Consciousness without [the majority of] a brain?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Locked
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Consul »

QUOTE>
"We appear wholly dependent on our alarmingly fragile brains. On the basis of this premise, we may suppose that consciousness did not exist on earth before brains evolved – and perhaps only when vertebrate brains evolved; therefore, about 525 million years ago. I suspect it arose in rudimentary form before that; that a precursor of affect gradually became felt affect, with no sharp dividing line between them, in tandem with the evolution of increasingly complex organisms with multiple competing needs. What emerged with the evolution of cortex was cognitive consciousness – that is, the additional capacity to contextualise affect exteroceptively and hold it in mind. In any event, sentient being cannot have existed before nervous systems existed. The inner, subjective form of consciousness cannot have existed in the absence of its outer body. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence I marshalled in Chapter 6, we may conclude that consciousness as we know it requires the existence of something which looks like the PAG [periaqueductal grey], or its immediate evolutionary precursor, together with its adjacent equipment in the midbrain decision triangle and reticular activating system."

(Solms, Mark. The Hidden Spring: A Journey to the Source of Consciousness. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2021.)
<QUOTE
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
NickGaspar
Posts: 656
Joined: October 8th, 2019, 5:45 am
Favorite Philosopher: Many

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by NickGaspar »

Atla wrote: June 11th, 2021, 5:38 pm
NickGaspar wrote: June 11th, 2021, 4:00 pm
Atla wrote: June 11th, 2021, 1:03 pm
NickGaspar wrote: June 11th, 2021, 12:50 pm If you are not accepting the causal role of the physical structure involved, then you are talking about them without realizing it sir. Again you either get to eat your cake or keep it....its simple. Projecting mind properties in to nature independent of its biological mechanism is exactly that...
Who said anything about projecting mind properties in to nature independent of its biological mechanism? That would be a dedication to dualism.
-not even close.....Science doesn't answer "why" questions.
"Why" has multiple meanings, and scientists use the word too.
Asking "why something" feels the way it does and not differently .....that is a text book example of teleology.
Nothing to do with teleology, where do you see that in the above sentence?
You should read the whole thread before posting any questions. Its not my job to answer who said what and why searching for intention and purpose behind a physical phenomenon is a fallacy.
Where did you see "intention or purpose" in my comments, or the topic title "consciousness without a brain", or the OP? And if you didn't, then what are you replying to and why?
AGain read the thread before commenting. Its not all about you
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Sy Borg »

Atla wrote: June 12th, 2021, 1:13 amWhy do you choose to confuse the Hard problem (the general philosophical "hard" problem) with the problem of the sense of being (a specific scientific "easy" problem)?
Because the hard problem refers to one's sense of being. That is what it is and has always been since David Chalmers first came up with the idea.

What impression did you have of the hard problem?
User avatar
Sy Borg
Site Admin
Posts: 14992
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Sy Borg »

Consul wrote: June 12th, 2021, 11:19 amThe very concept of a brute or raw experience, i.e. one which is totally uncognized or unperceived by its subject, is of questionable coherence. Such cognitively unaccessed or even unaccessible experiences (experiential qualia) would be the psychological counterparts of Kant's undetectable and unknowable noumena.
Not long ago, wondering what came before the Big bang was considered a question of questionable coherence. Things change, especially in frontier areas of science.[/quote]
Sy Borg wrote: June 11th, 2021, 8:00 pm Kant's noumena concept make sense because it is impossible to know everything. If you could build a computer powerful enough to calculate all things it would undergo gravitational collapse (this has been modelled mathematically). Nature's repetitive and quasi-fractal nature makes it possible to extrapolate mathematically about things that we could not otherwise model, but that's a matter of averaging and reaching estimations that will never be foolproof.
Consul wrote: June 12th, 2021, 11:19 amThat there can be cognition or perception without phenomenal consciousness is not in question, but can there be phenomenal consciousness which isn't an object of inner cognition or perception? Again, the seemingly insoluble epistemological and methodological problem is that any possible evidence for cognition- or perception-transcendent and -independent phenomenal consciousness depends on acts of inner cognition or perception.

