about; we did not get here by means of our own efforts. We did not wake of our own accord. This is a responsibility which was thrust upon us and we are now left in a position where we have a great deal of control over the destiny of earthly life. Will we gain sufficient maturity to enhance life or are we the seeds of earthly destruction?
The future will determine if our efforts turn out to be praiseworthy. We can claim no credit for getting to this point. Will we be considered worthy of credit for what follows? We haven’t made the best of starts but who would have expected otherwise.
Okay. Let’s see if we can come to some sort of agreement. If I clap my hands, I can hear the sound. The process of bringing my hands together sends out a pressure wave in the air. My eardrums receive this wave and it causes them to vibrate. An increase in air pressure gives the eardrum a push. The eardrum is given a shove. Do you agree with that?
Those who think that reality is a unity would disagree with you about an independent reality.
What is metaphorical about air pressure acting on tympanic membranes?
So what does “reality” mean to you?
I agree on the condition that you add “to me” to your last statement.
Of course it does. I could not have judged height to be a non essential difference if I had not first thought about it an considered it.
How many times do I need to repeat that I believe human wisdom pales in comparison to the wisdom found in nature.
You are arguing that the intentionality involved is no different when comparing the nest building of birds to human activity in trying to reduce global warming. Surely there are different types of intentional acts!?
Much of that is the physics. And I expect we agree on the physics.
However: “I can hear this sound” is not physics. And “My eardrums receive this wave” is not physics. Both of those involve us as persons. And you tend to write them in a way which makes us sound like passive receivers of information. That’s where I disagree.
We could make something that is physically similar to an ear, and attach that to a robot. But that’s not enough for the robot to hear sounds. And the ear-like thing that we built would not be receiving any waves. The air vibrations would permeate that ear-like thing, but that isn’t the same as “receiving” a sound wave.
Neil Rickert,
It appears that, inside Charlie, there is a little homunculus (his ‘mind’) that is watching a TV screen and listening to headphones. The (color, heh) TV screen depicts distant chairs as being much the same size as chairs nearby, and the headphones deliver speech with gaps between the individual words, depending on the language.
It’s all one-way, apparently.
Me too. Vision has to be a mental construct. Our brains receive nerve impulses from our two retinas which is spacially two-dimensional, the optic nerves connecting to separate hemispheres and our experience seems three-dimensional. Visual perception is indirect.
Yes, that seems to be the way that CharlieM is modeling his relation to the world. I happen to think it’s a tad more complex.
CharlieM can model his relation to the world however he likes. If it works for him, that’s fine. But when he tries to foist it on other people, he shouldn’t be surprised that there’s some pushback.
Foisting always gets my goat. I’m a salesman’s nightmare!
Yes I think we do. So there s a physical aspect to sense perception.
I have already said we never are in a situation of passively receiving information. What we can do is to is use the power of our minds to break down the processes of perception in our thoughts. Obviously humans have been discussing for centuries what now gets called the hard problem of consciousness.
Can we agree that physical processes cannot account for our conscious awareness?
Why would it not be receiving waves? There are actual sound level meters in use. They respond “to changes in air pressure caused by sound waves”. I agree that talk of sound waves is misleading. Sound is something which is perceived by sentient beings. Waves of air pressure picked up by mechanical instruments are not the same as experiencing sound. But these instruments can indeed measure the amplitude and frequency of air waves.
And a non-physical aspect? Really, do tell!
It’s a nonsense question unless you can say what “conscious awareness” means.
Can you explain to me what you think this “Charlie” consists of and why it would be capable of having anything inside it? This “I” might have a physical body, but look where you like you will not find any location where this “I” resides. So why assume it is in the head or any other location within the body?
So what is it that is combining and collating all these separate physical imputes into a conscious meaningful understanding of the world?
Why would I want to foist on to you that which I already understand your negative opinion on?
I comment here looking for feedback which I receive plenty of. And for that I am very grateful.
Tell me what you mean by coonsciousness and I’ll have an idea of how to respond.
Yes. I have on the odd occasion been told to f**k off by a junk caller before hanging up on me. These days a lot of them just hang up as soon as they hear my voice.
So you can tell us the physical location of consciousness? Really, do tell! 🙂
The processes of perception are not part of our thoughts. Perception is prior to the possibility of having thoughts.
But your statement is ambiguous. Perhaps you were referring only to our ability to think about perception, and not actually suggesting that perception takes place in our thoughts.
I have no idea what that is asking.
I walk outside on a rainy day, and get wet. But was I receiving raindrops?
I put out a cup to collect raindrops. Then I am receiving raindrops. But I don’t see getting wet as receiving raindrops.
Also, I would be inclined to say that we receive sounds. I don’t think we receive sound waves, unless we are doing physics experiments with sound. The word “receiving” has an implication of intention. And our intentions are likely to be about the sounds, not the sound waves.
Are you aware that we are communicating our thoughts over the internet? Then you are experiencing conscious awareness.
