excreationist

You mean... what caused the big bang? The Determinism vs Probability thread talks a bit about that, as well as about quantum physics.

Frotiw

I really like reply I have no time now. I'll do it as soon as I get home.

Frotiw

Hehe I see one of Aquinas' supposed "proves of God".
My view is quite frankly that there is no first mover and no first cause. The chain of causality has always been and will always continue. Before object arise imagine: Is this suppostion any less comprehendable that there actually was a first cause. Obviosly it is impossible to imagine a infinity chain of causality but it is by no means easier to imagine a finite. Obviosly this an argument for inifinity geneneraly not only in causal matters. It's the same ancient argument that was used for claiming the Universe to be infinite. Image the the contrary, how would it end? By a wall?
No there is no first cause but this is no threat to the laws of causality it just means that there are eternal.


excreationist:
This is quiete a lot but as far I can see this is an traditionel type of explanation this does not explain what e.g. Chalmers call "the hard problem" that is how consciousness(intentional phenomena) can emerge from matter(neural correlates). My point is that such an explanation my be or not right but it does not solve the really grudging problem.

erehwon

The best i can do is to quote a quote from Aldous Huxley. I hope it goes someway towards offering a different view of this matter.

Reflecting on my experience, I find myself agreeing with the eminent Cambridge philosopher, Dr. C. D. Broad, "that we should do well to consider much more seriously than we have hitherto been inclined to do the type of theory which Bergson put forward in connection with memory and sense perception. The suggestion is that the function of the brain and nervous system and sense organs is in the main eliminative and not productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful." According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system. What comes out at the other end is a measly trickle of the kind of consciousness which will help us to stay alive on the surface of this Particular planet. To formulate and express the contents of this reduced awareness, man has invented and endlessly elaborated those symbol-systems and implicit philosophies which we call languages. Every individual is at once the beneficiary and the victim of the linguistic tradition into which he has been born - the beneficiary inasmuch as language gives access to the accumulated records of other people's experience, the victim in so far as it confirms him in the belief that reduced awareness is the only awareness and as it bedevils his sense of reality, so that he is all too apt to take his concepts for data, his words for actual things. That which, in the language of religion, is called "this world" is the universe of reduced awareness, expressed, and, as it were, petrified by language. The various "other worlds," with which human beings erratically make contact are so many elements in the totality of the awareness belonging to Mind at Large. Most people, most of the time, know only what comes through the reducing valve and is consecrated as genuinely real by the local language. Certain persons, however, seem to be born with a kind of by-pass that circumvents the reducing valve. In others temporary by-passes may be acquired either spontaneously, or as the result of deliberate "spiritual exercises," or through hypnosis, or by means of drugs.
Through these permanent or temporary by-passes there flows, not indeed the perception "of everything that is happening everywhere in the universe" (for the by-pass does not abolish the reducing valve, which still excludes the total content of Mind at Large), but something more than, and above ah something different from, the carefully selected utilitarian material which our narrowed individual minds regard as a complete, or at least sufficient, picture of reality.

rubbercok3000

QUOTE]My view is quite frankly that there is no first mover and no first cause. The chain of causality has always been and will always continue.[/QUOTE]

The funny thing about that statement is that if you think about it, probablistically you will exist agian in some form. Maybe not consciousness in human form but eventually yes you will once again be aware in some shape or manner. If it is an infinite chain of events one can conclude from that the existence of timelessness in some sense. Maybe this is God. either way points to some kind of "casual structure".

excreationist

So you're saying that consciousness is connected to intentional phenomena - well I think so too. I think consciousness is an active process rather than involving a passive observer.
I thought I explained that even "aware" systems (a group which conscious systems are a subset of) require goals and desires (drives) according to my definitions. "Drives" just involve seeking/repeating and/or avoiding things...

I thought "the hard problem" is more about how we "feel" our experiences... and the problem of explaining how a physical system can experience and have awareness.

I think that everything that "we" are aware of at an instant in time is contained or referred to in our "working memory" (or short-term memory)... and I think this working memory gets processed all together - so that we can associate all of the elements of our experience together - e.g. so we can associate the smell of smoke with other memories about smoke (like the possibility of fire), and the sound of a word with shapes or concepts, etc. This processor of working memory uses emotional signals to learn - the emotional signals mean to repeat or avoid situations/configurations, depending on the signals' intensities. It also works out courses of action. It would only be dealing with small amounts of information - e.g. 10,000 or so fragments - but to give it meaning, associated memory fragments are triggered "on demand".

This is a very simplified diagram of how I think animal-type brains work.


I made it about 2 years ago... the working memory is the short-term memory box. Also, the semi-learnt data types in the diagram would also include "problem solving strategies" and "sentence templates" (when humans make grammatical sentences).

My answer probably wasn't very satisfying... my diagram probably needs a lot of revision but that would involve a lot of thought...

I read that Chalmers believes that there is a kind of parallel dimension where awareness exists... and without that parallel dimension people would act exactly the same but be "zombies". To act the same the "zombies" would have to learn and seek goals... some part of the "zombie" would be fulfilling my definition of awareness, so it would therefore be aware. Many other people don't really define awareness, so it is easy for them to say that there could be people who act totally aware, but aren't actually aware.

fwh

erehwon

Thanks for the Alduous Huxley quote! Can you reference it for me? Thanks.

erehwon

Go to this website

http://www.mescaline.org/

He was one of a group of peeple that experimented and explored their own consciousness. Very controvertial in our more restricted political and legal systems.

erehwon

http://www.lycaeum.org/languages/fin...ata/doors.html

Did some more chasing around cyber space and this one has the complete reference book pub date etc and excerpt as well.

Excreationist and rubbercock theirs stuff 4 u in there too. It is not long, but explores the constraints of externalising conscousness and defining it in terms of the culture and language that each of us were brought up in. I am not trying to reduce this subject or your arguements. Rather offer that the reduction of consciousness in order to define it is contrary to the evolving and ever expanding human use of it. Rather like trying to explain the meaning of "what is space" by looking at the defineable and phsically determinable acpects of it.

excreationist

Mescaline would basically just act as a messenger that tells our brain what "mode" to be in... perhaps it kind of activates a kind of "dreaming" mode in our brains...
Another consciousness-altering drug is DMT. This drug is "ego-transcending"... so perhaps it interferes with the normal "self" (the narrative speech/voice) leaving more room in the working memory for other information.

Perhaps you are saying that the specific things we experience (qualia) can't be fully communicated.... well I agree. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the general processes that consciousness and animal-type awareness are made up of can't be described. I think consciousness and awareness are processes that are made up of smaller processes. (See my definitions). I defined animal-type awareness better... human-type philosophical consciousness involves awareness but it also involves more things like "self"-analysis (analysis of the brain's memories and train of thought) and more things have been learnt to get to that stage.