However, there are people such as Ned Block who believe that "Perceptual consciousness overflows cognitive access" and present experimental results to that effect: https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/fac ... erflow.pdf

Other philosophers and scientists deny that those experiments have successfully demonstrated that Block is right.
Still, once you are looking at human consciousness, you are already quite a long way from the source. It's akin to being on the ISS, trying to observe honey badgers on the Earth.
Consul wrote: June 12th, 2021, 11:19 am
Sy Borg wrote: June 11th, 2021, 8:00 pmThere's two possibilities: either a sense of being is emergent or it's fundamental, and the question is academic. If consciousness is fundamental, it changes nothing in terms of ethics, given that humans routinely kill all manner of highly sentient beings, sometimes each other.

"Brute or raw experience" without augmentation by brains may or may not exist, but it is worthless to us. A point for panpsychism is that "philosophical zombies" would be more effective in life than beings that experience. It seems that experience itself is the point of experience. Without it, no one cares and entropy happens unabated. Experiencing motivates. We can expect natural selection to favour motivated entities that are capable of actions that counter local entropy over unmotivated or incapable entities that are fully subject to chance.

I accept that life and consciousness are, for all known practical means and purposes, emergent phenomena. Still, it is logical that there was a basis for these emergences in prebiotic times, that something somewhat similar in nature to life and consciousness existed. Major emergences are logically just exponential jumps in complexity, changing from something that is of the same ilk, but exponentially less complex.

Obviously these phenomena were not infused with magic by a universe-sized, silver-bearded spirit with an outstretched index finger (unless the simulation hypothesis is correct, and that giant finger was actually pressing the Enter key hehehe). Rather, life is thought to have emerged from complex sugars generated by geological activity. Equivalently, consciousness emerged from blind reflexes, basic sensations but sensing of some kind has always happened, just that "dead" matter reacting to stimuli can only offer the most basic resistance to entropy.

I don't claim to have some grand theory or special knowledge (as some have implied) but I do think that it's easy to mistake scientific silos for genuine divisions of reality, rather than efficacious and convenient chunking of complex material. Thus, I think it's worth following the chain of being from as early a point as possible rather than starting our investigations with prokaryotes, or viruses or flatworms - because that is what happened, regardless of our ideas about it. Trouble is, it's not easy. It would good to see as thorough and non-anthropomorphic investigation as this into qualia https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElMqwgkXguw
According to panpsychism, experiential properties are among the fundamental natural properties, so experience is a brute fact of nature—end of story. I reject panpsychism. I also reject ontological emergentism (with its mutually irreducible layers or levels of being). My position—compositional/constitutional materialism (mereological physicalism)—is a version of reductive materialism.

During the course of biological evolution a transition or transformation took place from preconscious/preexperiential physiological sensitivity to psychological/phenomenological sentience.

"If we want to understand consciousness and its basis, we should study its source—neural activity at its most rudimentary level, and then track the phenomenon, step by step, through to its more advanced manifestations, ultimately to us humans. So the approach would be the same as the one we have taken in addressing the problem of abiogenesis—start simple. A fascinating scientific journey awaits us."

(Pross, Addy. What is Life? How Chemistry becomes Biology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. p. 178)

We can start even earlier with primitive non-neuronal stimulus-response mechanisms as we find them in bacteria, but it is a long evolutionary way from there to phenomenally conscious minds as we find them in brained animals. The true history of mind and consciousness doesn't precede the evolution of animal nervous systems.
Yes, we need to track back from the neuron:
Neurons evolved from primitive cells that are capable of sensitivity (irritability) and contractility (exercising force by changing shape) as drawn by Parker in 1919 ( Figure 4Aa) (also see Meech & Mackie 2007). The initial differentiation of these cells into true neurons or muscle cells precedes the further differentiation of nerve cells into sensory neurons (in communication relation to the external world) or motor neurons (in direct communication with muscles or glands) ( Figure 4Ab). The final stage occurs with the development of interneurons (establishing contacts between sensory and motor neurons) ( Figure 4Ac). The latter represent the vast majority of neurons in the brain and ganglia.
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Neuron

I would, as discussed, look back into microbial sensory organelles. Yes, it's a long way from the extreme complexity of human brains and minds. Many claim that consciousness is indivisible, like a river is indivisible, but consciousness is composed of interconnected reflexes in roughly the same way as water is composed of connected molecules.

