An astounding state of affairs
- Magical Realist
- Posts: 127
- Joined: August 28th, 2009, 8:47 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
An astounding state of affairs
- Magical Realist
- Posts: 127
- Joined: August 28th, 2009, 8:47 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
"Did consciousness evolve, or was it just the contents of consciousness that have evolved?"
I definitely think consciousness has evolved separately from any of it's contents. Scientifically at least we posit a time before animals when things still existed in real physical states just as they do now. But at some point there arise minds capable of being aware of them as existing. This suggests an epiphenomenal quality to consciousness such that it is extraneous to an already ongoing and independent reality. We in fact assume as much with our very act of observation: ie. really seeing a tree shouldn't have any affect on the reality of the tree in any way otherwise we would never see the tree as it IS.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: July 8th, 2009, 4:36 pm
- Location: meaningless concept
If the complexity of experience can evolve - as it does even during one's own lifetime - then what does it evolve in or through?
Whether a materialist or an idealist, one has to distinguish between the experience that we have of the world, and the ~thing~ that houses this ever-more-complex experience.
We know that the experience evolves - becomes more complex - but, unless one claims that the brain is the essence of that experience, we cannot be sure whether that which houses experience, does.
That is the fundamental difference between the materialist & idealist. And actually, the answers to the questions that you posed in the OP, depend very-much upon whether one is a materialist or an idealist, I think.
- Magical Realist
- Posts: 127
- Joined: August 28th, 2009, 8:47 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
"I'm trying to distinguish between that which houses experience and that which is experienced. And I'm suggesting that what has or can evolve is the complexity of the experience.
If the complexity of experience can evolve - as it does even during one's own lifetime - then what does it evolve in or through?"
Consciousness might seem at first glance a merely self-complexifying phenomenon. There is certainly alot more information to handle as we go thru life, and there is also this rapid increase in information and its patterns in mankind's consciousness as whole.
But consciousness is also about simplification and reduction: we learn language in order to encode in signs the profusion of raw experience. We quantify diverse multiplicities of time and space under symbols called numbers. Consciousness is definitely more about understanding than it is about being just more complicated. Ideally by the time we reach our senior years we have already parred down the drama of our lives into a rather simplistic storyline and a few philosophical lessons to share with others before we die.
So has consciousness indeed really become more complex or is it actually more of filter selectively breaking down the constant welter of sensory and cognitive noise we
experience down to simpler and more discrete elements?
In any case, I don't make a distinction between consciousness and its contents. It'd be like trying to posit some empty silouette of vacant space that a sculpture is contained in. Does that really makes sense--to posit an emptiness where there is always nothing BUT the fullness--indeed the exuberance--of patterns and forms?
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: July 8th, 2009, 4:36 pm
- Location: meaningless concept
We learn language to communicate, which then adds to the complexity of our relationships with others. The acquirement of language does not signify a simplification of experience.Magical Realist wrote:But consciousness is also about simplification and reduction: we learn language in order to encode in signs the profusion of raw experience.
Only so we can manipulate those dimensions, thus adding to the complexity of our experience. Has science made life more complex, or not?We quantify diverse multiplicities of time and space under symbols called numbers.
Okay, but 'understanding' is part of the experience, and part of the complexity of that experience. Intelligence is an evolving aspect of the totality of experience, not something separate or distinct to it.Consciousness is definitely more about understanding than it is about being just more complicated.
When I think of experience becoming more complex, I'm thinking mostly of one's reaction to it: thoughts; feelings; language; logic/math; art; religion - these are complex responses to the stimuli that is 'the world'.So has consciousness indeed really become more complex or is it actually more of filter selectively breaking down the constant welter of sensory and cognitive noise we
experience down to simpler and more discrete elements?
Don't you think that ~something~ that is not experience, must harbour experience? Probably, you think that 'the brain' is conscious[ness]. So, are you saying that you make NO distinction between the brain and the contents of its experience?In any case, I don't make a distinction between consciousness and its contents.
That would make you an 'identity theorist', I think. In which case, at some point in the future we need to have a discussion about Leibniz's Law, as well as 'intentionality' ('aboutness').
By the way, it's good to have you back. I thought you'd left.
- Keith Russell
- Posts: 897
- Joined: January 6th, 2010, 10:50 pm
Re: An astounding state of affairs
For starters, at one time there were three hominid species on earth...two others besides the homo sapiens we know today.Magical Realist wrote:If something like consciousness and intelligence could evolve once on our own planet--almost as an afterthought out of the tool-brandishing and jaw-jacking brains of a certain unassuming species of prehistoric hominid-- what other comparable if not even more wondrous things have emerged?