Oh, I’ve got a good idea what he is asking, and the answer is “NO! As explained previously.”
I didn’t. It’s your model, not mine, silly billy.
I am a rather more complex entity; what I perceive is a synthesis of various sense inputs that strongly depends on what I am expecting. There is considerable cross-talk between the different modalities, in particular sight and sound. There are no gaps between words, yet I perceive such gaps. The retinal image of a chair near me is far larger than the retinal image of a distant chair, and yet I perceive them to be similar in size. All this processing is done by my brain. I have a ‘conscious perception’ of existing, which is ENTIRELY the result of my brain activity.
If you think otherwise, I would like you to test the oxygen-dependence of your ‘mind’.
ETA: BTW, it is a black and white video that gets ‘colorized’ in post-production.
I don’t think consciousness is a coherent concept. I have no reason to think other than humans, just like all other animals, function entirely physically. Our cognitive abilities emerge from the physical processes occuring in the brain and nervous sysrtem.
The snag is we cannot understand ourselve as any sentient entity can only comprehend systems less complex than itself. I may have mentioned this before.
What is the word “conscious” doing here? It is not adding any meaning.
Ninja!
Alan Fox,
PS nitpick “conscious” perception? Can we perceive when unconscious?
So all stuff that you choose to ignore has in fact been subjected to careful consideration? That is a very …interesting way to phrase things.
“HEY, I AM A REAL GENIUS, but…” *looks humbly down* “…my wisdom pales in comparison to the wisdom found in nature.”
False modesty. Not impressed.
Sure, just like there are different types of height. Take my wife; She is clearly of the “can-reach-the-upper-shelf-just-like-that” type, whereas I belong to the “need-to-get-a-stair” type.
One can experience one’s own awareness without having a theory of what awarenesses is.
To repeat an oft’ used phrase, correlation does not imply causation.
You have misunderstood what I have been trying to say.
There are gaps between words. Not temporal gaps, but gaps in meaning. And of course we use gaps here in written language for ease of comprehension.
That is because through experience you have acquired the concept of perspective.
I’ll say again, correlation does not imply causation. How did you become aware that your brain is active during perception and that it uses oxygen?
Where is this black and white video? What do you think is seeing the colour? What do you think neuronal processes are apart from chemical and electrical activity?
Exactly.
Thinking is a conscious act. And because you experience various levels of consciousness you are in an ideal situation to gain an understanding the essence of this consciousness
Yes you keep saying this but you never give any reasons as to why you think this. How have you determined the limits of the self-conscious ego?
That’s a good point. I added it for stress. It would probably have been better if I had said, “self-conscious awareness”.
Once more for luck, correlation does not imply causation.
How did you become aware of your brain activity?
Their have been many experiments done and discussions on subliminal perception.
I thought about height and how we grow from zygote to adult and how we lose about a centimetre over the course of a day. This is the opposite of ignoring the subject of height.
Thank goodness I’m not trying to impress you then
So when did she change from the “need-to-get-a-stair” type, to the “can-reach-the-upper-shelf-just-like-that” type. Of course there are procedures for changing from the “male” type to the “female” type if you ever become interested. 🙂 But unlike height it is not a normal developmental occurrence in humans.
Very true.
Repeating myself, what is “conscious” doing in this sentence? I agree thinking is an action, process, act if you prefer.
What do you mean by “consciousness”?
LOL. So you admit that there are no ‘temporal’ gaps between spoken words; do you also admit that you perceive there to be temporal gaps between words, or would you rather keep squirming?
Oh what utter rubbish! The “concept” of perspective is not needed for size constancy. It’s hard-wired into your visual processing, and that of many, many animals.
Well, you can say it as many times as you like, but it just makes you appear unwilling to cope with evidence. How would YOU explain the strange dependence of your “mind” on oxygen levels? We can perturb oxygen levels via restricting blood flow, via an oxygen-free environment (my favorite) or via carbon monoxide. There’s this weird correlation that is preserved under multiple experimental perturbations. Until you can come up with an experimental condition that breaks the correlation, causation is the inference.
Is your thinking conscious or unconscious?
I can say I experience my own consciousness and I presume you experience your own too. I Know that I have a waking consciousness and that I lose this on going to sleep. I have memories of dream consciousness which differs from my everyday waking consciousness.
And within waking consciousness I experience varying levels of awareness. I could be wandering round the house thinking about what to have for lunch and I suddenly feel a sharp pain as my shin makes contact with the edge of a hard surface. My thinking consciousness is interrupted as I’m abruptly conscious of the pain. I rub my leg without thinking too much about it. Through a conscious act of will I lift my trouser leg to view the damage. The memory of placing a new item of furniture in the position where I had stumbled into it and my regret at forgetting entered my consciousness.
We are constantly conscious of thinking, feeling, willing and memories. And I’m very conscious of the fact that many here disagree with much that I say.