One might argue that a water molecule does not have the properties of water; that a molecule is not "wet", just as reflexes don't have self-awareness. That's emergence, where a connected group develops qualities that its individuals do not, eg. Humanity builds skyscrapers and space stations, which individual humans cannot.

So, while there are clear differences between reflexes and consciousness, there are fundamental similarities. There is nothing in nature closer to consciousness than reflexes. I do not believe in "biological machines" exist, that sensing is actually felt by relatively tiny and subtle life forms in much the same way as Brownian motion is unimportant to beings of our size but significant to microbes.

This is, of course, only an idea because I'm no more capable of imagining what such a state would feel like than anyone else (from my lofty perch in the "Consciousness ISS"). Still, what seems insignificant to the very large can be critical for the very small. So, if organisms are sensing and responding to their environment to obtain food and to avoid threats, then they would seem to be experiencing some simple sense of being alive, just that the mechanisms behind it are still to be explored.

Or panpsychism might be correct, that consciousness exists in ever greater subtlety and simplicity, the further down one drills. Or materialism might be correct and the situation is closer to the conceptions you prefer. It would be nice if research was not so much about human brains but, if I am the one paying for research grants, I'd also wanting projects that make a difference in medicine rather than blue skies work.
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Atla »

NickGaspar wrote: June 12th, 2021, 3:29 pm
Atla wrote: June 11th, 2021, 5:38 pm
NickGaspar wrote: June 11th, 2021, 4:00 pm
Atla wrote: June 11th, 2021, 1:03 pm
Who said anything about projecting mind properties in to nature independent of its biological mechanism? That would be a dedication to dualism.


"Why" has multiple meanings, and scientists use the word too.


Nothing to do with teleology, where do you see that in the above sentence?
You should read the whole thread before posting any questions. Its not my job to answer who said what and why searching for intention and purpose behind a physical phenomenon is a fallacy.
Where did you see "intention or purpose" in my comments, or the topic title "consciousness without a brain", or the OP? And if you didn't, then what are you replying to and why?
AGain read the thread before commenting. Its not all about you
I know, it's all about you. You were the one replying to my comments, what are you replying to?
True philosophy points to the Moon
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Atla »

Sy Borg wrote: June 12th, 2021, 5:34 pm
Atla wrote: June 12th, 2021, 1:13 amWhy do you choose to confuse the Hard problem (the general philosophical "hard" problem) with the problem of the sense of being (a specific scientific "easy" problem)?
Because the hard problem refers to one's sense of being. That is what it is and has always been since David Chalmers first came up with the idea.

What impression did you have of the hard problem?
The Hard problem has always been the general problem of qualia, the "what it's like" experience. It was present long before Chalmers, he just famously pointed it out again.

The "sense of being" is a specific group of qualia/"what it's like" experiences, unless you mean something very different by it. For example I don't see how the qualia of red, is by itself, a sense of being. Didn't see "sense of being" mentioned on such pages:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_prob ... sciousness
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/
https://iep.utm.edu/hard-con/

So the "sense of being" should "just" be an easy problem, mappable onto physical structures by science.

It's an interesting problem by itself obviously, for example what is self-awareness? Only a few species on the planet seem to exhibit raw self-awareness. Do the gut, the spine and other organs (for example the EM fields generated by the heart) contribute to the human sense of being? Should we consider the "blip" qualia of a single celled organisms's metabolism, to be a sense of being? etc.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Consul »

Sy Borg wrote: June 12th, 2021, 7:08 pm
Consul wrote: June 12th, 2021, 11:19 amHowever, there are people such as Ned Block who believe that "Perceptual consciousness overflows cognitive access" and present experimental results to that effect: https://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/fac ... erflow.pdf

Other philosophers and scientists deny that those experiments have successfully demonstrated that Block is right.
Still, once you are looking at human consciousness, you are already quite a long way from the source. It's akin to being on the ISS, trying to observe honey badgers on the Earth.
If human P-consciousness can "overflow" A-consciousness (cognitive access/accessibility), then nonhuman P-consciousness can do so too.
Sy Borg wrote: June 12th, 2021, 7:08 pmSo, while there are clear differences between reflexes and consciousness, there are fundamental similarities. There is nothing in nature closer to consciousness than reflexes. I do not believe in "biological machines" exist, that sensing is actually felt by relatively tiny and subtle life forms in much the same way as Brownian motion is unimportant to beings of our size but significant to microbes.