We are used to thinking of our minds as the pinnacle of creation. There is no other phenomenon so wrapped in mystery and irreducibility. And yet here it is. What does this say about what is evolvable in a 12 billion year old and counting universe with at least a 100 billion galaxies?
- Magical Realist
- Posts: 127
- Joined: August 28th, 2009, 8:47 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13821
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
But mind, considered as being the cause of the notion of brain, or conversely, mind regarded as an epiphenomenon of brain, is the business of philosophers to decide.
I bet that you don't think of yourself as a Cartesian dualist, lifegazer . But maybe your metaphor here needs looking into?Whether a materialist or an idealist, one has to distinguish between the experience that we have of the world, and the ~thing~ that houses this ever-more-complex experience
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: July 8th, 2009, 4:36 pm
- Location: meaningless concept
I'm a monistic idealistBelinda wrote:I bet that you don't think of yourself as a Cartesian dualist, lifegazer . But maybe your metaphor here needs looking into?Whether a materialist or an idealist, one has to distinguish between the experience that we have of the world, and the ~thing~ that houses this ever-more-complex experience
Firstly, there must be a distinction between experienced and experiencer. The experience of a tree, for instance, is not an experienced tree that is aware of itself. Nor is my experience of you, that experience of you being aware of itself. Clearly, the content of experience is not the experiencer.
Also, the content of experience is diverse and fleeting. Yet, there is a continuum and order that is integrated into a 'whole'. That is, experience is not just a series of momentary phenomena, but a singular phenomenon that embraces the totality of all constituent content.
So, whatever philosophy one adopts, this distinction between observer and observed has to embraced.
Secondly, the distinctions a monist speaks of are about different aspects of a singular reality... and not about different entities or realities.
For my own part, I find it impossible to reconcile a material reality with a non-spatial experience. And I think that any distinction drawn between experience and material-brains, necessarily has to be one between two realities. That is, I think that monistic materialism is an irrational stance to hold.
Of course, much of what I said here requires further reasoning, but I don't have that much time right now and was just giving you an overview of my thinking on the matter.
- Magical Realist
- Posts: 127
- Joined: August 28th, 2009, 8:47 pm
- Location: Portland Oregon
"When I think of experience becoming more complex, I'm thinking mostly of one's reaction to it: thoughts; feelings; language; logic/math; art; religion - these are complex responses to the stimuli that is 'the world'."
I see what you're saying. Taken as a sort of extention or manifestation of consciousness culture and symbolism has definitely taken our few most primitive instincts to new heights of expression and conceptualization. Used to be fear just kept cavepeople huddled together on dark thunderous nights. Now there's a whole art to fearing: scary movies, horror novels, halloween, urban legends, ghost hunts, etc. Who could've forseen such diverse and creative elaborations of what was originally just a simple impulse to save one's life?
"Don't you think that ~something~ that is not experience, must harbour experience? Probably, you think that 'the brain' is conscious[ness]. So, are you saying that you make NO distinction between the brain and the contents of its experience?"
Perhaps so. The technological metaphor of a physical storage device as in memory or data comes to mind. Is consciousness itself "stored" inside the brain like memory is on a computer chip? I think it is partially. People can damage various areas of their brains and exhibit losses in conscious functions. And I definitely think the brain, particularly the cerebral cortex, has evolved in its capacity for consciousness. I don't however identify consciousness with aspects of the brain. The qualia "red" or "sweetness" or "love" for instance are more than just synapses firing off in brain tissue. They exist in some kind of timeless Platonic realm on their own.
"That would make you an 'identity theorist', I think. In which case, at some point in the future we need to have a discussion about Leibniz's Law, as well as 'intentionality' ('aboutness')."
That sounds interesting. Does this also have to do with the notoriously thorny issue of reference? I've pounded my head on that one for a long time and still don't now exactly how reference can take place.
"By the way, it's good to have you back. I thought you'd left."
