Mind to Mind: Mr. Dennett & Mr. Gautama Exchange Ideas (part 1)

[Philocrat]

The only way to know if Consciousness is purely mechanical is to stop the world from all types of motion. Grind everything to a hault and observe what happens to consciousness. Where does this 'Mysterious' creature called Consciousness go from here?

--------
I argue that logical pathways in the presence of motion are responsible for the generation and emergent of sensible forms!
---------

When logical paths are laid down by whatever means, whether linearly, curvedly, randomly or combinantly of the three, and the slightest dose of motion sprinkled upon it, ignites creative processes that manifestly generate sensible forms. All the logic for self-sustainment and instantiating relations, henceforth, is written into these forms. If consciousness is not created in this way, why is it also trapped in the prison of logic? For consciousness needs:

1) Logic to come alive

2) Logic to pariticipate, let alone contribute honestly and reliably to the beholder.

3) Logic to be, let alone continue

4) And Logic to divorce or everporate, let alone post-preserved in another form.

 

[Philocrat]

RELATED QUESTIONS


1) MOTION

Do things move only when we sense or see them move ?

2) MECHANICAL

Are things mechanical only when we actually sense or see their moving parts?

3) SIZES

Do mechanical things cease being mechanical when they are miniaturised beyond the COP (Critical Observation point) of the humans in the relam of sensibility? Or equivalently, do logical or mechanical laws cease to hold when things by their sizes extend beyond the COP of the humans?

4) RELATION

What is the fundamental basis of any relation of one thing to another in spacetime? If mechancical entities are of one kind and Consciousness is of a completely different kind, what is the fundamental purpose of the relation of one to the other? How do they interact to create the notion of a self?

5) INDEPENDENCE

The notion of independence is very clear, at least from the point of view of mechanical entities in the mechanical realm:

Something is either ABSOLUTELY INDEPENDENT or PARTIALLY so.

The question now is this. When we are talking about the INDPENDENCE of Consciousness from material entities that we all know are mechanically natured, are we talking about (1) ABSOLUTE INDEPENDENCE, or (2) PARTIAL INDEPENDENCE? Which one are we talking about? This is a very serious question, because one of the classical claims about the independence of consciousness, or soul, or whatever you may wish to call it, is that it Pre-exists and post-exists its mortal material counterpart. My long-held view on this, ever before I registered for a degree in philosophy, is that it cannot be the 'Absolute independence' that we are talking about, for this would imply a structurally and functionally superior entity knocking on the door of the inferior to forster God knows what type of relation that this might result. Partial relation would make sense, howevwer, this itself would mean both negotiating some sort of needs-driven or needs-induced relations with each other. My aguement is that, should this ever be the case, then all relations between them would be originally and subsequently mechancially (or logically) enforced. And any explanation of this must be logically consistent throughout.

6) CHANGE

The natural relation between consciousness and the mechanical material body is circular. Things just seem to be going around in circles. Would the relation forstered by bi-partite self ever reslove to the notion of a structurally and functionally perfect human being? Ok, the notion of partial independence (as indicated above) has ruled out the explanatory notion of a SUPERIOR CONSCIOUSNESS CONTROLLING OR DRIVING THE SUPPOSEDLY INFERIOR MATERIAL BODY, like a driver on the seat of a car, or a rider on a horse, in what way then can the current state of this relation, via the notion of change, ever lead lead to the notion of a structurally and functionally perfect being?

 

[Les Sleeth]

The only way to know if Consciousness is purely mechanical is to stop the world from all types of motion. Grind everything to a hault and observe what happens to consciousness. Where does this 'Mysterious' creature called Consciousness go from here?

As usual I don't understand most of what you say, but I did like that point. It would be great if we could set up such an experiment (without dying ) to see what would happen. A "motion" type of point I've made in the past about the claim that subjectivity derives from the "busyness" of the mind is, if that were true, then we should expect subjectivity to disappear if the mind were to stop thinking, which isn't the case.

 

[Philocrat]

Absolutely! Geetings...don't eat and drink too much this festive season, that's if you celebrate it in the first place! Chao!

 

[honestrosewater]

I apologize for not responding to this post sooner. It of course depends on your meaning of "experience something other than yourself." I am not suggesting it at all. I am saying it outright. We can and do experience something other than ourselves. We experience in unique ways, each different and personal; and, we call it different things, use different terms. The experiences are however similar and have many things in common and the most common aspect seems to be that which is other than ourselves.

Okay, just to be clear, I get the distinctions between sensory and nonsensory, physical and nonphysical. I wasn't talking about experiencing something more than yourself, what you had previously experienced, or physical theories explain. I meant removing yourself completely from the experience- whatever kind of experience it was. As in it wasn't you who experienced it, or you were experiencing nothing.
After reading Les' empirical induction thread, I understand his experience better. Apparently, he experiences union. That is, for him, union is a conscious experience of something. I assume yours are much the same.?

This and the other post remind me of something from John Stuart Mills' "On Liberty":
The beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us: if the lists are kept open, we may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the meantime we may rely on having attained such approach to truth, as is possible in our own day. This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being, and this the sole way of attaining it.[/color]
He has a way of giving me goosebumps whether I agree with him or not.

 

[Chronos]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Perception is necessarily limited to relational quantities observed within the 'event horizon' of perception. If you attempt to strip down relational quantities to absolute quantities, the entire concept of perception collapses to a singularity.

 

[Royce]

Okay, just to be clear, I get the distinctions between sensory and nonsensory, physical and nonphysical. I wasn't talking about experiencing something more than yourself, what you had previously experienced, or physical theories explain. I meant removing yourself completely from the experience- whatever kind of experience it was. As in it wasn't you who experienced it, or you were experiencing nothing.
After reading Les' empirical induction thread, I understand his experience better. Apparently, he experiences union. That is, for him, union is a conscious experience of something. I assume yours are much the same.?

No, I have never had such an experience as you describe. My experiences have been varied and while I use different terms some of them were much like Les describes. Where Les' experiences and mine differ most is that I perceive the presence of another with me, within me as sure as I perceive my wife sleeping beside me in bed. Union to me is perceiving and being one with the whole, the One consciousness of which we are all a part of. Even the Void was full of connections and presence, more spiritual for lack of a better term but completely devoid of physical and mental aspects of reality.
This is really an inadequate description as the words just aren't available; but it is the best that I can do now.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Assumes facts not in evidence. Perception is necessarily limited to relational quantities observed within the 'event horizon' of perception. If you attempt to strip down relational quantities to absolute quantities, the entire concept of perception collapses to a singularity.

I'm not sure on what idea(s) you are commenting, but assuming it is the concept of union, I can't see what facts you are referring to which are assumed and not in evidence. When you say perception is "necessarily" limited to relational qualities, and if you mean sense perception (which is the normal meaning of the word), then I can see that.

In terms of innner perception (meaning: experience), that is practiced by withdrawing from the senses. When you say, " If you attempt to strip down relational quantities to absolute quantities, the entire concept of perception collapses to a singularity," that sounds similar to the idea of union. In other words, the experience of the foundation of consciousness is perceived as the foundation of everything else. When union is experienced, the relational aspects seem only superficial appearances of a deeper reality that is being experienced as "one."

 

[Canute]

Happy New Year folks.

A while ago I suggested that Dennett was a straw man in relation to this debate. I thought I'd better put my money where my mouth is so I've tidied up my notes on his book, in which I attempt to destroy his arguments in a reasonably thorough if informal way. I'd post these here but they're too long. If anyone wants a copy just tell me where to send it.

Regards
Canute