This is, of course, only an idea because I'm no more capable of imagining what such a state would feel like than anyone else (from my lofty perch in the "Consciousness ISS"). Still, what seems insignificant to the very large can be critical for the very small. So, if organisms are sensing and responding to their environment to obtain food and to avoid threats, then they would seem to be experiencing some simple sense of being alive, just that the mechanisms behind it are still to be explored.
Once again, responsiveness to stimuli (e.g. in the form of reflexes) is different from and doesn't include P-consciousness. Your argument is unsound because physiological "sensing and responding" isn't sufficient for subjective experiencing.

By the way, interestingly, the eminent neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga calls consciousness an "instinct", which is…

"an innate propensity to emit a relatively fixed response to a stimulus," or "any natural and apparently innate drive or motivation, such as those associated with sex, hunger, and self-preservation." (Oxford Dictionary of Psychology)

"an innate, species-specific biological force that impels an organism to do something, particularly to perform a certain act or respond in a certain manner to specific stimuli." (APA Dictionary of Psychology)

So instincts are something like reflexes, aren't they? Nonetheless, I have difficulty understanding what it means to call consciousness an instinct.

"Plainly stated, I believe consciousness is an instinct. Many organisms, not just humans, come with it, ready-made. That is what instincts are, something organisms come with. Living things have an organization that allows life and ultimately consciousness to exist, even though they are made from the same materials as the non-living natural world that surrounds them. And instincts envelop organisms from bacteria to humans. Survival, sex, resilience, and walking are commonly thought to be instincts, but so, too, are more complex capacities such as language and sociality—all are instincts. The list is long, and we humans seem to have more instincts than other creatures. Yet there is something special about the consciousness instinct. It is no ordinary instinct. In fact, it seems so extraordinary that many think only we humans can lay claim to it. Even if that’s not the case, we want to know more about it. And because we all have it, we all think we have insight into it. As we will see, it is a slippery, complex instinct situated in the universe’s most impenetrable organ, the brain."

(Gazzaniga, Michael S. The Consciousness Instinct: Unraveling the Mystery of How the Brain Makes the Mind. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2018. pp. 5-6)

He then writes:

"Let's pause to ask the fundamental question: What is an instinct, anyway? The term is thrown around like confetti on a parade. Each year the list of instincts grows and grows." (p. 232)

Well, he then goes on quoting William James; but at the end of the day it's still unclear to me what exactly Gazzaniga's definition is. This may be due to my own stupidity, or he really doesn't express himself very clearly.

Anyway, there are inconsistent statements such as these:

"Plainly stated, I believe consciousness is an instinct" (p. 5)

"In the end, we must realize that consciousness is an instinct." (p. 236)
VERSUS
"'Consciousness' is the word we use to describe the subjective feeling of a number of instincts and/or memories playing out in time in an organism. That is why 'consciousness' is a proxy word for how a complex living organism operates." (p. 79)

"I propose that what we call 'consciousness' is a feeling forming a backdrop to, or attached to, a current mental event or instinct."
(p. 106)

Consciousness itself being an instinct and consciousness being something (else) attached to an instinct are two different things. So what exactly is consciousness? It cannot be both an instinct (instinctive operation) and an appendage of an instinct!
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Consul »

Finally, to repeat my central point, all living organisms—from bacteria to humans—may be equipped with some instinctive/reflexive stimulus-response mechanism, but such mechanisms do not per se involve phenomenal consciousness.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Consul »

Atla wrote: June 12th, 2021, 11:29 pm
Sy Borg wrote: June 12th, 2021, 5:34 pm Because the hard problem refers to one's sense of being. That is what it is and has always been since David Chalmers first came up with the idea.
What impression did you have of the hard problem?
The Hard problem has always been the general problem of qualia, the "what it's like" experience. It was present long before Chalmers, he just famously pointed it out again.
The "sense of being" is a specific group of qualia/"what it's like" experiences, unless you mean something very different by it. For example I don't see how the qualia of red, is by itself, a sense of being. Didn't see "sense of being" mentioned on such pages:…
You're right, the phrase "sense of being" is obscure. The hard problem is simply and generally the problem of (the becoming and being of) subjective experience aka phenomenal consciousness (in a physical world).
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Consul »

