I opt for physical descriptions of consciousness because such descriptions can be both parsimonious and open-ended. They can place the vague word “consciousness” within frames of reference that are economical and ecological.
I look at the progression 2,4,6,8 and realize that it is made by adding 2 to each previous number. The 8 given in this progression is both a number different from the others and a number inclusive of the others. Using +2 as a constant, I can extend this progression infinitely. If I remove the 8 from the progression and try to see it as a separate and distinct entity, it makes no sense to me. It might as well be an xplzthm. I can use the supposedly disconnected 8 to describe the last chicken I’ve counted in number of chickens; but I could really not do so without recognizing chickens 1 through 7.
Basic math, from which all higher mathematics is derived, is not abstract in the sense of an xplzthm. It refers to real experience; otherwise, it would have no whiff of truth that could be detected by humans. As fertilized eggs, both you and I experienced compounding and complexification by division and multiplication. As developing organisms, we experienced forming structure through additions and subtractions.
Basic awareness, from which all higher consciousness is derived, is not an xplzthm. It is a process, an activity, an experience. The 2 that is a fertilized egg cannot know what it means to be an 8 that is an organism. Althoug all DNA information for what the organism can become is present in the egg, the egg must become the organism in order to have first hand information as to what an organism is. On the other hand, the 8 that is the organism has information on what it is like to be a 2 (egg) because it has been there and done that.
The current philosophical issues dealing with conciousness appear stuck at xplzthm (abstract nonsense) simply because few will admit the organic dynamics of progressions or processes. Agree? Disagree?
That’s nice. The only problem with such descriptions is that they do not describe what they’re supposed to describe.
I’m all for that, or would be if it were possible. Unfortunately, in doing so, you end up redefining “consciousness” and talking about something else altogether.
Whoops! I’m reminded of the old Sesame Street song: “one of these things is not like the other . . .”
A “process” exists only when viewed from the outside, objectively.
An “activity” can either be viewed objectively from without, or experienced subjectively from within.
An “experience” exists only subjectively, from within.
The three words you have used here are not synonyms and you should not treat them as such.
Navigator,
So much xplzthm, so little thought. All I see you doing is saying that you disagree, not that you offer any careful, considered counter-arguments to any that I’ve presented here. Please go back to the chat rooms and leave philosophy for those who take it seriously!
(Gratuitous nasty ad homs deleted as unworthy of response.)
You have not presented any arguments, Ierellus, except to say that you WANT to have a physical basis of consciousness because it would do yada yada yada that is desirable. The entire thing falls apart on the problem that consciousness is inherently subjective and cannot be observed, only experienced from within. That being the case, there can be no “cause” for consciousness (whether physical or otherwise), because there is no observable “effect” for anything to be the cause OF.
That IS a careful and considered argument. It’s just one that doesn’t require huge amounts of verbiage to state.
You also, of course, don’t bolster your position in any way by being an obnoxious, insufferable asshole. I suggest you modify that tendency somewhat.
Navigator,
I truly apologize for the ad hominems. Those came from a knee-jerk reaction to your response. The OP I gave is carefully thought out. I would expect anyone who responds to it to also think carefully. If you object to the entire premise of physical roots of consciousness, you are welcome to your opinion so long as you attempt to state why you object to it. From your response I have no idea if you simply reject the premise, if you object to any concept of evolutionary psychology or if you object to science in general. About matters of belief-- I can assert that I believe the moon is made out of green cheese. The only way you could refute that contention would be to provide some scientific references that prove me wrong. Then I could say I don’t believe in the scientific references. Can’t you see how annoying such a conversation would be? If you object to my premise on no other grounds than personal belief, why respond at all?
In many ways, I think I’m allergic to consciousness.
The highlight for me, of any 24 hour period, is the last couple of hours; feeling only then that freedom can be obtained easily by simply lying down and closing my eyes.
What goes through my mind as I lay there, falling to sleep, I like to think of as sensory echoes . . .
. . . a pinball machine, with a billion balls that were previously in play, slowly trickling to rest.
Moderators,
Please discontinue and delete this thread. Thanks for the honor and privilege of allowing me to present threads and to post in many of them.