Consciousness

[masterblasterofdisaster]

Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFjY1fAcESs

"Brain, bodily awareness, and the emergence of a conscious self: these entities and their relations are explored by Germanphilosopher and cognitive scientist Metzinger. Extensively working with neuroscientists he has come to the conclusion that, in fact, there is no such thing as a "self" -- that a "self" is simply the content of a model created by our brain - part of a virtual reality we create for ourselves.

A zen practitioner would agree, there is no authentic self, no observer but there is observation, awareness, consciousness.
I like this guy http://www.jacobneedleman.com/storage/p ... 20Body.pdf

I'm definitely watching that video later after work.

Thanks for the interview with Needleman. I found the very last question and response the most interesting.

[H20nly]

there is no such thing as a "self" -- that a "self" is simply the content of a model created by our brain - part of a virtual reality we create for ourselves.

Can you see what's wrong with that sentence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros

[d.reamonn]

I think it's a bit pointless wondering if plants have a consciousness unless you are a botanist. And I'm pretty sure a botanist will say no they do not.

What's interesting about consciousness to me is how it applies to humans. What is human consciousness? This is a vital question for mankind. Consciousness is basically undefinable by definition, because it is the foundation of human thought, which must be defined in terms of it.

Differentiating between thought, and what exists independently of thought, is the most fundamental question posed by philosophers for hundreds of years. The first to pose the question was Descartes who was quoted earlier in the thread ("I think therefore I am"). Then came Hegel. He was criticised by the materialists. The gap was filled by Marx.

And so it was that funken demonstrated, with a single post, how to invalidate any thought: simply append to it "the gap was filled by Marx." That gap was filled by Marx.

[steko]

And then came the great Gregory Bateson.

Highly recommended!:

Amazon.com: Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology: Gregory Bateson: Books

Amazon.com: Mind and Nature: A Necessary Unity (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Sciences): Gregory Bateson: Books

one of the comments puts it nicely:

This classic work by Gregory Bateson deserves to be read by anyone seriously interested in cognitive science, artificial intelligence, evolutionary biology, epistemology, philosophy (in particular, logic), or any related field. Bateson illustrates in brilliant fashion a number of key concepts which "every schoolboy should know", but which, unfortunately, have escaped the notice of a wide variety of philosophers and scientists---if not every schoolboy, certainly every professional scientist and philosopher should be familiar with this work, whether they agree with it or not.

The basic ideas behind his work are subtle, yet Bateson does an excellent job of describing them clearly. In the process he manages to present and lucidly explain a wonderful solution to the mind-body problem which requires no supernatural forces, yet accounts very clearly for our intuitive perception that mind is in some sense non-physical. His information-theoretic approach is profound yet simple. His ideas touch upon many very deep issues, ranging from the definition of mental process itself to the logical distinctions between different levels of logical type, and also clearly illustrates and explains the origin of some of the major problems in formal logic, including why self-referential paradoxes arise in formal logical systems, and what this says about the limitations of these systems (and how one can get around these problems!). The work touches on many different aspects of many seemingly unrelated fields, and ties them together with a set of powerful and yet graspable abstractions which allow you to re-frame with clarity some of the greatest philosophical problems mankind has faced. It is a wonderful, poetic, and yet starkly rational approach which deserves to be read by every serious student of modern thought.

...

This book is an excellent introduction to Bateson's work and thought, and should be required reading for many college courses in different departments.

Amazon.com: Angels Fear: Towards An Epistemology Of The Sacred (Advances in Systems Theory, Complexity, and the Human Science): Gregory Bateson, Mary Catherine Bateson: Books


The pattern that connects…

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.oliversacks.com/

http://www.oliversacks.com/books/man-wh ... -his-wife/

http://www.oliversacks.com/books/anthro ... t-on-mars/

[stringtapper]

This thread has me questioning my own consciousness.

[H20nly]

[stringtapper]

This thread has me questioning my own consciousness.

Me too! I've questioned your consciousness for a long time.

Makes sense. I'm usually fighting to remain conscious during our encounters.

[d.reamonn]

So, before d.reamonn and Marx, what did Hegel say that was cool but left a gap? Well he refused to start with a thought/matter dichotomy, and stated that consciousness was objective, explaining that people gained consciousness through taking part in social activity. Most philosophers however took the view that consciousness was quite separate from the physical world, being very subjective.

I have no idea what I'm actually talking about by the way.

I know, Jimmy, I know.

[H20nly]

So, before d.reamonn and Marx, what did Hegel say that was cool but left a gap? Well he refused to start with a thought/matter dichotomy, and stated that consciousness was objective, explaining that people gained consciousness through taking part in social activity. Most philosophers however took the view that consciousness was quite separate from the physical world, being very subjective.

I have no idea what I'm actually talking about by the way.

I know, Jimmy, I know.

hmmmm... can anyone guess what i'm thinkin funk's Cherokee name should be?

[andydes]

I hate to get all sciencey on this philosophical discussion, but there have been plenty of experiments (some ethical, some not so) on animals, penniless art students and the US armed forces that show that consciousness actually has something to do with the brain.

There's even some you can do at home to test the theory. Including-

Experimenting with mind bending drugs
Beating your head repeatedly against a brick wall (aka spending too much time in the lounge)
Shooting yourself in the head.

I don't know if anyone's ever seen a plant freak out on acid (except those also on acid), but if I hear of a case, I'll get back to you.

[H20nly]

if my conscious tells me that i am a plant after taking acid and i freak out about it, does that count?

[d.reamonn]

I hate to get all sciencey on this philosophical discussion, but there have been plenty of experiments (some ethical, some not so) on animals, penniless art students and the US armed forces that show that consciousness actually has something to do with the brain.

There's even some you can do at home to test the theory. Including-

Experimenting with mind bending drugs
Beating your head repeatedly against a brick wall (aka spending too much time in the lounge)
Shooting yourself in the head.

I don't know if anyone's ever seen a plant freak out on acid (except those also on acid), but if I hear of a case, I'll get back to you.

"Consciousness" — the ability to freak out.

Thanks for that.

[andydes]

if my conscious tells me that i am a plant after taking acid and i freak out about it, does that count?

Whoa. That's some deep shit. I'll get back to you, right after this tab.

[crumhorn]

a strong smell of turpentine prevails throughout

[d.reamonn]

Plants are sentient in the sense that they can detect light and temperature and so on, but they don't think in the sense we know it.

Consciousness is something that still needs to be fully understood by scientists and philosophers. However Marx provided a giant leap forward.

What Marx did was he took Hegel's social-historical conception (which had been opposed by the philosophers who viewed consciousness as subjective, individualistic and psychological, separated from the material world) but he rejected Hegel's objective idealism, and said that consciousness is constructed through social practice and material conditions. Marx was a materialist and Hegel was an idealist, but Hegel's dialectical approach was superior to the static approach of the materialists. So he took the best of Hegel and materialism to arrive at a consistent materialism - dialectical materialism, which is now known as Marxism.

"In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... reface.htm

Anyway, I don't do politics or owt like that anymore.

But the more salient point, which you seem to be oblivious to, is that no one outside of Maxist incest-circles could give a half a fuck about the musings of your anti-Semitic, social-sexual omega-sans-alpha.