Atla wrote: June 12th, 2021, 11:29 pmIt's an interesting problem by itself obviously, for example what is self-awareness? Only a few species on the planet seem to exhibit raw self-awareness.
If "selves" or subjects are bodies or organisms, then self-awareness qua bodily self-perception (in the form of interoception and proprioception) isn't rare among animal species. What is rare among them is self-awareness qua inner perception (introspection) of one's mind or consciousness (as opposed to perception of one's body). That's the distinction between corporeal or physiological self-awareness/self-perception and mental or psychological self-awareness/self-perception.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Atla »

Consul wrote: June 13th, 2021, 11:53 am
Atla wrote: June 12th, 2021, 11:29 pmIt's an interesting problem by itself obviously, for example what is self-awareness? Only a few species on the planet seem to exhibit raw self-awareness.
If "selves" or subjects are bodies or organisms, then self-awareness qua bodily self-perception (in the form of interoception and proprioception) isn't rare among animal species. What is rare among them is self-awareness qua inner perception (introspection) of one's mind or consciousness (as opposed to perception of one's body). That's the distinction between corporeal or physiological self-awareness/self-perception and mental or psychological self-awareness/self-perception.
I'd say the first one is more like just bodily awareness, not self-awareness.

I roughly meant the latter, awareness of one's own existence, one's own presence. Having a presence. One way to try to measure it is the mirror test, but it can give false positives. For example I suspect that magpies can recognize their own image, but aren't actually self-aware with that few neurons. Not sure, maybe they are.

(Animals don't divide existence into mental and corporeal, that's just an insanity that humans have succumbed many centuries ago, creating the Hard problem. Animals are in the natural pre-dual state, good to remember when dealing with pets for example.)
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Consul »

Atla wrote: June 13th, 2021, 12:17 pmI'd say the first one is more like just bodily awareness, not self-awareness.
If selves are bodies, then bodily awareness is self-awareness, i.e. awareness of oneself qua body.
"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
User avatar
Consul
Posts: 6036
Joined: February 21st, 2014, 6:32 am
Location: Germany

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Consul »

Atla wrote: June 13th, 2021, 12:17 pm …For example I suspect that magpies can recognize their own image, but aren't actually self-aware with that few neurons. Not sure, maybe they are.
There are quite a few neurons in a magpie's brain:

Birds pack more cells into their brains than mammals

Birds have primate-like numbers of neurons in the forebrain

By the way, I recently came upon this nice video:

"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Atla »

Consul wrote: June 13th, 2021, 1:36 pm
Atla wrote: June 13th, 2021, 12:17 pmI'd say the first one is more like just bodily awareness, not self-awareness.
If selves are bodies, then bodily awareness is self-awareness, i.e. awareness of oneself qua body.
Okay I can't think of a way where this wordplay makes sense (unless some sort of dualism or trialism).

Selves are 'bodily' parts of some organisms, but most organisms are 'bodies' without a self.
One can't be aware of oneself 'qua' body, because 'one' and 'awareness' are also parts of the body.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Consciousness without a brain?

Post by Atla »

Consul wrote: June 13th, 2021, 1:46 pm
Atla wrote: June 13th, 2021, 12:17 pm …For example I suspect that magpies can recognize their own image, but aren't actually self-aware with that few neurons. Not sure, maybe they are.
There are quite a few neurons in a magpie's brain:

Birds pack more cells into their brains than mammals

Birds have primate-like numbers of neurons in the forebrain

By the way, I recently came upon this nice video:

That still seems way too low to me, it says magpies have ~1 billion neurons. Let's look at humans and other species which I'd say are probably self-aware: elephants, whales, dolphins, great apes (some/most subscecies of them), all on the order of 10 billion neurons.

Doesn't seem to add up, self-awareness seems to be the one genuine soft-emergence in brains, and it needs the numbers. Unless those 1 billion neurons for magpies are shaped in an unusually efficient way, in an unusually small volume, for genuine self-awareness. But I suspect what has happened here is that their brains are shaped in a way that imitates self-recognition.
True philosophy points to the Moon
Locked

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021