What sort of point are you trying to make here? When we speak we leave gaps between some words but not all. Understanding language does not come from perception alone, otherwise we would be able to comprehend any language. When you communicate the word “gap” to me, in order to know what you are talking about I need to have an understanding of the concept “gap”.
So you think a baby will have the same spatial perspective awareness as you do?
When you say “I have a ‘conscious perception’ of existing, which is ENTIRELY the result of my brain activity”, you will have to explain how the brain acquires a “perception” of existing.
We perceive the external world through our senses and our nerves including our brains are active in this process. All this energy requires an oxygen supply. But how do you make the leap from this to your assertion that all consciousness is the result of brain activity? Have you solved the hard problem?
CharlieM,
All I glean from this is that you use the word “consciousness” to describe what you think you experience in your own head. The word is not explaining anything.
I’m not aware of it.
That you are incapable of conducting a conversation…
…and thank you for making my point. My question to you was “Why do you perceive [temporal] gaps between [spoken] words when they do not exist?” I see that you went for the “continued squirming” option. To each his own, I guess.
ROFL. Another example of the “so you are saying <insert non-sequitur here>” gambit. Epic! I think a one-year-old dog has the same “spatial perspective awareness” as you. Any bird of prey does much better. All without going to post-1415 art school. Remember, my point was about size constancy, Charlie.
Why would I have to do that? You have yet to offer an alternative explanation. Or a counter-argument. Prove me wrong. How does your ‘mind’ fare when your brain gets very cold?
Yes, I have.
Your experience is an illusion, but an adaptive one. See, that was easy. You have some heavy lifting ahead of you if you want to demonstrate that the hard problem even exists.
Did you also think about how I *might* have chosen height to demonstrate how one can arbitrarily convert a difference on any continuous scale to a discrete difference by choosing arbitrary thresholds?
So you admit that the differences in level of intentionality, intelligence, self awareness, etc between humans and non-human animals are not essential traits?
@Jock: Yes, I did that on purpose.
The anthropocentrism is still going strong BTW. In real life, “Finding Nemo” protagonist Marlin is a sequential hermaphrodite.
The “hard problem of consciousness” is an artifact of bad philosophy. There’s no good reason to take it seriously.
I don’t think my consciousness is confined to my head. But even if I did I would have arrived at that conclusion by thinking which is something that I am conscious of doing. Why do I have to explain to you an activity that you are aware of carrying out in the same way that I am.
I agree that under normal circumstances we are not directly aware of our own brain activity. But I am aware that neuroscientists and brain surgeons at times do become aware of the brain activity of others.
DNA_J thinks that any consciousness that he possesses is entirely the result of his brain activity. What makes him so certain? And as he is not directly aware of his brain activity, all that he can say for certain is that he is conscious of thinking.
Are we not in the middle of a conversation?
And gaps do exist. Unless of course you are able to recite one of Shakespeare’s plays without taking a breath. Birds are able to sing in a long continuous stream because of how thier respiratory system is designed. We can’t do this because of the reciprocal nature of our breathing.
One year old dogs are far more perceptually aware than one year old human babies. The slower development of humans allow time for the vast amount of learning that we are capable of. If we matured as quickly as dogs do we would not be able to have our human ability of individual learning. With regard to learning humans are the Goldilocks of earthly life.
Birds of prey do indeed have far superior vision than I do. And this is a feature of their one-sided development. The emphasis on developing such sophisticated vision has been at the expense of greater development of other areas of perception.
The alternative is that reality is mind-like and not matter-like.
If I put my laptop in the freezer you will not longer be interacting with me. Does that mean you are in my laptop?
You mean your consciousness is being taken in by an illusion? There exists a mind which is receiving this illusion. So you have indeed solved the hard problem by admitting only minds are real. I think the ancient Indians had already solved that problem. Matter as we know it is an illusion, is maya.
OK, so where else is it? Is some in your head?
No, I don’t think so. You are assuming much and testing little or nothing.
I agree that a reasonable assumption is that us both being human, our brains function very similarly. Where I disagree with you is that you are achieving any insight into how your brain works by thinking about it. And you are under no obligation to stop demonstrating that you are not getting anywhare by thinking about it.
Another example of the “so you are saying” gambit.
/DNA_Jock
Do you think a person can make the transition from one sex to another by means of a continuous transformation?
You haven’t clarified your position on the comparison between the nest building of birds and the likes of human contemplative acts of a person who believes with Socrates that the examined life is not worth living. Birds do not demonstrate that they have the type of individual intentionality, intelligence, or self-awareness to indulge in the latter.
We have to be clear on where differences are discrete and where they are continuous. Differences in physical form between between all mammals including humans is fairly continuous. No other animals show signs of being capable of communicating abstract thoughts.
I’m in good company. Even Nemo displays anthropocentrism. 🙂
As animal life progresses towards individualization sequential hermaphroditism becomes non-existent.