Thanks! I DID go away for awhile. Hopefully I'll hang around longer this time.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13821
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Is your experience and my experience, your changing perspectives and my changing perspectives, integrated into whole? Is the whole which may be analysed into component parts of your perspectives and my perspectives the truth, i.e. what is the case? I too think that we need to focus on distinguishing between your perspectives and my perspectives but only in the practical interests of fairness and equality. I think that when we are engaged in metaphysics we need to view reality wholistically(holistically). I am saying that we need both the perspective that sees you and me as distinct from each other and also the perspective that sees you and me as parts of the same whole. I have just viewed the film 'Mind Walk' recommended by boagie. My feeling about what needs to be done next is that we need to balance feminine wholism(lack of control) and masculine analysis (control).At present the masculine control over nature is too much for safety, it's like being in a ship controlled by posturing paranoids.Yet, there is a continuum and order that is integrated into a 'whole'. That is, experience is not just a series of momentary phenomena, but a singular phenomenon that embraces the totality of all constituent content.
So, whatever philosophy one adopts, this distinction between observer and observed has to embraced.
-
- Posts: 499
- Joined: July 8th, 2009, 4:36 pm
- Location: meaningless concept
What a line. Lovin' it.Belinda wrote:... it's like being in a ship controlled by posturing paranoids.
I'll address other stuff later.
Of course, I'm aware of this. But please ponder my stance: that ALL experienced entities are reducible to orchestrated quale designed to give the APPEARANCE of things. Therefore, note the distinction between the experience of a thing and the reality of a thing in itself. This includes 'the brain'. We can only EXPERIENCE brains... and without a doubt, an experienced entity cannot be the cause of experience.Magical Realist wrote:People can damage various areas of their brains and exhibit losses in conscious functions.
The point is that although we experience causal relationships between [experienced] brains and [the rest of] experience, that there's no evidence to suggest that [real] 'brains' cause that experience.
Moreover, since experience is reducible to orchestrated quale/sensations, we should actually expect to observe causal relationships between quale, thoughts and feelings. That is, we should expect quale/sensations to affect thoughts and emotions. Likewise, we should expect thoughts to affect emotions & sensations... and emotions to affect thought and sensations.
In other words, since 'the brain' is reducible to quale/sensation, even idealism should expect causal relationships between it and thoughts/feelings. But note that I say that we should expect that thoughts/feelings should affect the brain too. And this is indeed the case.
... Or, in a nutshell, the 'localization of [brain] function' - as [apparently] evidenced by neuropsychological case studies of brain damage - does not suffice to prove that 'a brain' causes experience.
Perhaps a simple analogy will speak volumes: an experienced sun cannot be the cause of an experienced shadow.
It certainly APPEARS that way - as we study the order inherent within the only brain that we are privy to: an EXPERIENCED brain.And I definitely think the brain, particularly the cerebral cortex, has evolved in its capacity for consciousness.
Exactly. Conversely, the identity of 'brain' exists amidst the quale that 'speak' of it.I don't however identify consciousness with aspects of the brain. The qualia "red" or "sweetness" or "love" for instance are more than just synapses firing off in brain tissue. They exist in some kind of timeless Platonic realm on their own.
I'm not sure what you are asking me. What I was refering to, basically, is how a physical state of the brain could be experienced as something else that is not a brain, or any composite of it. For example, how could any physical state of the brain be deemed to be 'a tree'? That is, if I experience 'a tree', how can that be reducible to a specific brain-state?"That would make you an 'identity theorist', I think. In which case, at some point in the future we need to have a discussion about Leibniz's Law, as well as 'intentionality' ('aboutness')."
- That sounds interesting. Does this also have to do with the notoriously thorny issue of reference? I've pounded my head on that one for a long time and still don't now exactly how reference can take place.
Good, since I enjoyed your earlier participation."By the way, it's good to have you back. I thought you'd left."
Thanks! I DID go away for awhile. Hopefully I'll hang around longer this time.
- Keith Russell
- Posts: 897
- Joined: January 6th, 2010, 10:50 pm
The intial post asked what other wondrous things might have emerged.Magical Realist wrote:Keith Russell quibbled:
"For starters, at one time there were three hominid species on earth...two others besides the homo sapiens we know today."
So what? Why don't you try thoughtfully addressing the question of this topic instead of nitpicking?
So, I answered, by naming something I find interesting.
How that is "nitpicking", I just don't understand.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13821
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
How about this: the contents of consciousness are the mental , and consciousness as neuronal events are the physical ? Two sides of the same coin and both of them necessary.Did consciousness evolve, or was it just the contents of consciousness that have evolved?
Both of them evolved from life forms that were less conscious than our homo sapiens life form. It's true that within the context of evolution consciousness is an emergent phenomenon, and to understand this includes understanding that consciousness did not and does not arise fully formed all at once but is and has inclused differences of degree.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023